Best Empire?

[Albion]

If so, it can be the same case as with many South-American countries. Namely a large non-European minority/majority keeping the economy back. While Canada and Australia have/had a strong European majority.

That has been states many times, the Spaniards ignore it. Ironic how they hate the Sudacas but will defend the Spanish Empire to the end.

"Nordic" or "Northern European" economic superiority claims are unfounded especially when one looks back and see it how it was like in the past (Renaissance Italy was more prosperous than most - if not all - of Northern Europe, and Spain too did very well, unlike Sweden, f.e, or even England):

The Northern nations of Europe didn't develop as quickly because:

• They were isolated in comparison to Southern Europe
• Their climate wasn't as good for growing crops as Southern Europe
• Southern Europe traded and learned from the Middle East and had a monopoly on trade going to Northern Europe from the Med.
• Northern nations were harrassed by Southern one's such as France and Spain (cough, cough, Netherlands, England)
• Southern nations were well placed to take over from Rome, Northern nations built their nations from tribes
• The comparisons are unfair, you are comparing larger and highly populated Southern Countries such as Italy, Spain and France to smaller Germanic nations in territory and population such as the Netherlands or Denmark. A more equal comparison would be to compare Portugal with Denmark.

You might find this thread of a lot of interest.

I know they are not succesful. That was my point. You talked about the failure of Spaniards to create wealth countries (today) in Latin-America, and you bring the examples of USA or Canda. But the situation of Latin-America was similar to that of South-Africa, a great majority of the pulation being indigenous, and trying to create a european-style society.

Indeed, it is not Spain's fault that South America largely failed - it is Spain's fault that they didn't colonise better areas with fewer natives and better conditions for Europeans such as the USA.
Spain and Portugal had their chance, too late - England and France got in there and beat you to the good bits.

No, it is not. Spain and Italy combined are richer than the entire Northern Europe combined.

Lol, by Northern Europe do you mean Germany, England and the Netherlands in that equation? Or are you simply comparing large nations such as Italy and Spain to small nations such as Scandinavia? (which even as a whole would still be a relatively small nation).

Germany, England and the Netherlands together far outpace Italy and Spain and the Netherlands although having a smaller economy and population than both Spain and Italy more than punches above it's weight.

We were talking about Europe, not China. By richer I mean total GDP, of course. If you want to talk about per-capita I could mention a southern country like Andorra, higher than Sweden, Iceland, Denmark or Finland.

GDP per capita means nothing, countries with high GDP per capita are usually tiny nations dependent on finance and functioning as tax havens.
You mention Andorra, but you failed to mention Lichtenstein and Luxembourg - similar size and with higher GDP per capita than Andorra - Lichtenstein is smaller.

Besides, GDP per capita is irrelevant here, GDP PPP is the real measure of the size of an economy, in this scale Europe goes in order something like this: Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia, Spain.

And to suggest that Andorra could outperform Denmark or Sweden or any other Scandinavian nation bar the Faroe Islands is really quite ridiculous, look through this source and just find Andorra in it, it's pretty far down the list - like in the 140s.

Spain and Italy have higher total GDPs than any of the Scandinavian countries because they're bigger and have a much bigger population many times bigger than all of Scandinavia's.
Your comparison is unfair, if you want to compare Italy or Spain to any Northern country then compare them to England - at least it has a similar size population. But you won't, because even without the UK England still outperforms both nations!

[Amapola]

the question before us is one of whether Chile's current economic takeoff is due to the US or Spain, and I'm unaware of anyone, even if they don't credit the US, crediting Spanish influence for Chile's recent economic success, primarily because there hasn't been much Spanish influence. That Chile had more per capita GDP than Finland over a century ago is entirely irrelevant. Sweden was a rather poor country then too. None of it is relevant to whether Spain is responsible for Chile's economic reforms in recent decades.

Ignorant, angry anti-American rants are boring. Worse, irrelevant to the argument before us. But the interventions in Latin America could not create poverty where poverty already existed. That places like Argentina went into decline was in relative terms, which is to say a number of Western countries got richer. And as for Pinochet's economic reforms, they were unquestionably the product of the Chicago School, so denying US influence there just makes you look like a fanatic.

First of all, I want to make clear that I am not discussing here which empire was best because appart from being objectively very difficult, it is pointless and bound to fail, for the difference of time, settings, socio-political situations, sources and frame of minds, unless your point is the plain demonstration of an arrogance that can't even be fairly compared under any given standards, as it's happening here, sadly.

