7 ms·
The US would have thrived on any system because it started the game with a continent whose indigenous population was small, pluralistic, nomadic and technologic
by anigbrowl 8d ago
The US would have thrived on any system because it started the game with a continent whose indigenous population was small, pluralistic, nomadic and technologically backward, and whose natural resources were abundant or completely untouched. The colonists had access to the technology of the leading power in the world at the time, and had imported slaves in bulk from another technologically backward continent to jump-start their economy by the time the US was established.
- coldtea 8d agoNot to mention their main competitor self-destructed twice in 1914 and 1939
- WalterBright 8d agoYou're overlooking the 19th century. Germany did not self-destruct. It was destroyed by the Allied powers.
- coldtea 7d ago"Their main competitor" meaning western Europe. Not specifically Germany or the UK. So the point still stands. Whatever growth US had in the 19 century, Europe self-destructing through WWI and WWII ensured US will be the lead in the 20th.
- WalterBright 8d agoWhy did Mexico and S America fail to thrive?
- anigbrowl 8d agoThey 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 8d 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 8d agoIt'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.