Why is Portugal relatively poor?

[Finnish Swede]

Second time in ten minutes you post bad sources. In that map Hungary and Poland are below Spain. Even Finland is below.

Finland? 1929? Just 12 years after country got rid of Russians. I would say the result is excellent, if not even amazing. Showing potential ... which has been proved/evidenced later on ... even dispate of very unfair WWII period.

[Aldaris]

It's experience too. I mean I can't say I had access to everyone's grades lol, but usually all the troublemakers/annoying people among whites were Portuguese/Italian(still can't compare to blacks and various other ethnicities but this is definitely what I remember), Portuguese also tended to be a lot more into sports/football while the Anglos would be into more nerdy things, Slavs were around the middle in terms of that, and of course blacks/East Asians(and certain Indian groups in Canada) at the opposite ends. I had a nerdy Portuguese friend(the red haired dude I mentioned in the previous post), but that's probably the only nerdy southern Euro kid I could even think of, let alone personally knew. I knew a Balkan dude, who while a cool dude, would always get mad when I started to win in chess and then proceeded to fuck the board up, was funny.

Referencing a bunch of high schoolers from your immediate area with your subjective glasses? When it’s gonna get published? ;-)

But fair enough, you were answering that particular question. That said, I have a thing or two say to about that. The IQ research is fucked up even now, let alone one hundred years ago, when most of the articles about anything, let alone this scientifically controversial subject would go straight to the trash by today’s standards. Thing is, if the concept was sound and consistent, you’d expect a consensus about the interpretation of varying results among the different ethnic groups by now. What we actually get instead are studies with significantly different results and conclusions. But I feel generous tonight, so I grant you your entire point. Ok, now what? We have a case of correlation, yey. How do you make the next step? For just one example, have are those studies made? Making people with a similar academic background perform the test and make conclusions from that or picking them up more or less randomly? I’d at least go with the former approach in this case, but psychologists tend to go with the sloppy one. Bottom line is, Viriato’s first point is completely valid and in fact, he could have called it a day after stating it.

I also definitely would say you had more southerners among the wigger or wanting to be black types, while the Anglos listened to Green Day or some other gay shit, but I would still call that a correlate with intelligence.

Yeah, I’m gonna need more than you stating that stuff as a fact. Your opinions aren’t to be regarded as that unless you can demonstrate them. But again, I can afford to grant you your point here. You can find a correlation between a lot of stuff, but that doesn’t even imply there is some underlying cause, much less that one causes the other. In this particular case, even if Southern Europeans were more likely to be 'wiggers‘ and even if those were less intelligent than those who listen to Green Day and other gay shit (yeah, completely agree with this point), you got no case at all, sorry to say.

While I disagree, I don't think you guys who think there's a dozen various different reasons behind IQ results and country/income/etc outcomes over a simple intelligence is 70% genetic are extremely wrong, your opinion is infact the majority, I'd just hope you keep the same standards towards non-whites too.

And that I do. Give me a significant n and I can make Blacks seem like geniuses by making them familiar with the problems commonly found in IQ tests since their early childhood and being consistent with that for sufficiently long, while making whites look like a bunch of retards by making them live like ones. But my guess is, the ethics committee would have some issues with that. ;-)

[Tooting Carmen]

Portugal had a 45 year right wing dictatorship with very isolationist policies, our economy was very backward and agriculture based, also we had in the 60's and 70's a 15 year colonial war that consumed at least 1/3 of our GDP.

How would you say Salazar's Portugal compared to Franco's Spain economically?

No point exaggerating there, apart from Albania there wasn't tehnically no other 3rd world countries in the eastern block.

Well Albania was as isolationist as you could get.

If you compare the per capita GDP of many of those countries in the 70's and 80's with Portugal you'd be surprised that many were far ahead in most economic stats. For ex in the early/mid 80's Eastern Germany had a per capita gdp of 6000usd, Czechoslovakia 4500usd, USSR 3500usd while Portugal only 2500usd. Our GDP and economy only started to grow fast after we joined the EU in 1985.

Are you very pro-EU then?

Even some former Soviet republics were far better economically than they are now (for ex Ukraine, Moldova etc). It is not true what you say that all ex commie countries were comparatively less developed than they are now and they were surely not considered 3rd world.

Yes, the term 'Second World' (largely forgotten now) was during the Cold War often used to describe the Soviet bloc.

[Sebastianus Rex]

How would you say Salazar's Portugal compared to Franco's Spain economically?



Well Albania was as isolationist as you could get.



Are you very pro-EU then?



Yes, the term 'Second World' (largely forgotten now) was during the Cold War often used to describe the Soviet bloc.

1. First 15 years of his rule were excellent on many levels, he organized and gave direction to a country that was a total mess. He was also very intelligent keeping us out of WW2, flirting with both sides. If he stopped then and prepared the transition for a democratic system there would be statues of Salazar in every city.
After ww2 he failed to read the times, kept Portugal very isolated and hold too much the African colonies, insisting in a long colonial war that consumed a huge part of our gdp turning useless the good economic growth during the 60's.
Economic wise Franco regime did better, the country was devastated by the civil war and had a rough recovery, there was alot of misery, but after the mid 50's Spain economic growth was only surpassed by Japan.

2. Indeed.

3. As a concept yes, I think it was a brilliant idea, but in many ways I feel it worked better before the Schengen treaty and the Euro. I don't think it's going in the good direction.

4. And so were many countries outside the block like Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, South Africa, South Korea etc...
But some ex communist countries and ex Ussr republics were fairly developed in many ways, some were even better than they are now.