You are discussing this

the question before us is one of whether Chile's current economic takeoff is due to the US or Spain

But before this, you spoke of not only Chile and I think that before you changed your mind, the scope you proposed was better and fairly more convenient to debate, as it gives a more general approach, excluding exceptions and particularities.

So what I am debating is:

Is the Spanish America's sucess after the independence due to the USA?


Then, I will tell you I find it evasive when any data proving the prosperity of any Spanish-American country before any USA's influence whatsoever is labelled by you as irrelevant, since it's actually what I am debating with you.

Ignorant, angry anti-American rants are boring.

Ignorant? Very much taking into consideration what I still have to learn, but appart from that, until you can dismantle my arguments (without calling them ignorant or irrelevant) and the data I back them up with, I am not more ignorant than you.

Anti-American

I suppose you call this to anybody who doesn't praise or agree with you on any aspect of America's performance that you consider positive. I am hardly more anti-American that you can be be anti-Spanish, or that I am anti-paneuropean and no doubt I am much more anglophile that you will ever be hispanophile in your entire life.

fanatic?

Not certainly more than you, especially in the sense that you hardly analyse your claims or provide them with any facts (up to now, only the School of Chile).

Is the Spanish America''s economic sucess after the independence due to the USA?

I say "no" because:

1. Some Spanish-American countries were ALREADY prosperous.

-Argentina, for example was already thriving before any USA's influence. The Chicago school is around 50 years old, and 100 years before that, Argentina was already the 8th world power, with an index of literacy of 25 per cent.
- Chile, already in 1900 had a GDP of 2000 dollars. From 1900 to 1950, it had been amongst the world powers

In other words, Chile's prosperity comes from long before any USA's influence just like Argentina or Urugay and had not been for the USA's government and then the Castros, we could perfectly include Cuba in the club.

ignorant? angry? manipulation?
Here:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...er-capita-1900
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...er-capita-1950
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...er-capita-1973
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ec...-international


2. You claim that the School of Chicago meant the take-off for Chile, but after the 50's when this school was founded, Chile started to go down in the world rank.

How can this be explained?

Very easily: the knowledge of the military government was acquired in the USA, nobody disputes that. But who put it into practice efficiently and with reforms that the USA government could have never imagined was the President Pinochet and his economic team, the determination and the perseverance of their institutions and businessmen. The USA had nothing to do with the efficient aplication of these reforms. They didn't get any help from the US. But if you still consider than living in a country and learning about a system and then using it as a model for their own reforms like a loving, good-willed direct help of the USA to Chile. Let it be. Then, WHY after this "help" did it start to drop numbers in the rank of the riches?

Because of this: Kennedy's amendment

The United States Congress in 1974 adopted the Kennedy Amendment, prohibiting all security assistance and sales to Chile. This restriction was made much more general in the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976, prohibiting transfers to Chile.

or the boycott decreted by Carter:

With the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, the United States took an openly hostile attitude toward the Chilean military government.


Even if the USA itelf had welcomed the coup and provided assistance to the military regime (nothing new).

So, even if the Chileans copied some beneficial ideas from the USA in terms of economy, it didn't make them richer than they already were; the opposite, the general oppresive attitude towards Chile made them be "less" rich than previous years. Significative.

To this ideas, I have also mentioned other helps from the USA to other countries of Spanish America that have also been labelled as irrelevant, like:

The exploitative United Fruit company in central America, creating a type of neocolonialism with the result of some banana republics.

And other examples I won't mention for now.

As you can see if any, the USA's general politics towards Chile, or the Spanish America, has overall resulted in more damage than help.

The recent or not so recent help of Spain to the Spanish-America rather deserves another thread though.

[Ibericus]

GDP per capita means nothing, countries with high GDP per capita are usually tiny nations dependent on finance and functioning as tax havens.
You mention Andorra, but you failed to mention Lichtenstein and Luxembourg - similar size and with higher GDP per capita than Andorra - Lichtenstein is smaller.

Besides, GDP per capita is irrelevant here, GDP PPP is the real measure of the size of an economy, in this scale Europe goes in order something like this: Germany, France, UK, Italy, Russia, Spain.

It was Joe who was talking about per-Capita. You never follow the flow of the conversation, don't you ? And in that list I don't see any Northern European country, but I see two Southern ones. Joe said northern economies are much richer than Southerns, which is of course completely wrong.

And to suggest that Andorra could outperform Denmark or Sweden or any other Scandinavian nation bar the Faroe Islands is really quite ridiculous, look through this source and just find Andorra in it, it's pretty far down the list - like in the 140s.

