USA will restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba

[JahFocus CS]

actually they all have a history of slavery and genocide, the difference is capitalism, if it was resources, free labor (slavery) and huge population being the main factors brazil would be the largest economy

Brazil is a capitalist country. Don't be obtuse. You're telling me there's no private property in Brazil?

Brazil is rich in resources as well. They have a smaller population than the U.S. Still the second-biggest in the western hemisphere, so I don't see your point.

 

[Curioser]

Brazil is a capitalist country. Don't be obtuse. You're telling me there's no private property in Brazil?

Brazil is rich in resources as well. They have a smaller population than the U.S. Still the second-biggest in the western hemisphere, so I don't see your point.

The difference is Brazils resources are controlled by outside investors, including the US. That's how Capitalism works. Capital is extracted from other countries through extortion and in return a small oligarchy in said countries gets to rule.

 

[theworldismine13]

Brazil is a capitalist country. Don't be obtuse. You're telling me there's no private property in Brazil?

Brazil is rich in resources as well. They have a smaller population than the U.S. Still the second-biggest in the western hemisphere, so I don't see your point.

it is today, but brazil doesnt have a capitalist legacy. lets put it that way, spain and portugal discouraged capitalism and stuck to mercantilism as long as it could, while england and the states moved on to capitalism, that is the economic legacy of latin america

and most slaves from west africa went to brazil

 

[JahFocus CS]

The difference is Brazils resources are controlled by outside investors, including the US. That's how Capitalism works. Capital is extracted from other countries through extortion and in return a small oligarchy in said countries gets to rule.

Well, that's fair under capitalism. There are people in this thread who support that. But I agree with you breh.

 

[theworldismine13]

The difference is Brazils resources are controlled by outside investors, including the US. That's how Capitalism works. Capital is extracted from other countries through extortion and in return a small oligarchy in said countries gets to rule.

thats a legacy of spanish and Portuguese colonial policies not of capitalism

 

[Curioser]

thats a legacy of spanish and Portuguese colonial policies not of capitalism

That's part of it but not all of it.... So your saying capitalism only works if you started first?!?!
If that's the case why adopt it. It's certainly sold as liberating but once developing countries sign on the dotted line it amounts to slavery. Let's not mention the fact that troops get sent in if resources are in danger of returning to said countries hands strictly following capitalist principles.

 

[theworldismine13]

That's part of it but not all of it.... So your saying capitalism only works if you started first?!?!
If that's the case why adopt it. It's certainly sold as liberating but once developing countries sign on the dotted line it amounts to slavery. Let's not mention the fact that troops get sent in if resources are in danger of returning to said countries hands strictly following capitalist principles.

capitalism only works for the population if its applied to entire population, as in private property rights and other economic rights being given to the population, if only a few people are allowed economic freedom then only a few people will control the resources

 

[Curioser]

capitalism only works for the population if its applied to entire population, as in private property rights and other economic rights being given to the population, if only a few people are allowed economic freedom then only a few people will control the resources

How does this apply to Brazil and hundreds of other democracies... No private property rights?

 

[theworldismine13]

How does this apply to Brazil and hundreds of other democracies... No private property rights?

well there are 2 big examples of the lack of property rights in brazil, 1 is the indians in the amazon and 2 is the favelas,

those 2 things represent a lack of property rights, lack of economic freedom and lack of capitalism

 

[theworldismine13]

Hernando de Soto — Property Rights & Rule of Law
http://www.povertycure.org/voices/hernando-de-soto/

• Private Property Rights Breaking the Back of Poverty and Privilege
  “ When you look at 19th century America or 18th and 16th century Europe, all of a sudden it’ll become clearer that … the thing that broke the back of poverty and privilege in developed countries in the past was when property rights came around and destroyed feudal title.”
  
  
• Property Rights vs. Sovereignty
  “ The Spaniards, in many cases, didn’t give people property rights; they gave them sovereignty: ‘You’re such-and-such a tribe; you get this.’ In the States you did the same thing. You gave this to the Sioux, you gave this to the Navajos. You created Indian Reservations. Instead of their property rights, you gave them sovereignty and they lost all of it…. A property right as opposed to sovereignty means that it doesn’t have a flag. It belongs to smaller groups of people, and it’s functional. It can be sold, it can be bought. So say you’re not given a property right. Let’s look at all the indigenous people of the Americas who never got a property right so that they couldn’t lose it, they couldn’t drink it away, they couldn’t do a bad investment. Did they keep it? No, they’ve lost it much more than those who are getting property rights today. So, in each case, what we should do is to go to these indigenous people and say, “What do you want?” Sovereignty so that the Indian Chief decides what’s going to happen? Or property rights? I can tell you the answer right away. But they are not generally given those options. [More on Private Property Rights]”
  
  
• Property Right Initiating the Rule of Law
  “ A property right initiates the rule of law … makes people interested in the rule of law. The first thing that they understand … is that everybody on this earth lives on a plot of land.”
  
