Why Brazil could not become super power like US?

Oct 2016
1,167
Merryland
USA had (has) huge sections of open land in the middle, easily traversable and source of much food (grain and beef especially).

much of Brazil's interior was/is rain forest. can't get through it and it doesn't produce much. even cleared sections usually have poor soil.

USA had lots of mineral/metal resources, and fossil fuels. Brazil has (I believe) but not in same quantity / accessibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ichon and Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,826
SoCal
I might as well throw this out there--right now, Brazilian students perform much better than American students on the PISA exam:

Programme for International Student Assessment - Wikipedia

If this exam could be used to measure human capital (as I would think Professor Garrett Jones--author of Hive Mind--would agree), and if there was historically a large gap in human capital between the US and Brazil like there is right now, then Brazil's lower amount of human capital could have held it back relative to the US.

Just some food for thought.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,682
I might as well throw this out there--right now, Brazilian students perform much better than American students on the PISA exam:

Programme for International Student Assessment - Wikipedia

If this exam could be used to measure human capital (as I would think Professor Garrett Jones--author of Hive Mind--would agree), and if there was historically a large gap in human capital between the US and Brazil like there is right now, then Brazil's lower amount of human capital could have held it back relative to the US.

Just some food for thought.
Where do you see that Brasilian students score higher than the US? US has nothing to brag about but at least in all the years I looked at the US had higher scores than Brasil.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,826
SoCal
Where do you see that Brasilian students score higher than the US? US has nothing to brag about but at least in all the years I looked at the US had higher scores than Brasil.
I meant "much lower than American students". That was a clumsy typo on my own part.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,811
USA had (has) huge sections of open land in the middle, easily traversable and source of much food (grain and beef especially).

much of Brazil's interior was/is rain forest. can't get through it and it doesn't produce much. even cleared sections usually have poor soil.

USA had lots of mineral/metal resources, and fossil fuels. Brazil has (I believe) but not in same quantity / accessibility.
Exactly... the natural environment is completely different, although the countries are roughly the same size....

The closest any US state comes to the environment of Brazil are places like Alabama which coincidentally are also the poorest in the US (and would be much poorer if it were not for the federal government)

The US has easily accessible abundant resource: wood, water, coal, iron and oil...... they are/were conveniently located.... Plus its much easier to organize transportation across the whole country in the US than in Brazil
 
Aug 2018
274
America
-The US was given a nearly 50 year head start thanks to France bankrupting itself to make the American patriots succeed; even during the Napoleonic period when the Louisiana purchase occurred, Napoleon is still much to be thanked for the US's rise since it kept Britain occupied. Spain also supported it, giving it Florida and thus the entire US Atlantic seaboard. No Latin American nation, including Brazil, got this kind of preferential treatment.

-Spain and Portugal peaked earlier as empires and declined earlier as a result. This allowed Britain and France to dogpile on it especially in the War of the Spanish Succession where Gibraltar was lost and Spain came to be dominated by a French dynasty. This of course severely affected the development in the colonies, much of their riches now in the possession of the French and the British - and their partners like the Dutch and Scandinavians and even the Prussians to a certain extent - rather than with the Spaniards or with the inhabitants of its colonies. To paraphrase Eduardo Galeano, "Spain had the cow but the others had the milk".

Thus, when they became independent, virtually 50 years later than the US, they were poorer and exploited and even maintained this situation thanks to Britain's "informal empire", which included seizing Belize and the Falklands and establishing rubber and guano plantation colonies to bleed Latin American nations. Coffee was also another commodity the British imposed. This is why Latin Americans were primarily importers of industry but had no industrialisation of its own, though since this doesn't bode well with capitalist liberal history, people try to minimise it as much as possible. The US again did not suffer from this thanks to French intervention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,826
SoCal
@Escritor: Do you think that the US would have expanded to the same amount that it did in real life if Britain would have won the American Revolutionary War?
 
Aug 2018
274
America
@Escritor: Do you think that the US would have expanded to the same amount that it did in real life if Britain would have won the American Revolutionary War?
There would not have been any US in the first place since the 13 colonies would have remained part of the British Empire.