>both giant
>both very populous
>both rich in resources
>both have oil
>both are far away from europe's wars
>both used to be colonies
why did one become a superpower and the other a third world country?
>>575623
Look at the comparative power of Britain and poortugal and you should be able to figure it out
>>575623
USA isn't a third world country, fuck off.
>third world country
when will this shitty term die
also sage for /int/-tier thread.
>>575623
Because it's in the third world ie outside of the first and second world
>>575644
>greenland
>red
It's a danish colony, what the fuck.
>>575671
Greenland is an overseas territorry of Canada.
Why Canada isn't red too? Don't ask me that but the way things are it probaly is some stupid democrat policy to make Mexicans look good. I mean just south of the US border there's Argentina and its red like wtf??
>>575683
Greenland (Greenlandic: Kalaallit Nunaat [kaˈlaːɬit ˈnunaːt]; Danish: Gronland [ˈɡ̊ʁɶnˌlanˀ]) is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe (specifically Norway and Denmark, the colonial powers, as well as the nearby island of Iceland) for more than a millennium.[9]
How the fuck is it an overseas territory of canada? how do you come up with this shit?
Brazil just had a string of really shitty leaders after the coup against Pedro II
>>575701
>Brazil just had a string of really shitty leaders
So does USA.
>>575671
Srry that map is a little inaccurate, this one should be more in line
>>575706
I don't recall any coups or long periods of military rule in United States history though
>cold war maps
>zimbabwe is first world, austria is third
>>575623
America
>Founded by the best political philosophers of the time.
>Followed the Anglo tradition
>Didn't breed with the natives
Brazil
>Founded by Portuguese upper class that was terrified of the slave and mestizo majority.
>Interbred with the natives
>No great political philosophers
First world countries are called first world because they were aligned with the united states and it's intrests during the cold war same with second world and the soviet union
The third world is just everyone else who didnt align with either side
>>575712
>mid 1970s
>implying the US wasn't in full sinoboo mode by then
>USA 12% black
>Brazil over 50% black (realistically)
>>575759
>No great political philosophers
To be honest there were quite a few, it's just literacy rates in Brazil are so low they never developed a cult following like in the U.S.
>>575623
My theory is that people were so rich by the exports they never bothered to develop industrialization, or even other crops. There are records about how people couldn't even buy meat in the biggest cities while in the 1800s because every single farmer was producing coffe and no one was raising cattle. Also, leftism. 20 years of a "right wing " government and we got one of the most closed markets of the world, huge taxes and huge government.
And, as there are terrible schools, people think social democracy is a right wing concept and that the president doesn't need to follow fiscal laws.
>>575786
Of course we were, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot
>>575786
Whats sinoboo?
>>575623
*developing country
FTFY
>>575881
Chinese version of weeaboo, I think
>>575623
wouldn't exactly call the 7th largest economy on the planet absolute shit-tier, but Brazil does have a lot more holding it back.
- about 40% of Brazil is inaccessible, with the rainforests and South American interior being immense geographic barriers, preventing the land from being used for economic gain.
There's a joke in Brazil that no one has ever met a person from Acre, and question the very existence of Acre because of how isolated it is because of the geographic barriers leaving it with little contact.
-Corruption is the name of the game in Brazil's government, crooked deals, misappropriated government funds, and just outright neglect by monitoring agencies is just a monumental task to overcome that keeps Brazil from reaching the potential it could have. The President is under investigation right now in fact for some shady dealings with the national oil company Petrobras, which such investigations are pretty par for the course for any Brazilian president.
-the interior is almost completely untapped. This is due to the first point, that geographical barriers are preventing people from travelling to and from the coast into the interior, and the threat of disease from the rainforests is incentive to keep people on the coastline.
There is logging and farming efforts going on in the interior of the country, but of course the international effort to halt that to save the rainforests isn't helping Brazil at all, so the country basically accepts that 40-60% of their own country is either inaccessible or off limits for development due to forest preservation.
There's a ton of small microeconomic factors that play a huge role as well, brazilian citizens are nickel and dimed to hell on everything from extremely high taxes to really high bus and airfare, which causes riots whenever the fare is raised because of how ridiculous it is to begin with.
meanwhile the government is too busy diverting money to Olympic and World Cup stadiums, which is not helping.
>>575623
Brazil is not rich resources in the same way that the US is. US has all the right resources to become an industrial power. Brazil has the resources to become an agrarian backwaters.
t. Victoria 2 player.
>>575712
>mid 1975
>Iran is on our side
uhhhhhh what??? What did we do wrong?
