Chile, Latin-America's first Developed Country?

[Heldt]

Sorry, I know you're serious. But this indicators do not define a developed country, otherwise China would be one. It is the gdp per capita, the standard of living, the level of industrialization (over forty percent of Chilean gdp is comprised by industrial production, vs 5 % agricultural), that define a developed country. That's why Chile is closer to being developed while Brazil is a continental power.

No, I'm not. I'm serious. Since you throwed in Brazil in a one sided comparison, I had to set in a more thorough perspective. Japan may never rise to the stuff they have aspired to (since Hideyoshi), exactly because of its physical condition. Contrary to Chile, Brazil has a well developed industrial sector and technology of its own. Chile is largely still dependent on copper. Brazil is home to the 3rd/4th largest aircraft manufacturer in the world, f.e.

The industrial sector of Brazil is one of the most developed and sophisticated in the world, ok?

This is just one indicator, an important one (I could add many more), of how industrial Brazil has become (one of the top ten steel manufacturers in the world):


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...eel_production

Steel production in Latin America:



Industry accounts for 27,4% of our GDP (agriculture only 5.4%). By comparison, industry accounts for 27,5% of the Japanese GDP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...or_composition

In addition, Brazil is one of the top 10 ten countries by industrial output, the 6th in the world world (in Asia only China and Japan area ahead of Brazil, not even India, or the Asian tigers surpass us):



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry

Out of the top 20 manufacturers in the world, only Brazil, Mexico and Argentina appear:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufac...ent_known_Data

The Bahamas have a higher GDP PPP per capita than Chile. Being a continental country, with a difficult history as ours, it is more difficult to get a higher HDI. Still we're on par with major countries like Russia, above China, India and Indonesia, other major countries.

Bahamas


Chile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile

[Watch_Owl]

..

[Brighton]

Also those 5 countries are the Latin American countries excepting Brazil with higher number of European/Whites!

Colombia/Paraguay/Costa Rica have more Whites than Venezuela I'd say.

[Brighton]

Alright I did not wanna get into an argument but Cucupira's logic is too twisted to be ignored:

1. To establish tropical climate (as opposed to an arid climate) as a factor that will make a country more successful in the future is not plausible, e.g. Tunisia and Morocco (no oil) are and will be more successful than Sub-Saharan African countries.

2. To establish the percentage of arable land as a factor that will make a country better-off in the future is not plausible either, e.g. Norway and Sweden are and will be more successful than El Salvador or Guatemala.

3. To state that Brazil is downplayed in the media is far from being true. In fact, Brazil must be one of the most advertised country in the globe, e.g. the movie Rio, showing Brazil as a fun, warm and nice place with awesome beaches, etc.

4. To establish "crude steel production" as an important indicator when the discussion is about people's quality of life, seems rather arbitrary and inaccurate. In fact, the only developed countries in that ranking are Japan, the US, Germany and South Korea (with the rest, i.e. China, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, Ukraine, India being developing countries).

5. What does the Bahamas have to do with Latin America?

6. "We're on par with India, Indonesia". Is that supposed to be decent? Because those countries are actually very poor, with people living in dramatic conditions.

--

Considering everyone stated above, it is clear that you have not showed (and probably will not be able to) any arguments that prove that the average Brazilian lives in better conditions than the average Chilean.

I am not even patriotic but this circus is getting beyond ridiculous. You should be objective enough as to acknowledge that today Chile is the country that provides the highest standard of life for its citizens out of all countries in Latin America.

[Brighton]

Ps: Also I found out that in order to compare Bahamas' and Chile's GDP (PPP) per capita Cucupira used the data from the CIA (instead of the IMF or the World Bank) because is the one that gives those countries the largest difference.. irrisory.

[KawaiiKawaii]

Chile is the example South American countries should follow. Congrats!

[Bell Beaker]

Colombia/Paraguay/Costa Rica have more Whites than Venezuela I'd say.

Paraguay? I doubt!

[Brighton]

Paraguay? I doubt!

About Colombia and Costa Rica I'm certain though.

[curupira]

You remind me of the goalkeeper Rojas, who cut himself so as to "win" a match in 1989 (http://www.sportskeeda.com/football/...azil-world-cup). Very dishonest. Your whole way of discussing is biased and dishonest. This single phrase clearly shows it:

6. "We're on par with India, Indonesia". Is that supposed to be decent? Because those countries are actually very poor, with people living in dramatic conditions..

This is what I had said:

Still we're on par with major countries like Russia, above China, India and Indonesia, other major countries.

On HDI, when it comes to countries with large populations, we're on par with major countries like Russia (high development range), and above (I said above) countries like China, India, and Indonesia, countries with large populations too.

I posted Bahamas, because they have a much higher GDP PPP per capita than Chile, in all sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...P)_per_capita), to show GDP PPP per capita is not a definite measure of development. It is a factor, no dout, an important one, along with HDI. But development is a broader concept which includes levels of technology, industrial capacity, among other things, not only GDP PPP per capita or HDI. I'm not here to downplay Chile or anything. I wish you success. What draw me was the one sided comparison of Heldt, who chose to highlight the worst aspects in Brazil and to speak only of the positive side of Chile. If he had limited himself to speaking of Chile, I would not be here.

[Brighton]

You remind me of the goalkeeper Rojas, who cut himself so as to "win" a match in 1989. Very dishonest. Your whole way of discussing is biased and dishonest. This single phrase clearly shows it:



This is what I had said:



On HDI, when it comes to countries with large populations, we're on par with major countries like Russia (high development range), and above (I said above) countries like China, India, and Indonesia, countries with large populations too.

I posted Bahamas, because they have a much higher GDP PPP per capita than Chile, in all sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...P)_per_capita), to show GDP PPP per capita is not a definite measure of development. It is a factor, no dout, an important one, along with HDI. But development is a broader concept which includes levels of technology, industrial capacity, among other things, not only GDP PPP per capita or HDI. I'm not here to downplay Chile or anything. I wish you success. What draw me was the one sided comparison of Heldt, who chose to highlight the worst aspects in Brazil and to speak only of the positive side of Chile. If he had limited himself to speaking of Chile, I would not be here.

You remind me of Jamie Brewer, but anyway.

--

The difference between the Bahamas and Chile regarding GDP (PPP) per capita, according to the International Monetary Fund as well as to the World Bank, is smaller than the difference between Chile and Brazil. Hence if the Bahamas' GDP per capita is "much higher" than Chile, Chile's is "a lot much higher" than Brazil.

Development also includes literacy and life expectancy, which are much more influential to people's lives than "aircrafts manufacture".