karma is a BITCH, birdshits!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50217141)

And the more "colonized" by whites a brown country became, the nicer it became. E.g., South Africa was the nicest in Africa bc it was 15% white. Argentina and Uruguay the nicest in Latin America while Bolivia and Guatemala are shitholds.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50217656)

and Ireland GDP is fraud cause US comps have HQ there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50217657)

In the United States, roughly one-third of occupied housing units lacked complete plumbing facilities in 1950

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218044)

Also how many of that 1/3 were retarded nigs?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218053)

Several Latin American countries the US meddled in are still richer than China even today lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218018)

doubt

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218031)

• Uruguay (~$23,053 nominal / ~$39,030 PPP)

• Panama (~$19,369 nominal)

• Costa Rica (~$17,860 nominal)

• Chile (~$16,365 – $17,994 nominal / ~$37,336 PPP)

• Argentina (~$12,814 – $16,021 nominal / ~$33,187 PPP)

Dominican Republic too, depending on the datagset.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218036)

"US foreign meddling in latin america" typically refers to 1954 arbenz coup, 1980s contras, ft benning training cartels, smedley butler making central america safe for united fruit, etc.

these are brown amerindian countries where the locals resent being treated like plantation slaves, so they are periodically organized by educated UMC lawyer types to contest US corporate-military power and local elites.

whatever the cause, nicaragua, honduras, guatemala GDP is not approaching china when PPP adjusted.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218120)

And anyway the point is that China was poorer than every country in Latin America until very recently, even the brown ones you mentioned. due to communism in China (which the US prevented in Lat Am). Hell, afyer 30 years of anti-imperialist leftist rule, China was poorer than Nigeria. It has been playing catchup for 50 years after abndoning communism and is still poorer than some LaAm countries. But you are too stupid to understand my point.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218122)

"communism bad" is too simplistic. china's current model, a kind of national socialism, is very good and probably better for the average person in latin america than being part of a zio-american imperial fief.

what is called "communism" is often just the locals deciding that they want their resources to benefit themselves and not international finance capital.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218162)

LOL at deriding "zio american imperial fiefs" while pumping up Bukele, you are a total motherfucking drooling idiot

"what is called "communism" is often just the locals deciding that they want their resources to benefit themselves and not international finance capital."

This reqlly worked well in Maoist China, Cambodia, Cuba, Venezuela, the USSR, etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218311)

If the CIA was in charge every LatAm country wouldve had a hard right strongman like Bukele in charge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218135)

You seem retarded

Yeah dictators that mean well never fuck up a country

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218307)

china in 1900 was corrupt and destabilized by foreign interference. but it had the necessary ingredients required to ultimately thrive.

japan in 1830 was a backward feudal state. but it had the necessary ingredients required to ultimately thrive.

germany in 100 was a tribal hinterland of swamps and forests. but it had the necessary ingredients required to ultimately thrive.

australia and subsaharan africa in 1500 did not have the necessary ingredients. they were never going to develop advanced technological societies because their race did not sufficiently develop abstract reasoning and long term planning. their cognition and biology are adapted to warm abundant climes.

every race is capable of rising to a certain level of civilizational attainment but sometimes there are setbacks. sometimes those setbacks come from foreign interference, and sometimes they come from internal cycles of growth and decay.

the most difficulty in teasing apart these factors arises in case of the middle (brown) races and various racial hybrids. there is also the factor of state leadership which organizes the racial raw material at its disposal. rhodesia under white leadership was more developed than zimbabwe under black leadership, despite demographics that were largely the same. likewise el salvador under arab leadership is a different story than el salvador under amerindian rule.

in short, it's complicated and can't be reduced to a single monocausal explanation. however i think a large part of the variance can be explained by reference to a few dominant factors and their dynamics.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218076)

dumbfurk birdshits yap abt race and IQ but western euro this century has lost its innovation, cultural relevance and world power, its becoming more like latin america. this is despite u morons claiming IQ is everything. now u will blame migrants for all this but even that shows IQ isnt everything cause clearly euro had some dumbfurk leaders who let in muzzie and nigga trash

anyway, furk u chods, birdshitistan was poor as furk pre 1500 AD, u had no great civs and ancient greece/rome were not birdshit so kiss my turd ass

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5916630&forum_id=2#50218183)