The United States and Brazil

Pacific_Victory · Nov 26, 2012

Both of these are extremely large, resource rich, former European colonies in the Western Hemisphere who eventually gained their independence and struck out into the world alone.

So my question is why did America become a world superpower by the middle of the 20th century and Brazil did not.

Why does America now occupy the preeminent spot in geopolitics and Brazil does not?

Where did Brazil go wrong? Or where did the United States go right?

Is the difference cultural? Religious? Geographical? Demographic?

Did Brazil ever have the chance to be a superpower? Was it failed by it's government?

How would things be different if the American colonists had adapted the kind of government early Brazil did, and vice versa?

Discuss

Jake10 · Nov 26, 2012

A great deal of this comes down to the element I've mentioned time and time again, corruption. Nations can have resources, but if they're not managed correctly gains are not made. A look at Canada, for example, where we see a British colony that most didn't care for, and yet the country prospered despite harsh climates that prevented them from growing food most of the year.

Corruption in the US did not get out of control, allowing for the industrial revolution, research and exploration to expand.

Jake10 · Nov 26, 2012

Just to elaborate on what I'm referring to. A state has funds collected from taxes. The state needs to import certain objects, and the fund managers take on the task of obtaining those objects at the best price possible. However, vendors propositioning the fund managers to spend more in return for favors result in losses to the state while fund managers and vendors benefit.

"I need to buy some rubber, what's the best price you can give me?"

"I can sell them to you for X. Or I can sell them to you for 2X, but I would put 0.5X into your personal account. Which do you prefer?"

The answer to this question determines the prosperity of nations.

Jhangora · Nov 26, 2012

An article I read many years back stated that Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina should not be viewed as Third World countries but Second World countries which failed to make it to the First World.

The reasons would be numerous and I am not aware about the details.

1. As Jake10 pointed out corruption among the ruling class.

2. Exporting raw materials to the Western world rather than creating value added items.

3. AFAIK most of the Brazilian population lives near the coast and the Western part has thick forests, that would have prevented trade between Brazil and Western South American nations.

Pacific_Victory · Nov 27, 2012

Jhangora said:
An article I read many years back stated that Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina should not be viewed as Third World countries but Second World countries which failed to make it to the First World.

The reasons would be numerous and I am not aware about the details.

1. As Jake10 pointed out corruption among the ruling class.

2. Exporting raw materials to the Western world rather than creating value added items.

3. AFAIK most of the Brazilian population lives near the coast and the Western part has thick forests, that would have prevented trade between Brazil and Western South American nations.

Of course Brazil's prosperity in the early days would have been dependent on sea trade given the situation you described... something they should have inherited from the Portuguese perhaps.

Pacific_Victory · Nov 27, 2012

Jake10 said:
Just to elaborate on what I'm referring to. A state has funds collected from taxes. The state needs to import certain objects, and the fund managers take on the task of obtaining those objects at the best price possible. However, vendors propositioning the fund managers to spend more in return for favors result in losses to the state while fund managers and vendors benefit.

"I need to buy some rubber, what's the best price you can give me?"

"I can sell them to you for X. Or I can sell them to you for 2X, but I would put 0.5X into your personal account. Which do you prefer?"

The answer to this question determines the prosperity of nations.

Just how bad has corruption been in Brazil historically?

The merchant of Venice · Nov 27, 2012

Cultural differences, and different legacy from their colonial masters

dagul · Nov 27, 2012

There goes my admiration over the British Empire. Among the colonial powers from Europe, those territories which were inhabited by the British themselves like the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hongkong, Singapore and arguably, South Africa are all prosperous. When the Industrial Revolution occurred in Great Britain, these territories also had the share of them and there was no keeping of trade secrets because the inhabitants of the territories were the British themselves and not any other people. During the time that the age of inventions and scientific milestones of the 18th and 19th century happened in U.K. these territories also had their kind of share. Of course, the U.S. had other progressive migrants from Europe like the Germans, the Irish, the French and the Dutch.

Then lets talk about the corruption as suggested by, Jake. South American countries share the same history with the Philippines and if there is a common factor between my country and them besides being Catholics is CORRUPTION, that is sky rocketing as manifested by dictators and military junta that our respective countries produce. We Filipinos are a little bit lucky because the dictator that we had in the person of Marcos was a lawyer, and so his kind of dictatorship had some shades of justice like the Philippine Courts of Law during his time were working well but of course the military were extremely abusive being his attack dogs.

