Would it be possible for Mexico to become the most powerful and

>>954919

No, the country was too spread out and the initial governments were too easily overthrown because the Spanish colonial system of giving massive tracts of land to people gave them power over everyone they had working on it, akin to feudal arrangements. So whenever one of these landed nobles got fed up with the government, they planned a rebellion/ coup. Peasants were upset about something so they were always up for a fight, but little would change.

It's tough to be a strong country when you have large scale revolts every few years. If they'd let some northern provinces go, and some southern provinces they would've been able to focus on potentially developing their centra territories. But the leaders thought like the Spanish colonial masters did, that farming and agriculture was the only way. They were fucked from the start. How many ex-Spanish colonies have been successful nations?

>>955019
uh, Chile?

File: 1458331909186.jpg (492KB, 776x1851px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 776x1851px

>>955019
Argentina was until they fucked up with Perón. And Cuba was quite succesful.

>>954919
no, the mexican state was very weak

>>955019
thank god for the bourgeoisie

>>954919
Capitals easy to move from Usa to Mexico, but Us dollar is Earth inter-country trade currency therefore Us dollar now better than Peso.
Language barrier not important. For Usaricans good know at least one foreign language, for Mexicans too. Spanish and English at same level of difficulty, even, may be Spanish better.

>>955100
>Capitals easy to move from Usa to Mexico, but Us dollar is Earth inter-country trade currency therefore Us dollar now is better than Peso.
Language barrier is not important. For Usaricans good know at least one foreign language, for Mexicans too. Spanish and English lie at same level of difficulty, even, may be Spanish better.

>>955028
>>955054
Chile and Argentina are closer to Mexico than they are to the real developed world.

File: 51JeLHW0ZUL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (38KB, 326x499px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 326x499px

>>954919
Mexico have always been in a constant state of civil unrest, Aztecs overthrew the Tepanecs, hispano-tlaxcalans overthrew the Aztecs, creoles (mexican born spaniards) overthrew the Viceroy and so on, Mexico was always doomed to fail mostly because since it's inception the country has been nothing more than a golden mine for every king, emperor, president, dictator, etc.

>>955138
I was talking about Argentina before Perón which was wealthier than Canada.
And Chile has one of the most solid economies in the world.

The problem was that the First British Empire was better to their colonies and didn't just steal all their gold instead focusing on cash crops that made the colonies more independent and wealthier, also

>Mexico had too much instability when it was founded and pretty much up until the Diaz took power
>They didn't have a liberal tradition because the Spanish were Mercantilist monarchists and didn't really spread the wealth to the colonies instead focusing it on making the monarch richer
>Post Glorious Revolution Brits were more democratic and therefore the democratic tradition in the American colonies was stronger
>Mexicans like most of Latin America fell for the Positivist meme during Diaz's reign
The Mexican army was weaker and they didn't colonize the northern regions (That ended up being much richer) enough to give a shit about them
>Pretty much from Diaz to the end of the PRI's dictatorship they were grossly corrupt (outside of brief moments like Cardenas)

In the end mexico was screwed over because the Americans had a liberal democratic tradition and the Mexicans had a dream of democracy that until 2000 was not fulfilled

NAFTA and the IMF screwed over everyone but people like Carlos Slim and for the most part the peons stayed peons until they all crossed the border to pick crops and mow lawns.

They had some good revolutionaries and artists though, their history is rich with promise and is more interesting than the US in my opinion, UNAM is a beautiful school

>>955054
I heard Argentina was the 8th richest country in the early 20th century. I guess it was true.

>>955054
Bullshit. San Martin-Rosas-Peron-Nestor.

>>955019
Found the brit. Always thinking the Spanish were the absolute worst.

>>955180
Fuck off. Peron&Evita un solo corazon.

>>955203
The gap between the rich and the poor was huge back then, only with Peron (1945-55) Argentina was a good country.

>>955189
What if Mexico went the Brazil way,and stablished a monarchy with one of the Spanish princes as its king? Maybe if the got lucky they could have been a more stable country.