  
• Effect of Private Property Rights in Peru
  “ In the case of Peru you can clearly see that where titling takes place, education is better immediately because more people can get jobs, they feel secure about their homes; they are ready to make more investments in the homes. More kids go to school because many people keep their kids at home just simply to indicate that they have a stake in that place. And now all of a sudden the security is replaced with law. Law has also that function.”
  
  
• Inclusive Capitalism
  “ Two-thirds of the world’s population - four billion people - are locked out of the capitalist system. It’s important to let them in.”
  
  “ We’ve got to understand that either we quickly make capitalism friendly to the majority. Or they will always be on the outside looking in, and every day as they see the disparities of wealth they’ll get angrier and angrier.”
  
  
• No Silver Bullets
  “ Creating the rule of law is of course, not a silver bullet. Development is very complex, like life itself. You’ve got education that’s involved, you’ve got health that’s necessary,
  you’ve got enforcement that is all part of it. But if you do not have an order that tells you who owns what, who is where, and who is accountable for what, none of the rest work.”

 

[jilla82]

Most do, but the territory claimed by the U.S. is rich in resources, agricultural conditions, etc., in a way that other countries in the Western Hemisphere aren't. Add that to 300 years of free labor and a huge population and you'd better be the biggest economy in the world.

it probably has more to do w/ the fact that we are pretty isolated from the drama in Asia/Europe.

They all got bombed out during WW2....we stayed intact and profited off of their destruction.
America really didnt take off until the Industrial Revolution.

 

[theworldismine13]

off topic, but the issue of property rights is why all projects and public housing should be torn down

the government should never own your home, projects and public housing represents economic oppression

 

[Curioser]

well there are 2 big examples of the lack of property rights in brazil, 1 is the indians in the amazon and 2 is the favelas,

those 2 things represent a lack of property rights, lack of economic freedom and lack of capitalism

You just mentioned examples of this in the US. There are of course ghettoes here too. And it used to be much worse and the US still thrived. People can rise out of the favelas just as they can rise out of the hood but rarely into the elite in both places. I don't get the discrepancy...

 

[theworldismine13]

You just mentioned examples of this in the US. There are of course ghettoes here too. And it used to be much worse and the US still thrived. People can rise out of the favelas just as they can rise out of the hood but rarely into the elite in both places. I don't get the discrepancy...

yeah there are examples of this in the us, but it doesnt apply to the whole population ie white people, in general white people were given economic rights, indians and blacks werent

what happens in places like brazil is that only a few people are given economic rights as opposed to the us where economic rights and other rights were given to even poor white people, poor white people in brazil did not have much more economic rights than blacks or indians

and also i dont think we need to "rise out of the hood" or "rise out of the favelas", "rising" doesnt address the situation, how does people "rising out of the hood" help the hood, it actually hurts the hood when intelligent or talented hood residents "rise"

the issue is how to make it so that the "hood" increases in value and how to connect residents to banks, credit and the financial system

 

[Curioser]

yeah there are examples of this in the us, but it doesnt apply to the whole population ie white people, in general white people were given economic rights, indians and blacks werent

what happens in places like brazil is that only a few people are given economic rights as opposed to the us where economic rights and other rights were given to even poor white people, poor white people in brazil did not have much more economic rights than blacks or indians

and also i dont think we need to "rise out of the hood" or "rise out of the favelas", "rising" doesnt address the situation, how does people "rising out of the hood" help the hood, it actually hurts the hood when intelligent or talented hood residents "rise"

the issue is how to make it so that the "hood" increases in value and how to connect residents to banks, credit and the financial system

I just don't buy your idea that this is somehow based on numbers or percentages. What's the cutoff, where's the data showing percent of people you claim have economic access and strength of the country. Do more people have economic access in Mexico than in Colombia. I doubt it....