>>575623
>both are far away from europe's wars
USA used this to its advantage by coming in late to the wars and getting rich off them.
>>575916
A CIA coup?
Idiots.
>>575916
It probably had something to do with America supporting a Monarchist coup in the 50s that all the population hated as it overthrew a republic, which resulted in an Islamic revolution in the 1979.
The Monarchy were pro-west, the Islamic revolution was decidedly anti-west.
America probably wouldn't have gone toppling democracies just because they weren't Super anti Russian, despite Russia being in their neighbour.
>>575623
Brazil doesn't have coal or iron, has lower pop and low literacy. Also you need railroad level 2 to start putting down rails in jungles. All in all, Brazil is in a much shittier situation.
>>575881
Like a weeaboo, but for China. It's not a very common word.
>"Sino-" meaning "Chinese" or relating to China; a corruption of "Qin" from the Latin, "Sinae", probably in origin from a Sanskrit corruption of 《 秦 》.
>"-boo" meaning obsessed with a culture to the point of mimicking it; from "weeaboo," a wordfilter dodge for "wapanese" that has stuck around longer than the wordfilter did.
>>575933
>This meme
>>575623
It comes down to political ideology and a Puritan work ethic.
>>575862
and therefore china was supposed to be a 1st world country by that yardstick
also
>Pakistan
>a part of SEATO
>always had a burger military presence
>not a cold war ally
Why do we have a "why did Brazil fail?" thread every week?
I don't need to be reminded I live in an almost failed nation.
>>575623
Access to the Pacific really helped.
That and speaking English as opposed to PortHUEguese is very useful.
>>575944
But it was coummunist and the u.s. government's policy was very anti-commie, which is why they were lumped in with the rest of the second world
>>575958
but they were burger allies by 75 or far away from the SU to count as one.
>>575623
Britain built up the infrastructure and native institutions of its colonies much, much more than either Spain or Portugal. There was also much, more more settlement from Britain to America, whereas both Spain and Portugal had very limited and sporadic emigration to the colonies and relied on more imported slaves, resulting in smaller populations and lower population densities. It's easy to see why one was more successful than the others.
>>575623
The USA was founded on Republicanism (making politics competitive) and adopted free labor much faster than Brazil.
Also the USA's ability to expand westward and create new fortunes for new generations of people made the country less beholden to its pseudo-aristocracy back east (the planters in the South and the merchants / capitalists in the North)
>>575972
the only reason they became allies was because of the mutual animosity towards the soviets. The fact that china was communist and the u.s. a federal republic with democratic leanings are the reasons that they are considered second and first world respectively
>>575939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iran
Feel free to browse the primary sources too.
>>576023
>federal republic with democratic leanings
so was india, and it was classified as third world even though by 75 it had warmed up to the USSR
>>576046
>Linking to wikipedia
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2014-06-16/what-really-happened-iran
Here, have something an actual scholar wrote.
>>575644
>that outfuckingdated map
>>576048
Because they weren't allies or directly influenced by the u.s. or the u.s.s.r.
That's literally all third world means
>>576065
Which is why I posted a better one
>>575950
>almost
>>576051
Your article actually says you tried 2 times.
Attempted murder is tried as actual murder anywhere.
Feel free to read the wiki's primary sources if the wiki article itself doesnt satisfy you.
>>576111
>Attempted murder is tried as actual murder anywhere.
No. It's tried as attempted murder.
If it was tried as murder, finding the victim alive would be grounds for dismissal.
>>575623
Now look past the superficicial level and see how different there history is and the question will answer itself.
>>575643
>implying terms like developing countries are still relevant.
>>575950
Bra7i1
>>575638
underrated bost
>>575623
The US embraced capitalism
Brazil embraced interventionism
Lack of Protestantism in Brazil.
Protestants valued education and literacy very highly leading the people of the northern states to be among the most literate people in the world, an extremely valuable asset for a stable republican government and upwards socioeconomic movement. Combined with a strong protestant work-ethic that put a premium on self-reliance there was always an abundance of go-getting innovative (relatively) well-educated entrepreneurs who created enormous amounts of wealth for the budding country.
It wasn't the only reason, but protestantism certainly played a part.
You can skirt around the real reason all you like, but in the end, the difference will be just that: >>575807
That is the basis of everything else. You can easily see this by how the "whitest" areas in the country are also the best ones.
>>576367
or you can go the other way around
see how the south of USA, being primarily agrarian, that used blacks as a cheap source of labour, was generally less developed than the industrialised north.
