Latin America?

>>2592620

Probably because the Portuguese and Spanish Empires / nations also declined whereas the USA had trade ties to the booming British Empire.

>>2592677
Were there any attempts to cultivate closer trade relations with the United States on the side of the South Americans? Post-Monroe Doctrine how did Americans view these states?

Because Latin America was divided among cultural, ethnic and racial lines due to the very nature of spanish colonization. The United States was formed from Anglo-Saxon protestants with a homogenous culture. Latin America is divided by Mestizos, negritos, castizos and indios.

>>2592697
The gilded age view of Latin America was that it was essentially a source of cheap labor and resources. Because of the Roosevelt Collary the United States reserved the right to invade any Latin American nation to impose stability for economic reasons. And I guess the Platt Amendment counts too. It contributed heavily to an anti American sentiment in Latin America and probably the growth of Marxism. Look up stuff like the Colombian banana Massacre.

>>2592620

South Americans are notoriously corrupt and have been for decades. It's just a constant cycle of revolutions - new government - government becomes corrupt - revolution... Repeat.

Until they learn to stop fucking each other over constantly they will always be second or third world.

>>2592697
> how did Americans view these states?
Andrew Jackson, for example viewed them as subhumans

>>2593435
citation needed

And no, Dinesh D'Sousa doesn't count.

>>2592620
The problems with Venezuela and Argentina are more recent than this thread would give you the impression of. Up until literally 1960 Venezuela had the world's fifth highest GDP; Argentina was richer per person than Norway at the same time. Their downfalls are due to their applications of specific protectionist, populist, and socialist policies. Paired with the usual corruption of course.

Contrast Chile, which was much poorer than either in the 50s (half of Venezuela's GDPPC and about 25% less than Argentina, though still comparable to Italy) and floundered badly throughout the next 20-30 years, but is better off than either today.

>>2593599
>Up until literally 1960 Venezuela had the world's fifth highest GDP; Argentina was richer per person than Norway at the same time. Their downfalls are due to their applications of specific protectionist, populist, and socialist policies.
? If anything, Argentina has had much more neoliberal governments/policies on average after the 60s than before.

>>2592620
>>2593599
>>2593712

Argentina was literally America-tier in terms of prosperity until the Great Depression, when the implemented terrible economic policies.

One could almost say they never truly recovered from the Great Depression.

>>2592620
Too diverse. The US was overwhelmingly WASP when it was formed and later on the majority of immigrants not only were cultural cousins at farthest (until the Jews and Italians and Slavs started showing up in significant numbers in the latter 19th century) but took to the manufactured American identity like a duck to water and that went a long way towards maintaining the coherency of the US.

In case of Argentina, the only one I'm familiar with, first there was the terrible agro-export model that stopped working when England wouldn't buy foodstuffs after ww1 in favour of the US. There was barely any industry during this period, and the only exports where wheat and meat, mostly to England.

Second, since the 30's until 1983 most gobernments where either military juntas or weak democracies. The proscription of the peronist party during most of the period made things even more unstable, because they wouldn't let anyone gobern. So there was chronic unstability and ungobernability for 50 years.

In general, I think part of what stopped latin american countries from being a second US is that there already was a US, and so there wasn't an adequate niche or economic model to stick to, and no latin american country managed to make their own. Kinda like, there wasn't a second US in the same way there wasn't a second Europe, a second Japan, and probably won't be a second China.

>>2594794
>>2593362
At least here I wouldn't say ethnic diversity made much impact. There are barely any blacks and natives where subjugated and assimilated, and there are no open conflicts with mestizos. Social conflict is mostly class based.

They followed the French model of Revolution instead of the American model. A state where power is more centralized leading to a parade of dictators, military juntas and assorted banana republics.
Socialist ideologies more recently are just the cherries on top.