Why some Latin American countries more advanced than others?

[KonanxB]

Both Mexico and Chile are racially the same, however both Panama and Chile are more developed than Mexico.

Los chilenos son mucho más europeos que los mexicanos, Chile racialmente está más cerca de Argentina que de México y México racialmente está más cerca de Guatemala que de Chile.

[Daven]

Panama is a tax heaven and has the channel, without that would be another central american republic

Chile and Mexico do not have the same european imput, and it´s not distributed in the same way.

Basically when whiter a region/country is, richer is, with some punctual exceptions (Chile has a high due to having huge copper mines, a very valued mineral in the international markets, while Argentina is stopped in its development due to internal political reasons, socialism, same for Cuba, but anyways is richer than the rest of Latin America and Cuba has a high HDI for latin american standards), but with a clear tendency:

Why is Bahamas, Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago richer than the DR and most Latín American nations then? Bahamas and Barbados are both as SSA as Haiti matter of fact.

[Daven]

Cuba and the DR has both high SSA. I thought it was the SSA genes that made a country least developed according to many? LMAO. Oh, and neither of them have a channel like Panamá btw.

[Duffmannn]

Why is Bahamas, Barbados and Trinidad & Tobago richer than the DR and most Latín American nations anyways? Bahamas and Barbados are both as SSA as Haiti matter of fact.

They are British protectorates. Half of their population lives in the UK or the USA (and send money to their countries), they have white elites, and their economies are helped by the UK promoting there tourism through cheap flights and frequent flights

Without the economic help of the UK (and Bahamas in the case of the USA) and having double of their current population they would be another black hole.

And anyways, they are not developed in any sense, they are just less poorer.

Trinidad and Tobago even having oil is not developed neither.

[Zuh]

Los chilenos son mucho más europeos que los mexicanos, Chile racialmente está más cerca de Argentina que de México y México racialmente está más cerca de Guatemala que de Chile.

Mexico no esta mas cercas a Guatemala deja decir estupidezes Mexico esta entre Chile y El Salvador .

Por cierto ya te hicistes el examen?

[Daven]

They are British protectorates. Half of their population lives in the UK or the USA (and send money to their countries), they have white elites, and their economies are helped by the UK promoting there tourism through cheap flights and frequent flights

Without the economic help of the UK (and Bahamas in the case of the USA) and having double of their current population they would be another black hole.

And anyways, they are not developed in any sense, they are just less poorer.

Trinidad and Tobago even having oil is not developed neither.

Just in case I'm not disproving the fact that the countries with the most European descendants are some of the most advanced, but at times some of you guys exaggerate.

I didn't know Bahamas had white elites. That's interesting. I'm outta here now.

[axel.aleman]

Cuba and the DR has both high SSA. I thought it was the SSA genes that made a country least developed according to many? LMAO. Oh, and neither of them have a channel like Panamá btw.

Dominican Republic are more developed than Colombia being more negroid and a bit less European, Panama are less European and less Negroid than DR and far more Amerindian and are more developed than DR

[Ethel]

Anyways you have come to the wrong place, here you will get answers of dellusionals that instead saying the obvious for everybody will lie themselves (and you) to increase their self-esteem and not admit their personal and general fault.

The "obvious" for you is actually the most simplistic, lazy and retarded answer one could ever give. You contribute nothing other than feeding the delusion of the self-hater who opened this thread. How can someone who spends 24h on the internet with easy access to information make such an idealistic and dumb analysis based entirely on race and without any contextualized eyesight, especially about my country, when you're clearly clueless about what's happening here. Worse than that, pointing class and race inequalit as a cause rather than a consequence, and at the same time comparing a race that has nothing to do with the other to explain the development of their countries I'm sorry but you are either very dishonest or possibly have some sort of cognitive limitation.

[KonanxB]

Mexico no esta mas cercas a Guatemala deja decir estupidezes Mexico esta entre Chile y El Salvador .

El norte de Chile es la región más indígena de Chile y ni siquiera llega a indomestizo en promedio. El sur de México y CDMX es bastante indomestizo, se ajusta bien con Guatemala y representa más porcentaje de población total que el norte de Chile. México se ajusta mejor con Guatemala que con Chile, aunque particularmente México no se parece a Guatemala, pero tampoco a Chile como afirmó.

[Zuh]

El norte de Chile es la región más indígena de Chile y ni siquiera llega a indomestizo en promedio. El sur de México y CDMX es bastante indomestizo, se ajusta bien con Guatemala y representa más porcentaje de población total que el norte de Chile. México se ajusta mejor con Guatemala que con Chile, aunque particularmente México no se parece a Guatemala, pero tampoco a Chile como afirmó.

Esta repuesta tambien responde esta pregunta.

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...08#post6597408