Anonymous wrote:It makes more sense that it is geography and resources that makes a difference. China and India have been the two greatest economies because they have large area with fertile soil plains fed by huge Perennial Himalayan rivers. Hence they always had(have) huge population which in turn creates a large internal market for them to produce and consume, propelling the economy forward.

US has relatively usable area(with plains) with fertile eastern half with big size and big resources. Canada is also very flat with enough water resources to produce large aomount of grains. It also benefited from the cold and only the brave venture there. Spanish went to Canada but found it too cold and went to Latin America. South America is bad terrain. It has either the Andes, Thick Amazonian forests or deserts for the most part. THEY LACK PLAINS and arable land..

China actually has very little arable land that is suited for growing crops in relation to its land mass and large population. Food insecurity has been driving Chinese policy for millennia. It's why the Chinese have long been prolific sea traders and spread Chinese populations to many other areas of the Asian continent.

So yes, while China does have the largest amount of growing lands it is woefully inadequate for its population size and generally a smaller percentage of total land compared to pretty much a

Agricultural regions of Mainland China in 1986
Although China's agricultural output is the largest in the world, only about 15% of its total land area can be cultivated. China's arable land, which represents 10% of the total arable land in the world, supports over 20% of the world's population.[citation needed] Of this approximately 1.4 million square kilometers of arable land, only about 1.2% (116,580 square kilometers) permanently supports crops and 525,800 square kilometers are irrigated.[citation needed] The land is divided into approximately 200 million households, with an average land allocation of just 0.65 hectares (1.6 acres).

China's limited space for farming has been a problem throughout its history, leading to chronic food shortage and famine. While the production efficiency of farmland has grown over time, efforts to expand to the west and the north have met with limited success, as such land is generally colder and drier than traditional farmlands to the east. Since the 1950s, farm space has also been pressured by the increasing land needs of industry and cities.

Um. OP, have you ever read much European history? I mean history going back centuries, not just the past one or two? Do you know how large and powerful the Spanish Empire was? Did you know that Spain essentially ruled over western Europe for several centuries (including over the low lands)? here's a hint - google Habsburg Spain and see what you find.

And going back way before that, do you recollect who had a ginormous empire that extended all the way from Britain to the Middle East? Yes, indeed, it was the Romans, who where - wait for it - SOUTHERNERS!

Please, get back to school and redo your history classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

Thats all BS based on white man myth. China and India are for the most part tropical countries and they have been the human history's two longest surviving continuous civilizations. India and China also were the two largest economies throughout human history until about 1800s when plundered resources from Americas and Slave labor brought their economy down. The two Asian giants are back to being the top economies this century, rightfully claiming their place in the top.

Yours is just as mythic but not more accurate.

You are wrong. India and China have the largest arable land outside the USA. And they have resources to feed their 1 billion people. And when that 1 billion people are educated and are productive they have internal market that is tough to be beaten by any one else.

Why do you think Russia or UK or Egypt or Persia or Greece or France or Rome not able to sustain themselves for thousands of years YET China and India are always around in the same shape or form? NO ONE BUT THEM have sustained their own culture, language, religion for 5000 years. Europe has been christianized, Christianity is Middle east religion. Rest of the world including Africa, Americas,Middle east are all either Christian or Islam, two foreign religions.

Only China and India have not been fully conquered by any foreign powers. They have been invaded(especially India) UT never ever forced to change their culture, religion or language. WHY NOT? Because of their huge size the ones going from outside get absorbed and become part of them.

It makes more sense that it is geography and resources that makes a difference. China and India have been the two greatest economies because they have large area with fertile soil plains fed by huge Perennial Himalayan rivers. Hence they always had(have) huge population which in turn creates a large internal market for them to produce and consume, propelling the economy forward.

US has relatively usable area(with plains) with fertile eastern half with big size and big resources. Canada is also very flat with enough water resources to produce large aomount of grains. It also benefited from the cold and only the brave venture there. Spanish went to Canada but found it too cold and went to Latin America. South America is bad terrain. It has either the Andes, Thick Amazonian forests or deserts for the most part. THEY LACK PLAINS and arable land..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

Thats all BS based on white man myth. China and India are for the most part tropical countries and they have been the human history's two longest surviving continuous civilizations. India and China also were the two largest economies throughout human history until about 1800s when plundered resources from Americas and Slave labor brought their economy down. The two Asian giants are back to being the top economies this century, rightfully claiming their place in the top.

Yours is just as mythic but not more accurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

Thats all BS based on white man myth. China and India are for the most part tropical countries and they have been the human history's two longest surviving continuous civilizations. India and China also were the two largest economies throughout human history until about 1800s when plundered resources from Americas and Slave labor brought their economy down. The two Asian giants are back to being the top economies this century, rightfully claiming their place in the top.

Anonymous wrote:And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.

I once heard that the regions further away from the equator are more successful, and while there are exceptions, there is a lot to it. Northern v Soithern Europe, as you mention, and Canada/US vs Mexico/CA, but many others too.

The theory is that ancient people needed to be more resourceful to live in colder climates, and thus the population was self-selecting as to whom ventured from the warmer areas, where humans originated, to colder climates.

How about French Indochina?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:French colonies didn't do so well.

Quebec is a lot better off than Mexico or anything in latin america.

Montreal is one of the prettiest cities in the Americas and has a much healthier economy than Buenos Aires (as an example of another super pretty city in the Americas).

Canada is part of the British commonwealth, and yes, that includes Quebec.

The french may have colonized Quebec first, but that's meaningless. The Spanish colonized Florida and California. Parts of Texas belonged to Mexico.

I shouldn't be surprised at this, but I am kind of amazed some times at how ignorant Americans are about history, let alone US history.

Catholocism vs. Protestantism factored into it.

Anonymous wrote:French colonies didn't do so well.

Quebec is a lot better off than Mexico or anything in latin america.

Montreal is one of the prettiest cities in the Americas and has a much healthier economy than Buenos Aires (as an example of another super pretty city in the Americas).

French colonies didn't do so well.

There are differences in the authority of central government between Latin America and the US and Canada. While I've seen discussion of the differences with respect to police, the same differences may be broader.

hmm, have you heard of smallpox?

And then I look over to europe and see that as bad as the UK and France are doing, they are a lot better off than Spain & Portugal.

Is there something just inherent in Spanish and Portuguese culture that lends to more dysfunction when it comes to general economics and government administration?

If the British colonized mexico and south america, I don't think we would have the same issue we do today.

I think this split reflects Northern European culture vs Southern European culture.