>same continent
>former colonies
>shit tons of immigrants
>high population
>large territories
>countless natural resources
>weak neighbors
>far away from european and asian wars
Why is one a superpower, and the other a shithole?
Probably political situation after decolonizing, though i dont know how well Brazil did.
>>1315921
Remember that South Park episode about rainforests?
>>1315921
Going by my Vicky 2 games Brazil needs to invade Uruguay and aggressively fund it's industrial base to strengthen that.
Both still possible, if you countenance future industrial tech prowess.
>>1315921
Lack of materials to support an industry and corruption impeding the maintenance of a stable government.
>>1315951
When i played hue i went over infamy cap and took every high pop density state around me. Meaning i had to get 70 infamy in total
Bolivia is an opm, i took half of peru, took 1/3 of argentina.
Im still a secondary power
South america is a horrible place to try and industrialize, and i have more pops than america who is #5
Brazil has around 50% black population.
The US has around 12% black population.
How can you be wealthy and powerful with a 50% black population? You can't.
USA invested in industry from the start.
They had expansionist presidents and their administration was efficient.
Lots of plain terrain and grasslands that improve agricultural productivity.
It also has access to the Pacific and North Atlantic, making trade with the rich continents of Asia and Europe develop very naturally.
Brazil in the other hand from the start had a political class much more centered arround agriculture and large properties of land.
They didn't care about industrializing or developing, or even expansion, but rather, simply keeping their large chunks of lands as the aristocrats they were.
Also geography. For every gallon of milk a cow produces in the rainforrest, the same cow could produce 20 gallons in the plains. Now keep in mind that the Amazon rainforrest alone covers ~50% of Brazilian territorry and thats not the only forrest they have. Also Brazil is relatively close to Europe and Atlantic trade still is strong to this day however Brazil has no access to the Pacific and its distance from merely China made trade with Asian economies start becoming relevant only in the 80s.
Brazil in general also had innecifient attemps at modernizing the country. For example, one of their first presidents gave very profitable loans to coffee farm owners with the idea that they would invest in industry in mind, however these rural lords invested all the money in larger productions of coffee instead of industry.
Their slavery also lasted some 50 or so more years than the American slavery, and they got independence 50 years later to USA as well. It was only in the 30s/40s that Brazil started being industrialized. There are more factors involved but these are the main ones.
>>1315951
>>1315977
Just colonize Africa niggaz, forget the continent, it has nothing but food RGOs and pops you can't even assimilate. But dem Congo metal mines? Now that's the shit.
>>1315921
Brazil has too many niggers. Also something about having an emperor.
>>1315921
Because one was relative superpower and the other was shithole.
One of the main factors is probably related to the historical consequences of the portuguese exploitation and heavy-handed taxation. In the Thirteen Colonies, the UK had a pretty lenient policy, which is what allowed them to build up on low-tax industry and commerce from early on. When they tried to start exploiting them, they got kicked out. Said late-start wasn't helped by the constant instability and coups in the 20th century, which in turn led to a very shaky economical base (Brazil was actually sort of better off in the late 19th century, having some of the most powerful ships in the world and a fairly modern military, despite the lack of industry; nowadays we just have nothing at all).
>>1315995
>the Amazon rainforrest alone covers ~50% of Brazilian territorry and thats not the only forrest they have.
And the USA is full of sandy deserts and rocky mountains. You can't really compare the barren areas of Brazil with the fertile lands of north america. Brazilian soil can be plenty fertile (mostly by the sea, including the famously productive Terra Rossa along the eastern coast). You could say a lot of things about Brazil, but you can't really argue that it isn't an agricultural powerhouse. I agree with the rest of your post, however.
>>1315921
USA was created with a stable trading economy
Brazil was and still is an export based exploitative economy
>>1315921
One is full of niggers and the other has only 10% to 15% of the population as niggers.
>>1315986
This.
Usually, when you're asking "why is country X better than country Y?" and the difference is significant (so not something like "why is the British economy better than the French economy?" because that difference is negligible), then it usually comes down to either demographics or geography.
With Murika and Brazil, it's both. In terms of geography America has:
>A fertile and temperate east coast
>The Midwest as its grainshed
>California with gold in them thar mountains
Whereas Brazil has relatively few habitable areas and a shitload of rainforest that has very little practical use. Also niggers. Which is pretty ironic because some 19th century projections predicted the end of African-Brazilians.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/17/brazil-census-african-brazilians-majority
Nothing was less true. Afro-Brazillians are now the majority... and STILL profit from affirmative action!