Don't be silly, I was talking about per-capita, since Joe said that Northern countries have higher per-capitas than Southerns, as a reply I talked about Andorra, which beats all Scandinavian counries except Norway.

Spain and Italy have higher total GDPs than any of the Scandinavian countries because they're bigger and have a much bigger population many times bigger than all of Scandinavia's.
Your comparison is unfair, if you want to compare Italy or Spain to any Northern country then compare them to England - at least it has a similar size population. But you won't, because even without the UK England still outperforms both nations!

Bah, Spain has a higher Human Development Index than UK, that's a more reliable tool for determining development, not Per-Capita.

[Albion]

It was Joe who was talking about per-Capita. You never follow the flow of the conversation, don't you ?

I just skimmed through, it is addressed to anyone who was stating per Capita as a serious measure of the size of an economy.

And in that list I don't see any Northern European country, but I see two Southern ones.

Germany and the UK are the Northern two.

Joe said northern economies are much richer than Southerns, which is of course completely wrong.

Until recently they were but Spain and Italy caught up again (see my thread here for something that will prove your point). It's hard to compare them all really but I would say Northern Europe is slightly stronger largely because of Germany and the UK.

Don't be silly, I was talking about per-capita, since Joe said that Northern countries have higher per-capitas than Southerns, as a reply I talked about Andorra, which beats all Scandinavian counries except Norway.

Correct. I don't think it matters though. With higher per Capita comes a higher cost of living usually - so the benefits aren't always visible, that is also one reason these countries are so expensive for tourists.

Bah, Spain has a higher Human Development Index than UK, that's a more reliable tool for determining development, not Per-Capita.

I wouldn't say so, it's more a tool for determining social conditions and how well a country looks after it's citizens.
The UK always performs poorly on those sorts of things. It's always weird how the UK comes so low on that, near Poland and then Ireland which is basically Britain Lite scores close to the best.

[Lurker]

Indeed, it is not Spain's fault that South America largely failed - it is Spain's fault that they didn't colonise better areas with fewer natives and better conditions for Europeans such as the USA.
Spain and Portugal had their chance, too late - England and France got in there and beat you to the good bits.

I don't think Portugal could ever built a settlement colony like the United States or Canada. Portugal is a small nation. Its importance in Europe was increased due to the technological advances it made in the 14th-15th centuries regarding naval technology and exploration, also its position near to Africa and the Atlantic Ocean, which made the endeavor to reach India and China by the sea easier. In the times of mass colonization and defense of colonies that came later, Portugal would clearly be in disadvantage against France, Spain and England, countries with higher population. It's almost a miracle that Brazil got so huge (in part due to the Iberian Union and the effective occupation of Spanish lands by Portuguese subjects during those murky times).

Actually, the concept of "better" or "worse" area differs nowadays from the concept of those days.

In those days the priorities of a colonizing nation in a colonized area would be:
1) finding gold
2) keeping territory for the glory of the crown
3) making that occupation profitable
4) sending undesirables (criminals, orphans, religious minorities) away

The French used to think Haiti was much more valuable than New France (nowadays Quebec and Acadia). That's because the plantation economy of Haiti (cash crops using slave labor in huge properties taken freely from dead natives) made it very profitable, something that couldn't be said of Quebec or Acadia, where the climate was more similar to Europe and, therefore, cash crops couldn't be planted.

The Dutch also much preferred the Antilles or their occupied Pernambuco, places that produced sugarcane, to New Amsterdan (which would become New York), a land that would only produce furs or products that would compete against the metropolis' production (going against the mercantilist ideas of the time).

That's why you'll find, throughout history, European powers fighting for countries that are terrible today and not caring about territories that are developed today.

The kind of colonization done in Latin America was more profitable for the metropolis, but worse for the colonies on the long run. You'll also find this kind of colonization in some of England's colonies, like Jamaica, Barbados, Belize, etc, that aren't really well-off today. It was also partly done on the US south (the part that would become the Confederates later), a part of the US that didn't have good socioeconomical indicators until very recently (and, in some cases, had a white population that was a minority). The kind of colonization done on North America and Australia was less profitable and not undertaken due to economic interests, more due to the times (like the existence of several Protestant minorities in England and Scotland that moved to the US to flee persecution). When England tried to make that part of the colonies more profitable, raising taxes the colonists paid (which even with this increase, were lower than that of the Crown's other subjects), a revolt arose and the colony was no more a colony.

[Mercury]

Either British Empire or Roman Empire. Romans civilized Europe, British spread Western Civilization and conquered the best land & colonized it properly.

Best Empire?