In a similar fashion, the agrarian focused plantations et. al. in brazil, that used blacks as cheap labour lagged behind (not only because of raw exports being much less conductive to growth of wealth, but also because of how plantation systems empowerished the populace, which led to poor, uneducated populations, crime rise, yadda yadda)
>>576377
Indeed, if the South had won the Civil War it would become an honorary Latin American country.
But you still skirt around the issue blaming it on labour relations. There were plenty of communities established by free black and mulattos on the hintherland, some were escaped slaves, some were sons of slaves and free individiduals, they had de facto autonomy and some even survive to the present day. And they are poor as fuck. Meanwhile when Europeans and/or Japanese were equally released into the jungle they built prosperous communities.
>>575692
shhh. he's in his own little world. do not disturb.
>>576377
What you're ignoring is that economic systems are not set in stone. South Korea was an agrarian, feudal country 50 years ago, and now it's industrialized. The reason why South Korea was able to achieve such a rapid and successful industrialization is that it possesses the required "human capital".
>>576432
ok sure, but in this context, you have to take into account that white leaders of brazil decided to "stay the course" and not bring in any unprecedented industrialisation efforts.
>>576388
going into very specific details is a bit out of my league here, I don't know about the specifics of these communities, but here the thing, it's not only labour relations, the agrarian/industrial dichotomy is very real and apparent, even when "europeans were realeased into the prarie jungle" in USA as it were. The american north-west for example was, throught most of the 19th/20th century, much less developed than the industrial north-east.
I'd argue that isolated agrarian communities are even less conductive to wealth accumulation than intensive, concentrated agriculture, but at least in those examples, wealth possibly gets distributed more equally.
Also, just look at 19th century Europe for the agrarian/industrial divide or even just Russia and it's growth post 1861, and those are all white people (inb4 /int/posting)
>>576468
>you have to take into account that white leaders of brazil decided to "stay the course" and not bring in any unprecedented industrialisation efforts.
[citation needed]
And industrialization wasn't "forced" in America by the US president, it happened organically.
>>576470
>[citation needed]
how can I give you a citation on something that didn't happen?
I mean, it's apparent that there wasn't any major industrialisation efforts on the scale of SK, unless you can point out something I don't know?
>And industrialization wasn't "forced" in America by the US president, it happened organically.
yes, that's the point of this thread, usa's north-east had prime conditions for industrialisation, brazil had prime conditions for an agrarian economy, in my reply we were talking about SK, where a drastic industrialisation effort was indeed "forced"
>>575980
As well as the origin of the immigrants/slaves.
>>576495
The bigger problem is that Korea had numerous advantages Brazil did not.
Brazil was not a 3 hour boatride from the worlds second largest economy, which also happened to be labor starved, and also have a reparations issue to resolve with them.
>>575632
/thread
>>576495
I disagree with your analysis. Japan is another example of a country which industrialized "organically" without state planning.
You seem to be implying that due to the geography of Brazil, it could not industrialize "organically". That seems, to me at least, to be an extraordinary argument which should be backed up by concrete evidence.
Because industrialization happened in a wide variety of different geographies.
Why didn't the australian aboriginals industrialize, whereas white colonists to Australia did?
>>576468
>The american north-west for example was, throught most of the 19th/20th century, much less developed than the industrial north-east.
The American North-West had been inhabited for a shorter period of time than the North-East. Societies were still very functional even without the industrialisation and had the proper fundamental system for industrialisation to easily occur. It's the same thing about Europeans and Japanese in Brazil.
>Also, just look at 19th century Europe for the agrarian/industrial divide or even just Russia and it's growth post 1861, and those are all white people (inb4 /int/posting)
And look at the industrialised U.S.S.R. Conditions were just as shitty after the industrialisation due to the bad regimes and rulers. In Brazil we compare European/Japanese settlements to African/mulatt and their ability to modernise. One manages it. One does not. We should try to figure out why.
>>576505
>Brazil's climate is too warm! All warm countries are undeveloped!
Australia has a warm climate
>Brazil only received the scum of Europe as immigrants!
Australia was a penal colony
>The Brazilian population is located only in the coast, which means it couldn't fully develop
Australia's population is located mainly in the coast
>Brazil has an economy based on commodity exports!
So does Australia
>Brazil has a multi-ethnic population!
So does Australia
>Brazil is located too far away from the main global trade routes
So is Australia
>Brazil has no economic freedom!
So does Aus... actually, Australia is one of the most economically free countries in the world.
I guess that settles it. Brazil's government is too big and the economy is too unfree.