Americans shouldn't feel too smug though, white Americans are the minority among America's newborn. They're heading the way of Brazil rapidly.
>>1315921
>>same continent
No
>>former colonies
Okay?
>>shit tons of immigrants
Okay?
>>high population
No
>>large territories
Okay?
>>countless natural resources
No
>>weak neighbors
No
>>far away from european and asian wars
No
Brazil and America are not similar.
>>1316092
>Afro-Brazillians are now the majority... and STILL profit from affirmative action!
Well, that shit happens if the same privileged people are still in power after the abolition of slavery
>>1315921
>tfw no Japanese-Brazilian gf to smother me with her kawaii bunda
>>1316106
>privileged
Higher intelligence is not privilege. Otherwise we must accept that Jews, East Asians and sometimes Indians (dot, not feather) are more privileged than white people and academic institutions should maintain affirmative action towards whites as well while rejecting Jews, East Asians and Indians who would otherwise be allowed to attend their institutions.
>>1315921
A conversation I had with brazil lead me to believe they have a culture that discourages innovators, leaving them with few major advancements as opposed to the us which had manifest destiny encouraging people to make themselves great.
>>1316138
>conversation I had with brazil
That's pretty amazing.
From my talking with Brazilian friends, they peg it on the rampant government corruption that would make Haiti look like a well-oiled machine.
but to take a look at Lula's administration just 10 years ago, corruption was still rampant but kept in check, and Brazil was hailed as an economic miracle with 7-9% growth every year seemingly without effort, now the new administration makes no qualms about showing just how corrupt they are, with multiple government officials caught holding briefcases just full of bribe money out in public. It's no surprise that when you see Brazil get hit hard economically, the potentially largest political scandal in human history is uncovered between the President and Petrobras.
so if you wanna start somewhere, start with the politicians who have literally skimmed billions of the economy to pay off worthless contracts, and just follow the corruption from there.
I blame CIA meddling in South America because of communist expansion, and the War on Drugs.
Brazil hasn't always been a shithole let me tell you.
>>1316487
Just because Rio was fairly ok in the 30s and 40s doesn't mean the rest of the country is not a shithole.
>>1316465
It's not only corruption. The Brazilian State is a mess, it's too big and too bureaucratic for anything to work.
We were always corrupt, but Lula started a trend of seizing the State for his party, pretty much institutionalizing the use of public funds to further increase the power of himself and his peers. Corruption became the rule.
But of course, you can't have large scale corruption without hundreds of state companies, state employees and state agencies.
Combine this distribution of State money to brazilians predisposition of supporting government intervention and tutelage in pretty much every area of everyday life and there you have it. That's the result.
Take off corruption and Brazil would still be a shithole.
>>1316535
>doesn't mean the rest of the country is not a shithole.
Depends on how you define "shithole", because in the 30s and 40s large swathes of the U.S were just rural farms.
>>1315921
The US would quite very similar to Brazil if the Confederation won the Civil War
>>1316557
Hunger in Brazil was only eliminated less than 20 years ago.
Now imagine the Amazon rainforest populations and Northeastern semiarid farmers that are subjected to extreme droughts every 3 years or so in 1930.
>>1316132
You are missing the point. Affirmative action is to make up for the pooling of wealth in the hands of those who weren't exploited. Brazil isn't a perfect meritocracy.
>>1316569
Slavery really fucks over societies. Just look at the Romans.
>people cite the American Midwest as if it were naturally an agricultural utopia
Naw man, that shit was CREATED. It was a fucking desert of grass. The soil was shit, the rainfall was shit, and the irrigation was nonexistent. They fucking made up the technique of "dry farming" to con idiots into buying homesteads there, and then said idiots worked with the federal government to set up a modern farming apparatus because fuck if they weren't gonna make it all work once they got there.
The reason Brazil is shit and America is not as shit is because Brazil is utterly content to be shit.
Probably has something to do with the attitudes and goals of English vs Portuguese colonizers, and the fact that the Industrial Revolution started in England and the shared language and cultural ties sped the spread of industrial ideas and techniques to the United States. The USA was also pretty commerce/business-oriented from the beginning, while it seems that Brazil suffered under the archaic aristocracy typical of Iberian colonies.
