They are low IQ
/thread
Why do latin americans subject themselves to caring about what other countries outside of latin america think of them, when in reality, their countries have all the natural resources required to be completely independent of the rest of the world, completely unlike many other places on earth that are entirely dependent on trading with foreigners? Latin america does not need the rest of the world, they have the most fertile soil on earth and are entirely self-sustained, while it is actually the rest of the world that needs their soil for agri business and so on.
I don't think it's just that imho even if it might be part of it.
They probably consider themselves just like any other country out there that rely a lot on foreign trading, while that is completely not the case. They're very worried about their image when it comes to geo-politics, as if that very image was something crucial for the ability to negotiate with other countries, something that would have had a great importance if it really relied that much on foreigners, when it doesn't.
I mean, if foreign trading ceased today, then they would just adapt to the changes, maybe suffer some commotion for a period of time, then go back to being a developing country in a different way, something completely unheard of and impossible for certain countries out there.
>But they require knowledge and technique which they don’t have. This has to be imported.
There used to be a time where some Latin American countries were very prosperous despite not having had that many imported knowledge on how to run their countries, I am under the impression that they should be fully capable of doing so despite them not really showing it that much in recent times. I really don't think that the problem lies in not managing to run their countries, there are a plethora of different types of issues that have come to exist recently, which I wouldn't argue are exclusively due to the idea that they can't manage. If it had been true, then there wouldn't ever have been a period where they were prosperous as they wouldn't have been able to achieve it. It's just a matter of time.
But how do they manage to influence Latin America as much as they do? I mean, for that to happen, then there would first need to be people within high ranks of the countries to allow their influences to take hold of the places they find themselves in, I am not entirely sure what they would gain from it, if it's money and power, both, or something else. I'm not saying that places like the US aren't responsible when it has time and time again been proven to be true, but they only have as much power because they are allowed to have that much power through the use of people who have no loyalty to their nation.
Also, I'd even go as far as saying that this mentality of blaming the US for a lot of different issues, even if it is true, is something detrimental to the development of a country.
Having a lot of resources makes you less inclined to develope as you can just sell your products and make a lot of revenue from that. Russia is suffering from the same thing. You just have to have a little bit of developement to extract resources and that is enough for power hungry politicians. Russia is banana republic with oil and latin america is banana rebuplic with bananas
But is that really the only possible outcome? You used Russia as an example, but I would say that Russia is a bad example since the corruption there is to a height where there isn't even a possibility of even as much as seeing a politician who isn't corrupt.
I mean, surely, there must be people out there with the desire to achieve progress through the means of using the god-given resources that exist within the country, right? It can't be all that bad, even if what you mentioned is exactly what happens the majority of time with developing countries rich in resources, surely there must be a sentiment within the citizens of a country that actually desires a country to become developed.
Germany is just one of those cases where it feels like it has been a form of divine intervention that made the country become succesful, there were more reasons for the country not to prosper than it did to prosper, and it ended up being one of the most influential countries in the world, solely through the effort and characteristics of the citizen. Germany's number 1 export and resources are the people themselves, if you can explain how and why Germany managed that well, then you'd be finding the secret to the world.
I read your post and I am not sure I can understand the reason as to why someone who holds a high position in a country, wouldn't want to put the effort into making his country as prosperous as humanly possible.
The only thing I can really gather from your post is that maybe there might be a disconnect between politicians or such types of people, and basically any other citizen of a country that only has the desire of progress and prosperity for their country and countrymen. But it's the age-old argument that says that people who are politicians don't really have the country's best interest in mind when making decisions, it makes me think if the issue is really that shallow, which thinking about it a little bit more, seems like a cop-out.
There's a lot of different types of people getting fired and getting hired, I think it lies within the realm of possibility that at least some of these people really do want what's best for the country itself, instead of just saying that they are lazy liars who don't do anything because they don't like people, or something of that nature.
>I read your post and I am not sure I can understand the reason as to why someone who holds a high position in a country, wouldn't want to put the effort into making his country as prosperous as humanly possible.
Depends.
If you're a king and the state is your private property, then yes, that is of course in your interest.
If you're a politician in a democracy.. then no, the state and private interests are not aligned; instead it is better for you to use the state apparatus to siphon money to yourself.
If it really is true and that simple, then howcome the citizens of developing countries don't oppose politicians in a major way? What I'm being told here is something extremely simple, anyone could be informed of this and take it in, where's the revolt then?
It can't possibly be that easy, there must be other motives also. I'd also like to mention that people aren't really that predictable, there might even have been cases where this supposed siphoning of money has taken place, but afterwards some of these very people also did positive things, so it's not really that black and white, I'd say.
There's been communist dictatorships which were overthrown, but I think Clobenia is referring to the things that are happening right now instead of what happened in the past, or so I think, because that's what I was referring to. I might be wrong, but very recently there hasn't really been a case where the current government was overthrown for reasons relating to transparency, it seems like people just accept it and complain.
>If it really is true and that simple, then howcome the citizens of developing countries don't oppose politicians in a major way? What I'm being told here is something extremely simple, anyone could be informed of this and take it in, where's the revolt then?
You're overestimating the people. They are retarded.