4 ms·

They did not 'fail to thrive', they had different starting conditions and developed along different paths. They were not as thinly populated when colonized and

They did not 'fail to thrive', they had different starting conditions and developed along different paths. They were not as thinly populated when colonized and indigenous cultures were farther advanced, eg Aztec civilization had already made the transition to large cities of hundreds of thousands, whereas the largest indigenous settlements in the continental US were just a few thousand people. The geography of South America is vastly different, so were the patterns of colonialism and settlement, with far higher rates of intermarriage and takeover of existing feudal instititions. Geography is far more deterimiantive than ideology.

WalterBright 26d ago
> Geography is far more deterimiantive than ideology. Then why are Hong Kong and Taiwan so successful with free markets? Anyhow, Spain installed a feudal system in South and Central America, with a focus on looting it and extracting gold and silver. That was certainly not a path to prosperity. In stark contrast, America was settled with the principle of allowing settlers to own land, and farm it as they saw fit. This created a large and very productive middle class. Ideology was totally the dominant force.
- anigbrowl 26d ago
  It's funny how you keep trying to drag in other examples to support your position. Am I suppose to ignore the history and special great power support for both places in Asia and imagine that their economies just naturally developed that way, ceteris parabus? What a hoot. You are right about looting resources. But economy is orthogonal to ideology, eg Australia is a property-minded free-trading polity but has a contracting economy as most of its exports are resource-based rather than manufactured goods or services. Nobody is preventing Australians from being a high-tech powerhouse, businesses have just chosen to focus on extractive and agrarian sources of revenue. >Anyhow, Spain installed a feudal system in South and Central America Yes, I already mentioned that: 'far higher rates of intermarriage and takeover of existing feudal institutions.' You haven't addressed the geographic, population, or civilizational arguments in any way, so merely repeating your initial assertion isn't very persuasive. Feel free to try harder.

WalterBright 26d ago

> Geography is far more deterimiantive than ideology. Then why are Hong Kong and Taiwan so successful with free markets? Anyhow, Spain installed a feudal system in South and Central America, with a focus on looting it and extracting gold and silver. That was certainly not a path to prosperity. In stark contrast, America was settled with the principle of allowing settlers to own land, and farm it as they saw fit. This created a large and very productive middle class. Ideology was totally the dominant force.

anigbrowl 26d ago
It's funny how you keep trying to drag in other examples to support your position. Am I suppose to ignore the history and special great power support for both places in Asia and imagine that their economies just naturally developed that way, ceteris parabus? What a hoot. You are right about looting resources. But economy is orthogonal to ideology, eg Australia is a property-minded free-trading polity but has a contracting economy as most of its exports are resource-based rather than manufactured goods or services. Nobody is preventing Australians from being a high-tech powerhouse, businesses have just chosen to focus on extractive and agrarian sources of revenue. >Anyhow, Spain installed a feudal system in South and Central America Yes, I already mentioned that: 'far higher rates of intermarriage and takeover of existing feudal institutions.' You haven't addressed the geographic, population, or civilizational arguments in any way, so merely repeating your initial assertion isn't very persuasive. Feel free to try harder.