>>1315921
The US were settled mainly by superior whites, and then a few millions of blacks were added as slaves (and given they had no power they couldnt slow down the developpement of the country until very recently)
Brazil is a mongrel mix of whites, blacks and natives without clear hierarchy
>>1315921
>america
>still a 'superpower'
>>1315921
The US is closer to Europe, and has the same language as the most industrialized, technological advanced country, the UK.
Commerce, investment and technology transfer was therefore easier in the US than in Brazil.
>>1316594
Why is that the case?
>>1316765
Free people who are low on the social totem pole suddenly have no economic opportunities.
The number of people in a country that have any incentive to want that country to succeed falls rapidly.
There's no real technological development. as that wouldn't benefit the ruling elites, and nobody else is educated enough.
>>1316759
Worst excuse desu
The US have long overtook the UK in all those aspect
>>1315921
socialism
>>1316779
In Uzibekistan they force kids and adults to pick cotton.
The cotton growers have no incentive to modernise or invest in improving production because "dude free labour lmao" so their production output doesn't improve as much as they would if they invested in modern tech. With labour being free none of the workers get a wage that lets them purchase and consume goods to promote a healthy market. Many propose that one of the reasons slavery was abolished was because having piss poor people buying shit with wages generates more profits then slaves who can't consume goods with their non existent wages.
It also props up shitty businesses and farms because with normal paid labour they'd be bankrupt or total shit but with slaves you made a profit or broke even so the free market is not able to do it magic so to say and let only the best farms and plantations thrive.
In Brazil once slavery was abolished they just imported poor Euros and Asians to replace the Blacks since those poor euros and Asians are willing to work for much less and don't know the wages they should be getting. In many places abolishing slavery World powers just brought in indentured laborers (abused very much and little rights and many were tricked into being one) or dirt poor people from the outside to do the labour as seen in the Carribean or forced labour through various methods to extract labour like arbitrary taxation and laws like in colonial Africa.
>>1315921
Niggers
>>1316905
edgy
Do you kiddies skip basic History, abroad?
Geez.
Answer: different types of colonization
USA - it was populated and colonized from scracth
BR - it was explored and only colonized after around 4 decades of intense exploitaition.
One had a solid plan to evolve and develop as an independent, stable society. The other was always approached as a living commodity.
/thread
>>1316955
4 decades don´t make that much difference
also building colonies in the tropics is a hard task
I agree the colonizers had different mentalities
>>1316992
It's not me saying broski.
Go read up a bit.
4 decades of intense slavery and exploration does make a difference. The trades are opposites, in each case, and the economies in those 32 years or so were built to function entirely different.
Even though I'm 100% sure the US are way better than the BR, I have to say that having attended schools in both countries, this kind of question was presented to me very early throughout middle school.
toppest of keks to you all, m'ladies
>>1317036
kek
Oh yes, the ole vira lata meme.
Bolsonaro 2018?
What else dear?
>>1316992
4 decades of a bad commie rule versus good ones in East Europe makes a huge difference not to mention the economic discrepancy between the better run commie states and the western nations with a better economy.
I wouldn't exactly call Brazil a super power
>>1317092
what?
Dude I meant back in the 16th century, what "commie rule" are you talking about? Whoah.
kkkkkkkkkkkkk
I meant how the portuguese empire gangraped brazil from 1500-1532 until it decided that "just the tip" wasn't enough and initiated a series of failed attempts to colonize the newfound land.
>>1317092
good insight
>>1316992
Also, the term "Brasileiros", used to determine "Brazilians", in portuguese, literally refers to those who used to extract Pau-Brasil, an endemic tree species whose products were widely used in trade and all sorts of commerce since Brazil was found.
The suffix "eiro" describes a function, to know, in this case, cutting down the Pau-Brasil.
>>1316887
Pretty much this. And barring slavery, we'll take the next; cheapest thing. America's history is full of rich cunts having to make small compromises for slightly better labor conditions and they're still trying to push us into pseudo-slavery by devaluing local labor markets(in taking labor abroad, then trying to lower our wages to that of developing countries) cuz muh self interest.
>>1315941
Brazil was quite stable during their empire phase
Brazil is country with a lot of resources. While in countries like the US which is base on industry you need investors and mutual cooperation in countries like Brazil all you need is power or people to help you get those resources and profit, because of this is that corruption is common in Latin American countries. Just look at the Petrobras scandal
>>1316955
>>1317021
This. The colonial period makes a difference, too. Most of Brazil's resources (mainly gold) went to Portugal during the colonial period. Portuguese colonial policy was different from English.