>>576578
Between 1905 and the start of the 25 year rule Australia had compulsory unionism, compulsory state based wage fixation, high tariffs and high government intervention.
>>576518
>Why didn't the australian aboriginals industrialize, whereas white colonists to Australia did?
oh come on, I though we were having a non-meme discussion, if you're asking this question unironically, then I just don't know how to reply to you
And Japan actually did industrialise "unnaturally" (that is to say, specific, concentrated efforts were put in place by the state and the nation) TWICE!
And as far as Brazil goes.
>extraordinary claims of geography
dont' be dumb, just look at a map once in a while
>other factors
the wiki article is corroborated by this study, so I'm gonna supply both
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_Brazil
http://www.carvaomineral.com.br/conteudo/ingles/coop_alemanha.pdf
>>576528
>The American North-West had been inhabited for a shorter period of time than the North-East
well, it was also agrarian, less wealthy and the coal deposits there were harder to reach, so I don't see how that supports the "dumb niggers" thesis, just goes to show the agrarian/industrial divide
>And look at the industrialised U.S.S.R. Conditions were just as shitty after the industrialisation due to the bad regimes and rulers.
I'm talking about 1861-1914 Russia and the massive industrial and urbanisation growth that happened after the abolition of serfdom.
The US kept them in line with freedom.
>>576709
I'm Brazilian. That is the most idiotic image I've seen all week. Congratulations.
>>576594
Brazil still has that
>>575623
2 ez
>Brazil
Moortugal's resource mining colony
>US
colony for the sake of building a strong healthy colony
>>575955
>almost
implying our shit hasn't fucked up a long time ago
>>575712
>Mid 1975
>Portugal still has it's colonies
>>576838
also
>Rhodesia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>575759
>Interbred with the natives
What? Amerindians weren't really that assimilated in Brazil. Why, I'm inclined to guess native north Americans mixed with colonizers more often.
>>575911
very underrated post
>>575644
Retarded as fuck.
Third world was the group of countries "led" by Yugoslavia, that weren't neither USA satellites nor USSR satellites.
Because the power of a polity is determined by the quality of its subjects above all. Compare Norway with Saudi Arabia, for example.
>>575644
>Finland
>Second world
kek
>>576911
>>575911
Most of Australia is also uninhabitable. Maybe to a worst extend than Brazil.
Illegal logging and deforestation are a problem, but have nothing to do with the lack of development.
The problem is indeed corruption and public management inefficiency, mainly due to the monstrous size of the Brazilian government.
>>575644
>Yugoslavia
>2nd world
>>576388
Explain West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky then. They are white but such absolute shitholes it's hard to believe, pretty much Brazil tier.
>>575623
America:
>Lots of natural harbors with access to a river system that penetrates deep into the continent
>Primarily VERY good land, lack of jungle
>Early economy not focused on cash crops (except in the South)
>Climate more attractive to European immigrants
>More resources than Brazil
>Mild Corruption
Brazil
>All natural harbors sandwiched between mountains and arable land, save for mouth of the Amazon
>Primarily Jungle
>Early economy dependent on cash crops, shaping economic structure very unevenly
>Climate is shit for attracting the millions of immigrants the US got during the late 19th/early 20th century
>fewer resources
>Institutionalized Corruption
Bureaucracy. Companies have to spend a huge amount of time figuring out how to fill tax and labor forms.
No one wants to invest in new businesses because of this. So, smart Brazilians want to be government workers, not entrepreneurs.
>>575623
Fuck off /int/
>>575623
Blame the republic, damn those ungrateful landowners!
>>575623
I'm a brazilian myself living in Japan. In my opinion the reason why Brazil is such a shithole but the US is a powerhouse is: leadership and culture. There is no denying the US inherited if not all, some part of the british culture, a culture that embraced capitalism and entrepreneur and would spawn the first industrial revolution.
>b-but anon, Sierra Leone was also a british colony
Fair observation, but Sierra Leone was a exploration colony, just like Brazil.
And when it comes to leadership, Brazil has had no strong leader with the exception of Getulio Vargas, a nationalistic dictator
>>576997
Only the last feature matters. All of the rest is irrelevant.
>>576805
>still
there's your problem
government protectionism only works until you reach industrialization. After that you gotta let market forces take the reins. Governments should only intervene when the economy is doing badly.
>>575623
Because the us population at the time of its founding was consisted mainly by white hard-working Protestants while huestan's majority-nigger and blanda upped population was ruled by Alberto Barbosa Catholic elites.
>>575911
why was brazil approved for the Olympics and world cup stadiums
