That could be the reason for Central and South America's problems, but it also might not be. Every nation has been interfered with, including the U.S., and certainly Europe was heavily hit by two world wars and sprang back within decades after WW2. Yes, there was the Marshall Plan, but we've been sending aid south of the border for quite a while now.Worffan101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:37 pmWell, it started with the Iberian monarchies intentionally starving the colonies of tech and infrastructure so they would be dependent on the metropole. Then Napoleon happened and the markets dried up and political instability ensued and Argentina and Brazil ganged up on Paraguay and wiped out 90+% of the male population. Things were sort of improving for a while despite the less favorable terrain and difficulties industrializing (US at this point was more effective as a food exporter and latin american governments were too authoritarian, generally speaking, to leverage their cash crops into industrialization, not to mention that the US had straight-up superior terrain due to having all the good parts of the Great Plains and the Rust Belt AND control of the mississippi once we kicked Johnny Reb in the fork and made the slavocrat traitor filth treat black people like human beings), then in the 20th century the USA repeatedly backed corrupt kleptocrats to secure American business interests (United Fruit was EVIL, man), then in the back half of the 20th century when Chile was poised to become an actually powerful economy and the Southern Cone in general was just becoming a really nice place to live, we backed gratuitously evil kleptocrats like Pinochet (who had dissidents raped by dogs and murdered) and the Argentine junta (who that demented idiot Reagan hosted in the White House literally months before they invaded our ally Britain--the Argentine junta leader who Reagan hosted also ran the junta's most notorious death squad personally).Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:17 pmAny guesses why any of that that would be? What makes 'MURICA!!! different? Is it all because of U.S. interference in the past?Worffan101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:44 pmWe have all the best arable land in the hemisphere, we've got a strong economy, our government is stagnant but functional, our organized crime is a nuisance rather than a mortal threat, and we have a functional social safety net.Darth Wedgius wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:31 pmWhy do people want to come to the US so badly that they'll risk their lives to do so? Is there something magical about American dirt that makes things more successful here?Worffan101 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 5:28 pm What border crisis? Who cares if millions of people want to come to America? I say, let 'em in! Put 'em to work, give 'em jobs making something or farming something, they'll spend their salaries in America and boost our GDP. Everybody wins, except those foreign countries who experience a population drain but fuck 'em, 'MURICA!!!!!
You come to America, you can at least survive above the poverty line, even if you're hated and exploited. In Central America, you can't even get that as a poor or especially mostly-indigenous person (the colonial-era caste system is dying a slow, miserable death).
So, basically it's a combination of political instability, political fragmentation in Central America, exploitation by corrupt American businesses, and active economic sabotage going back centuries.
But hey, at least Pinochet was anti-communist! Pepe MAGA, helicopter meme, hail Hitler! /s
Meanwhile, nations in the Anglosphere have done pretty well compared to much of the world. My suspicion is that there are cultural factors involved with the U.S.'s success.
I can't prove a cause and effect relationship, and I think you can't prove one rooting all these other nations' ills to past American (or European) interference. Perhaps it would be a good idea to preserve American culture, just in case? And I think that would necessitate keeping immigration to levels where the immigrants will assimilate.