Going back to the situation of Brazil as compared to U.S.A. while it is true that the former was also settled with a lot of Europeans but most of them were from Portugal and Italy, and with all due respect to the nationals of these nations, they were not at par with the British, the Germans, and the French regarding achievements in the modern science and fields of inventions. These Protestant European countries averring on ideals regarding the reformation were also by the book when it comes to obedience to the rule of law, in contrast to the Catholic ways that had the history of corruption within the church as an institution, and such was the reason why Martin Luther wrote his theses.

The seemingly rigid ways of the Protestants, I submit had contributed unto the improvement of their society against the laid back ways of the Catholics. Though, I like the Catholic festivities

Brazil have Samba, and lots of festivities which are related with the religion and the same situation is true with the Philippines.

Moreover, the U.S. being the only nation that was successful in overthrowing the British which at that time was the most powerful empire in the world, naturally must be better than their colonial masters.

Jake10 · Nov 27, 2012

Pacific_Victory said:
Just how bad has corruption been in Brazil historically?

Dagul is right, corruption is a problem throughout all of Latin America. There is something to note about the ruling powers being corrupt, and that is that it works its way down through society. The money that is supposed to go into public works, education and research ends up in the pockets of government officials, resulting in unemployment, ignorance and a lack of innovation. Unemployed people turn to theft, uneducated youth turn to vandalism to express themselves because they have no discipline, and there are no answers to make changes.

You can see this in Latin American countries, where taxi drivers try to rip passengers off, police officers look for bribes, gangs are strong, schools lack resources, politicians get elected and contract their friends and family members... It becomes a vicious cycle which is very difficult to break. The only way to break it is for a straight government to take office set out to clean this all up.

amberroberts09 · Nov 27, 2012

Every step we take we found different people, different culture and different languages.

Lecen · Nov 27, 2012

I'm going to ignore the very stupid comments made by some in this thread and answer the first question.

The short and straight answer is: stability.

The United States has the same Constitution and same currency since the beginning. The last military conflict inside its national territory was the Civil War that ended in 1865.

Now let's take a look at Brazil.

Until 1889 Brazil was a monarchy, as I believe everyone knows (at least everyone who has read a little bit about the history of Brazil). It had the same Constitution since it became independent and the very same currency (the Real) it had for hundreds of years. Just to have an idea, Pedro Álvares Cabral, the discover of Brazil in 1500, was paid in Real.

The country had political and economical stability. It was, along with the U.S. (and ignoring Canada, still almost a British colony then), the only nation in the Americas to never default. It always honored its obligations. It was paid its debts.

So, until 1889 Brazil was seen, along with the U.S. (again ignoring Canada for the reason given above), as an exception in the Americans. This means that foreign investors placed their money without fear in Brazil.

Think of nowadays. No in 2012, would you prefer to invest your money in Greece or in Denmark?

However, Brazil became a Republic in 1889. Obviously, neither Republic is by nature better than the Monarch nor the Monarchy is better than Republic. It all depend on the country and the local situation. The problem about Brazil was that it fell prey of military insubordination so common to its Hispanic-American neighbors. There were mutinies, rebellions and coups all time.

Thus came instability. And then the foreign investors disappeared. With no money coming in, the economy sank. That resulted in further instability.

What happened? Since 1889 we seven had Constitutions (in 1891, in 1934, 1937, 1946, 1965, 1967 and 1988). Seven. If the most important law of a country isn't respected, what else will? Since 1889 we had eight currencies (the Cruzeiro, then the Cruzeiro Novo, then the Cruzeiro again, Cruzado, Cruzado Novo, Cruzeiro again, Cruzeiro Real and finally the Real). Who will put his/her money in a country where the currency isn't worth a thing?

When things changed? Well, it was a slow process, but we could say that it bagan in 1991 in the Collor administration. But the big change came during Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration. He brought back the Real, gave the country economical stability and consequently, political stability. Nowadays Brazil is the sixth largest economy of the world if I'm not mistaken. Is there room for more? Yes, there is.

And please ignore the stupid comments about corruption and impenetrable jungles in the west. I had forgotten that in Brasília (the national capital that lies... in the west) people had to ran alway from jaguars amidst the jungle.

Jake10 · Nov 27, 2012

See what I mean about uneducated people seeking to express themselves.

Tairusiano · Nov 27, 2012

i agre with Lecen
Stability is probably the most important point.
the country economy was controlled by the great ranchers, that produced raw materials, not very industrialized like USA
the country only began a great industrial project in the vargas presidency
the influence and intervention of foreign powers dont helped either, by most of the 20th century the country was never stable, corruption is far less than most people think

Jhangora · Nov 27, 2012

Lecen said:
I'm going to ignore the very stupid comments made by some in this thread and answer the first question.