[Luso]

1. First 15 years of his rule were excellent on many levels, he organized and gave direction to a country that was a total mess. He was also very intelligent keeping us out of WW2, flirting with both sides. If he stopped then and prepared the transition for a democratic system there would be statues of Salazar in every city.
After ww2 he failed to read the times, kept Portugal very isolated and hold too much the African colonies, insisting in a long colonial war that consumed a huge part of our gdp turning useless the good economic growth during the 60's.
Economic wise Franco regime did better, the country was devastated by the civil war and had a rough recovery, there was alot of misery, but after the mid 50's Spain economic growth was only surpassed by Japan.

2. Indeed.

3. As a concept yes, I think it was a brilliant idea, but in many ways I feel it worked better before the Schengen treaty and the Euro. I don't think it's going in the good direction.

4. And so were many countries outside the block like Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, South Africa, South Korea etc...
But some ex communist countries and ex Ussr republics were fairly developed in many ways, some were even better than they are now.

I thought Salazar purposefully lowered literacy rates so that people wouldn't oppose his ideas? Correct me if I am wrong. At least that is what my dad told me.

[Sebastianus Rex]

I thought Salazar purposefully lowered literacy rates so that people wouldn't oppose his ideas? Correct me if I am wrong. At least that is what my dad told me.

A lie repeat 1 million times becomes the truth...

That is a myth propagated by the left and people repeat it without knowing the facts.

Facts are:
The percentage of the public spending with education was 7 % under the Republic (1910-1926) and 12% under Salazar. Nowadays it's around 10%.

Illiteracy rate was reduced from 60% in 1930 to 24% in 1970.

Still today many of the active schools, high schools and universities in Portugal were built under the Estado Novo.

It wasn't perfect, when he died still about 1/4 of the population was illiterate but no one has done so much.

Same for infrasctructure etc, when he rose to power Portugal was a pre industrial country, we barely had roads, hospitals, no industry etc.

People should be better informed about these facts but of course to explain the big picture is not interesting for the media and leftist politicians because it destroys their narrative.

[Luso]

A lie repeat 1 million times becomes the truth...

That is a myth propagated by the left and people repeat it without knowing the facts.

Facts are:
The percentage of the public spending with education was 7 % under the Republic (1910-1926) and 12% under Salazar. Nowadays it's around 10%.

Illiteracy rate was reduced from 60% in 1930 to 24% in 1970.

Still today many of the active schools, high schools and universities in Portugal were built under the Estado Novo.

It wasn't perfect, when he died still about 1/4 of the population was illiterate but no one has done so much.

Same for infrasctructure etc, when he rose to power Portugal was a pre industrial country, we barely had roads, hospitals, no industry etc.

People should be better informed about these facts but of course to explain the big picture is not interesting for the media and leftist politicians because it destroys their narrative.

Okay, thanks for the clarification I saw Viriato say something about Salzar helping literacy... meanwhile my dad said the opposite but now I think my dad doesn't know the big picture.

[Viriatus91]

People in Portugal often blame Salazar for the country's backwardness, but forget just how backward the country he inherited was. In 1930, Portugal's literacy rate stood at 38.2%. The only country lower in Europe where this was lower was Albania with 19%.

In Italy it was 75%, Poland 69%, Spain 69%, Greece 60%, Romania 57%, USSR 40%. The only regions in Europe comparable or lower than Portugal in Europe were Eastern Poland, Thrace in Greece, Bessarabia and southern Yugoslavia (present-day Northern Macedonia and Kosovo). Even in Sicily, Southern Italy and Sardinia it was over 60%.

Portugal's 1930 literacy rate was comparable to England's in the late seventeenth Century, France's in the mid-eighteenth century, and Spain and Italy's from the 1870s. By 1970 the literacy rate reached 74.3% of the population. Many of the schools in Portugal were built under Salazar, mostly rural one or two room school houses, and even then for most of the regime schooling was only required until the 4th grade, though this was extended to 6th grade under Marcelo Caetano.

Despite this, per capita GDP growth in Portugal was equal to or better than many of the other peripheral countries in Europe. One has to keep in mind just how far behind they were compared with their peers.

1950-1973
Greece 300%
Spain 250%
Portugal 239%
Bulgaria 220%
Romania 194%
Yugoslavia 181%
Hungary 126%
Poland 118%
USSR 113%
Czechoslovakia 101%
Ireland 99%

1973-1989 per capita GDP Growth
Ireland 58%
Spain 51%
Portugal 47%
Yugoslavia 42%
Greece 32%
Czechoslovakia 24%
Hungary 23%
USSR 18%
Romania 13%
Poland 6%

1989-1998 per capita GDP Growth
Ireland 83%
Portugal 29%
Spain 28%
Poland 23%
Greece 15%
ex-Czechoslovakia -2%
Bulgaria -24%
Romania -34%
ex-Yugoslavia -34%
ex-USSR -72%

[Tooting Carmen]

People in Portugal often blame Salazar for the country's backwardness, but forget just how backward the country he inherited was. In 1930, Portugal's literacy rate stood at 38.2%. The only country lower in Europe where this was lower was Albania with 19%.

If I may be allowed to say so, people make the same error of confusing cause and effect with many Communist countries too. To see whether they achieved any success or not, you have to look at what they were like BEFORE the dictatorship in question came into power. The truth is that Eastern Europe was already behind the West long before Vladimir Lenin came along. Nor were China, Korea and Vietnam paradises of prosperity and luxury pre-1949, for that matter.

[Tooting Carmen]

3. As a concept yes, I think it was a brilliant idea, but in many ways I feel it worked better before the Schengen treaty and the Euro. I don't think it's going in the good direction.

Well had it not been for the mass uncontrolled, unlimited Eastern European immigration, I am sure the UK would still be in the EU.