>>955230
The gap was huge everywhere. Peronism killed Argentina as it stablished clienteralism as a norm in Argentinian politics

>>955230
And now everyone is equally poor. Sounds great.

>>955218
Peron and Evita stablished clientelism as a norm in Argentinian politics. They basically killed all its potential.

>>955236

But before Peron election were allways rigged (Justo during Decada Infame). Peron during 45-55 was great. After 55 was utter shit.

>>955249
>>955236
Beside, giving food, work, house, education, labor rights, dignity to the low clases is a twisted way of clientealism, dont you think?

Peron should have executed all the traitors in 1952, give guns to the unions like evita wanted....he was a coward in the end.

>>955275
If that is in the expense of the economy then it is. Allende did the same thing and he killed the Chilean economy for good. You just can rule on good intentions,if is going to hurt the economy as bad as it did.

>>955291
Then Argentina would be a bigger shothole than it is today,as it hapoened in other prosperous places like Cuba.

>>955294
How can people defend people like Allende is beyond me. He was a moron,that didnt know any economics at all. Pinochet was a blessing that Venezuela lacked this century.

File: quote-everything-i-did-all-my-actions-all-of-the-problems-i-had-i-dedicate-to-god-and-to-chile-augusto-pinochet-23-24-47.jpg (67KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 850x400px

>>955328

>>955208
San Martín does not belong to that group

>>955231
Personally I don't think so, Brazil also kinda sucked under the monarchy.

I think it would have been better if they had adopted liberalism before they the 19th century. Like the rest of Latin America they had too much of an affinity for strongmen. That's never a good concoction for Industrialism. What made countries like Germany, the US and Britain successful is they had a good business climate and the bourgeoisie were able to have control and spread out internationally. It's that fact that ended up fucking over Latin America and the Middle East as a whole. You can't have a successful country when your infrastructure is built by foreigners like in Iran and Mexico. Both of those countries have sort of recovered and are starting to thrive, but it took them a few revolutions/evolutions for that to happen

>>954919
Adding to what other postres said;
A big chunck of the populación spoke no spanish, was illiterate. The catholic church had a massive amount of power, (see french revolución, spanish civil war, phillipien today etc) the economy was basicaly one of subsistance. Indiana hated each other, crumy infrastructure. No european colonists (which brought trades) etc..

>>955218
Facists go to home

>>955409
But the monarchy could have brought the stability that Mexico lacked. Liberalism was doomed to fail, because the landlords would probably not want foreign competition. The only way that I could see Mexico prosper is with an Empire like Prussia/Germany unlike the US.

>>955440
Diaz was essentially a monarch, the PRI while not a monarchy was very stable. It didn't help them and Maximillian was so unpopular he couldn't last 3 years

>>955450
Díaz came later,if we are talking about Porfido Díaz. I was referring to Mexico's first years. Maybe a strong monarch could have giving Mexico a strong enough army to defeat the US. Economic wise, Mexico would have a hard time embracing liberalism,because the elite may start losing money against foreigners,and would push for protectionism.

>>955473
>the elite may start losing money against foreigners,and would push for protectionism

That's essentially what fucked them over

>>955482
Yeah,that is why I can only see a Prussian kind of regime working for Mexico with a strong monarch

>>955492
The monarchy in Germany actually let the Bourgeoisie form, Bismarck may have had control over the the state, but there was enough freedom for the bourgeoisie to control the economy, economy is a bigger determinant than politics Mexico. Diaz and the state in general wanted too much control

>>955525
Bismark was quite protectionist. What I was proposing is something like early Paraguay. Lots of protectionism and a strong military,but this time on a bigger size.

>>955539
He was protectionist, but the bourgeoisie actually went into other countries and built up wealth, the advantage of his protectionism is it didn't stop the rich from going into other countries to make money. If anything his protectionism helped the bourgeoisie as it kept France and Britain who were richer at the time (especially Britain) from coming in and doing what Germany did to Iran and the Ottomans

>>954919
first need to change the goberment then its easy to be a dominant power

>>954919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Mexico

5 international wars
3 indian wars
4 civil wars
>Could have Mexico being the dominant power in NA?
HOW ?

>>956166
Brits make the wrong turn.