>>1316992
>>1317036
t. bolsominion
>>1317377
No one bothers to read the economic or social policy of a place.
For example many don't know that to get more for forced labourers in many places they kicked/stole land from the people who owned the land then since those landless people lost their livelihood they forced them to work for the governments ideas. Often they used certain laws or rules to force labour from the people for their projects such as
-Mandatory days to work for them like around a month (one modern example is Uzibekistan). This usually heavily cuts into the business or livelihoods of the people and is very interruptive as well as having a negative effect on society since it many places the men were completely GONE from the village because they had to work for the government and the labour for the village has completely disappeared so only women, children and the elderly were left.
-Arbitrary taxation where they tax you just because they said so then since they taxed you they pull a "It seems with your current job or finances you can't pay the tax and will get arrested. However, work for the government or private interests for barely anything and we'll remove the tax on you"
-Make it illegal to be unemployed then make unemployment be a very board category so many people with work are still considered unemployed then pimp the labour out to private interests.
>>1316765
It's not a sustainable system, and once you get rid of it, as you will eventually have to for economic reasons, it creates its own problems.
>>1317377
>>1316992
>>1317036
Race mixing.
/thread.
>>1316110
as a brazilian living in a japantown neighborhood i can tell you that japanese diaspora is indeed one of the best features of living in this 3rd world country.
>>1317808
Both have racemixing
>>1317808
>Implying no significant number of people race mix in the US
>>1317808
Nazi faggot detected.
>>1315921
>same continent
Sue your professors.
jungles are shit
>>1315921
>be USA
>have blacks, mexicans, whites, etc.
>thanks to an everlasting abolition movement, abandon subjugation of other races throughout most of the country and eventually end segregation
>be brazil
>have negros, pardos, whites, natives, etc.
>whites, barely a majority, constantly seek to rule over the other races and breed out blacks
While blacks, asians, and whites in the US all cook out on 4th of July, white/pardo Brazilian politicians plot the removal of slums to make way for the olympics. Equally, militias openly fight the police and control entire favelas.
TL;DR ethnic/economic division
>>1318229
>whites, barely a majority, constantly seek to rule over the other races and breed out blacks
Wew, the shit I read on /his/
>>1315921
Brazil: Historically ~40% white.
America: Historically ~80-90% white until the last few decades.
>>1318229
>every country full of niggers is an absolute shithole
>white people are the problem!
W E W L A D.
How's rhodesia doing these days?
>>1318252
Rhodesia wasn't even that good.
SA was a much better state in everyway.
>>1315921
>Why is one a superpower, and the other a shithole?
The USA had the industrializing Great Britain as a mother country, so as the USA industrialized, a lot of British capital and immigrants could come in. Brazil had Portugal, which was already a backwater by the time of independence.
>>1318312
I think some of you, as in this post, are a bit putting the cart before the horse. USA was not a "superpower" until WW2. I'm not really interested how you argue it, you're mistaken to say otherwise.
>>1318294
Compared to it's current status? It was amazing.
Yeah, and SA is doing great as well these days :^)
>>1315921
Literally the overthrow of the monarchy turned Brazil into shit. Same with Mexico
Maximilian would have been great
>>1318330
Rhodesia was pretty shitty back then
>Segregation of schools based on funding was most extreme in the 1970s because Europeans only represented one percent of Zimbabwe's population, but were allocated 99 percent of government spending on education.
Is not anything resembling good education policy.
>>1317052
>>1317377
>>1317755
>realizing we have other problems aside from our model of colonization, that the differences between US and Brazil go deeper to that and even then realizing we had 200 years to make up for the problems in colonization makes me a fan of a fascist militaristic politician
So the brazilian version of "go back to /pol/" is calling others bolsominions, I see.
Short answer: different types of colonialism.
> Settler colonialism: focus on immigration
Australia, Canada, NZ, US
> Exploitation colonialism: focus on natural resources
Birmania, Botswana, Guyana, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Tanzania, etc.
I mentioned only former colonies from the very same former empire to prevent "muh Spanish vs British vs Portuguese".
>>1319345
Dude your arguments were shit from the start. You're way out of your league / off topic as well.
Chill out my man.
>>1320707
There wasn't even a discussion on the topic for you to say that arguments were shit or people are out of their league. People literally name-called me and that was it.
Also, it's in topic. It's about differences between US and Brazil.
Brazil had potential. It just had too many shit leaders after Pedro II abdicated.