The short and straight answer is: stability.

The United States has the same Constitution and same currency since the beginning. The last military conflict inside its national territory was the Civil War that ended in 1865.

Now let's take a look at Brazil.

Until 1889 Brazil was a monarchy, as I believe everyone knows (at least everyone who has read a little bit about the history of Brazil). It had the same Constitution since it became independent and the very same currency (the Real) it had for hundreds of years. Just to have an idea, Pedro Álvares Cabral, the discover of Brazil in 1500, was paid in Real.

The country had political and economical stability. It was, along with the U.S. (and ignoring Canada, still almost a British colony then), the only nation in the Americas to never default. It always honored its obligations. It was paid its debts.

So, until 1889 Brazil was seen, along with the U.S. (again ignoring Canada for the reason given above), as an exception in the Americans. This means that foreign investors placed their money without fear in Brazil.

Think of nowadays. No in 2012, would you prefer to invest your money in Greece or in Denmark?

However, Brazil became a Republic in 1889. Obviously, neither Republic as by nature better than the Monarch nor the Monarchy is better than Republic. It all depend on the country and the local situation. The problem about Brazil was that it fell prey of military insubordination so common to its Hispanic-American neighbors. There were mutinies, rebellions and coups all time.

Thus came instability. And then the foreign investors disappeared. With no money coming in, the economy sank. That resulted in further instability.

What happened? Since 1889 we seven had Constitutions (in 1891, in 1934, 1937, 1946, 1965, 1967 and 1988). Seven. If the most important law of a country isn't respected, what else will? Since 1889 we had eight currencies (the Cruzeiro, then the Cruzeiro Novo, then the Cruzeiro again, Cruzado, Cruzado Novo, Cruzeiro again, Cruzeiro Real and finally the Real). Who will put his/her money in a country where the currency isn't worth a thing?

When things changed? Well, it was a slow process, but we could say that it bagan in 1991 in the Collor administration. But the big change came during Fernando Henrique Cardoso administration. He brought back the Real, gave the country economical stability and consequently, political stability. Nowadays Brazil is the sixth largest economy of the world if I'm not mistaken. Is there room for more? Yes, there is.

And please ignore the stupid comments about corruption and impenetrable jungles in the west. I had forgotten that in Brasília (the national capital that lies... in the west) people had to ran alway from jaguars amidst the jungle.

Thanx a lot for the explanation Lecen. I don't know much about Brazil's History apart from Pele. And we don't get much media coverage about Latin America in the Indian media. However, I do remember reading news reports about hyper inflation in some Latin American countries many years ago.

What is the underlying factor behind it. Hope there are many Jaguars left in the Jungles of Brazil.

Lecen · Nov 27, 2012

Jhangora said:
Thanx a lot for the explanation Lecen. I don't know much about Brazil's History apart from Pele. And we don't get much media coverage about Latin America in the Indian media. However, I do remember reading news reports about hyper inflation in some Latin American countries many years ago.

What is the underlying factor behind it. Hope there are many Jaguars left in the Jungles of Brazil.

The onça pintada (as we call the jaguar) was seen in most of what is nowadays Brazil. Now you may find the jaguar mostly in the Amazon forest (located in the northwest) and here and there in other places. As far as I know it is not in danger of extinction.

There was hyper inflaction in Brazil until 1994. It was the reason why we had so many currencies. The greatest (but not the sole) reason to hyper inflaction was that the government spent more than it had. To cover the hole it would ask for money abroad or it would produce more currency bills.

The problem is that the currency lost its value every time the government produced moe bills than they were worth it. And eventually the government did not have enough money to pay the interests of the foreign debts it owned. Thus no foreigner would put his money in Brazil since the government did not honor its obligations.

All that caused hyperinflaction.

The government instead of fixing what was wrong (stop spending, borrowing and producing increasingly worthless bills) it would simply create a new currency. Just like that! Like a new currency, with a new name would stop inflaction!

As I said that ended with Fernando Henrique Cardoso. His government restored Brazil's old image of trustful borrower, stopped spending more money than it had and stopped producing bills.

Years passed and former president Lula da Silva surfed on Fernando Henrique's good deeds.

Jhangora · Nov 27, 2012

That is good to know and certainly the US seems to be doing exactly that at this point in time. The only difference is that it has lots more Military and Political influence than Brazil 20 years back. While the US economy was melting in 2008 - I took a break for a few months and did nothing but watch coverage of the horrific event on the TV.

Sometime around that period I also saw a news story that lots of young people from Portugal are settling in Brazil. I think that is very good for the Brazilian economy. Brazil should not doubt take command of the Latin American world and emerge as a responsible leader. Boa sorte!

