There's a thread on Reddit now about the Pampas region in South America being the most underdeveloped place on earth Two of the comments about how this happened: >Probably because Argentina did not start as a rural society, and when the Europeans came, they divided those lands into large farms. Probably 20 ppl per farm is enough to sustain them.>This is just it. It was the encomienda and latifundia system with one big landlord and many peasants (who stayed peasants) that has made this area so underpopulated.>The opposite is what happened in North America where every 400 to 500 hundred meters was a separate farm with a farm house and families (originally), which needed constellations of towns and small cities. The further ramification of this was these many small scale farmers had 'a stake' in making their farm a success and their local town and school and roads. This led to strong local institutions and government practices. This did not happen in South America. Did South America fail not due to any recent political decision but due to the development of its farming practices in the colonial era?
>>219857352argentina needs gorillion indians asap
>>219857352Regarding the Pampas, South America did not "fail", in fact, you could say such practices led to Uruguay, Argentina and Rio Grande do Sul being much better than their neighbors.Cattle exports were the main breadwinner for most of their history, and I'm not just talking about petty money, it's literally the reason behind that "Argentina was once rich" meme.Reddit retards always being retards.
>reddit thread
Yes and this same concept of plantations/latifundias versus family/yeoman farmers was also the main reason most northerners in the US hated slavery and were willing to fight it in the run up to the civil war (read up on the "free soil" movement for more information)
>>219857352>400,000 sq. miles>30 million peopleidk that seems pretty well populated to me
