Contrasts

[Ruso]

If there is one unfortunate characteristic of Latin America is its contrasts between rich and poor. While a few people's only problem is choosing which suit to wear at their daily parties, others have to struggle to maintain their starving children alive. Some areas of this continental region are extremely urbanized, and modernized by industry, while others could accurately be compared with a pigpen. What do you think about these differences? Do you agree with sociologists when they state that Latin America is not capitalistic, but feudal?

[monsoon]

I agree with this statement. Maybe Argentina is different, but aside from that country, there does seem to be almost no middle class in most of Latin America.

[Ruso]

I agree with this statement.  Maybe Argentina is different, but aside from that country, there does seem to be almost no middle class in most of Latin America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are right. The middle class in most of South America is almost unexistant. Argentina, Chile and Brasil are allegedly growing in that matter.(Colombia, according to some)

This feudal system is what makes it so difficult to find an efficient solution to its problems. Some say that it would disastrous to apply capitalism, and propose socialist policies. Others defend capitalism and promote it as the only way out of poverty.

[Captain Obvious]

Ruso ... read Hernando de Soto's (No, not THAT de Soto) book called "The Mystery of Capital." He's based out of Peru, I believe. It's a stunning work.

And yes, Latin America could be described as feudal. There's certainly nothing capitalistic about it, even when the governments claim to be market-based. Read the book and you'll see why...

[Ruso]

Ruso ... read Hernando de Soto's (No, not THAT de Soto) book called "The Mystery of Capital." He's based out of Peru, I believe. It's a stunning work. 

And yes, Latin America could be described as feudal. There's certainly nothing capitalistic about it, even when the governments claim to be market-based. Read the book and you'll see why...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just look at the differences with North and South American revolutions. North-burgeous rev., led by intelectuals and a strong, surging middle class

South-"Criollo" rev, led by powerful families whose only interest was to drive spaniards away, and become the real opressors of the land and the natives.

[monsoon]

I think the difference is this.

In the North, the settlers (mainly English) came to stay. It was a colony of England.

In the South, the Europeans that came (mainly Spanish and Portugese) came to plunder so they could return to Europe as rich men.

[Ruso]

I think the difference is this. 

In the North, the settlers (mainly English) came to stay.  It was a colony of England.

In the South, the Europeans that came (mainly Spanish and Portugese) came to plunder so they could return to Europe as rich men.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that is a correct generalization. In Argentina and Chile, the same thing happened, and they are now some of the most developed latin american nations in the world.

There are some theories that state that North America and southern South America were popoulated to live, because they were not as naturally rich as Central and Andean America.