Lecen · Nov 27, 2012

Jhangora said:
That is good to know and certainly the US seems to be doing exactly that at this point in time. The only difference is that it has lots more Military and Political influence than Brazil 20 years back. While the US economy was melting in 2008 - I took a break for a few months and did nothing but watch coverage of the horrific event on the TV.

Sometime around that period I also saw a news story that lots of young people from Portugal are settling in Brazil. I think that is very good for the Brazilian economy. Brazil should not doubt take command of the Latin American world and emerge as a responsible leader. Boa sorte!

There are many differences between the U.S. and Brazil. The United States is a militaristic nation. Regardless if the common American citizen believes that his nation is devoted to world peace, freedom and blah, blah, the United States is entirely devoted to wage war. It is almost never at (and in) peace. It always has a national enemy: the English, followed by the Indians, then the Nazi, Communists and now the Terrorists. Thus it needs powerful armed forces and great influence in the world. The United States would never accept the idea of being another Canada or Australia, for example (to cite two former British colonies). The cultural idea of "you're either a winner or a loser, there is no second place" that is so strong in the United States prevents it from cooling down. It need bigger and more powerful guns. This leads to more money lost and to God knows what in the future.

Brazil has a very, very weak armed forces. It has no interest at all on waging war to anyone. Thus it could never become a true superpower, even if it had an economy large enough to allow the country to claim that position.

Jhangora · Nov 27, 2012

Lecen said:
There are many differences between the U.S. and Brazil. The United States is a militaristic nation. Regardless if the common American citizen believes that his nation is devoted to world peace, freedom and blah, blah, the United States is entirely devoted to wage war. It is almost never at (and in) peace. It always has a national enemy: the English, followed by the Indians, then the Nazi, Communists and now the Terrorists. Thus it needs powerful armed forces and great influence in the world. The United States would never accept the idea of being another Canada or Australia, for example (to cite two former British colonies). The cultural idea of "you're either a winner or a loser, there is no second place" that is so strong in the United States prevents it from cooling down. It need bigger and more powerful guns. This leads to more money lost and to God knows what in the future.

Brazil has a very, very weak armed forces. It has no interest at all on waging war to anyone. Thus it could never become a true superpower, even if it had an economy large enough to allow the country to claim that position.

The day will come my friend. The US wasn't the strongest Military planet on the planet about a century back. Rest assured Brazil will be a Military power one day too, if everything goes well. As you noted the US has been engaged in constant wars for the past two decades, that is what weakened Great Britain not so long ago.

Smoke the Peace Pipe

Pacific_Victory · Nov 27, 2012

Good to hear from inside Brazil itself.

Let's be careful with the Ad hominems if we can Gentlemen, I'd hate for this thread to get closed.

So how did Brazilians differ in their westward expansion (into the rainforest?) and their treatment of Natives, compared to the US?

Lecen · Nov 27, 2012

Pacific_Victory said:
Good to hear from inside Brazil itself.

Let's be careful with the Ad hominems if we can Gentlemen, I'd hate for this thread to get closed.

So how did Brazilians differ in their westward expansion (into the rainforest?) and their treatment of Natives, compared to the US?

The United States began as a small country (only the thirteen former colonies) and its expansion occurred after its independence.

Brazil, on the other hand, was born with almost the exact same size as nowadays. The interior of Brazil was, however, scarcely populated. It would be until the 1960s. Around 80% of the population lived along the coast or the interior close to it.

There is one big, very big in fact, difference between Brazil and the United States regarding each country's behavior toward its native population. During the colonial era Indians were enslaved and killed but most were slowly assimilated. This is why the vast majority of the population of the Brazilian North, Northeastern and Center-west are caboclos, that is, descendants of Whites and Indians. The equivalent in Hispanic-America is the mestizo. Until the 20th century the caboclos were called in Brazil Mamluks because the offspring of the Portuguese and Indian looked like Arabs.

There are fewer caboclos in the Brazilian South and Southeastern regions because of the large influx of European immigrants during the late 19th century and early 20th century and due to importation of African slaves from 1550 until 1850. That's why Rio de Janeiro is famous for its beautiful mulatas (women descended from Portuguese and Africans) and not for caboclas.

Search

Search

The United States and Brazil

Pacific_Victory

Jake10

Jake10

Jhangora

Pacific_Victory

Pacific_Victory

The merchant of Venice

dagul

Jake10

amberroberts09

Lecen

Jake10

Tairusiano

Jhangora

Lecen

Jhangora

Lecen

Jhangora

Pacific_Victory

Lecen

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions