+1

The central bank of Argentina was created in 1935, and it's been precisely one of the root causes of our horrible decay, Before having a Central Bank Argentina ran on a gold pattern that was 1:1 , 1nomina = 1gram , it devalued in the late 10's and Alvear's term tried to get it back to 1:1 with little success, still less than 3% inflation yearly. Government was small and taxes were super low, all of this was lost during the first military coup in 1930 which created the central bank, dobled inflation, imposed gun control laws, imposed tariffs and increase taxes (though not that much). Latin America's misery isn't U.S' fault, Latin America only had 2 real autonomous or what you would call "sovereign" countries which are Argentina and Brasil, these were the only 2 countries that truly embraced their Latin European heritage and in Argentina's case, implemented a Libertarian proyect, Brasil was on its way to do the same before they took down the monarchy (what BR Leftists wont tell you, Dom Pedro II abolished slavery and was dethroned by Racist Statist Repblicans). The rest of the countries once independized wanted to implemente very anti-western models because of resentment or foreign influence, but they never truly embraced Latin Liberty School values of the great thinkers we had, they associated all of that with the crown is my best guess, but i'll never TRULY know, Bolivia and Mexico (Spain's 2 most important colonies) were the worst examples of this, and it shows today, it is a severe reductionism and inaccuracy to blame U.S for their demise, U.S wasn't involved in foreign affairs that way when they (Latin Americans) decided to take such path post-independece. Not to mention, U.S aid wasn't any bigger or smaller than Soviet Aid to marxist guerrillas in the 50's all the way to the 70's , Latin Americans are autonomous people that made bad choices, i wouldn't blame the 2 superpowers at all, specially when their biggest cultural influencers were German, Austrians and Communist Frenchmen (that's what our academic elites teach in colleges to this day btw) As for the part on each system for each society being better at x system here's what i mean: Germanics are extremely orderly, industrious and collectivist people, you do collectivism best than anyone ever anywhere because that is what your peoples have been doing for over 3000 years. Latins are very Individualist and Epic-Driven peoples, people who love the epic journey from bottom to top, this is consistent all across the world (slightly less so in France) , so when Latins implement a system in which the individualist self-grandeur is very strongly reduced by having a higher floor but a much lower ceilling, they can't possibly properly function. This is why the only 2 times a Latin nation enforced radical individualism and anti-statism for its context, not only did it do so much better than anyone else who tried, but it showed the best results ever in such system. For example, as Argentina surpassed U.S' GDP Per Capita in 1895 and 1896 (#1 in both years yes) , U.S still had racially driven segregation laws in all southern states post-civil war and U.S still have actual real tariffs. Argentina had none of this, fully secular state with full interracial marriage 100% legal, no segregation laws, and no tariffs for ANY goods coming from France, Italy, UK, U.S, Belgium or Spain. Very VERY small tariffs for everyone else, singledigit import tax. I feel like i dont need to talk about Rome, you're probably aware of the greater individual freedoms and mass wealth that Rome achieved in the first half of the Res publica, they were hundreds of years ahead of everyone else, they are the most drastic dominance and supremacy ever shown by a single state. U.S had a largely minarchist economic system, but still had racially driven legislature and big fucking tariffs. Argentina cought up with them implementing the system properly...imagine if Argentina would've kept such system for 120 years??? from 1853 up until 1973. We're never going to prosper in a real social democrat system, just look at Chile, under Allende they were exactly like what Venezuela is today, Pinochet's dictatorship implemented a Classic Liberal economic system which was largely kept to today, and they went from being South Venezuela to becoming the richest country in S.A , definitely better living conditions than some Eastern European countries (though now they want to destroy it all). Look at Cuban's voting pattern: i.imgur.com/zC7zpXO.png I think if you took the statism away from Germany and Sweden, you'd see a lot of violence. If you took the statism away from Italy and Romania and implemented a fully Libertarian system, you'd see AT MOST...half the violence the Germanics would produce...and as time passes, you'd see the Latin countries prosper much much more than Germanic Europe, but the change will not be cultural first, the change must be institutional and systematic first, and violence must occur, and blood must be shed, it sounds horrible because it IS horrible, but Latin America and Latin Europe will never get out of the mediocrity they're in with hugs and kisses. And no, i don't mean a military coup nor a revolution, i mean a democratically elected official fully cutting out government goodies (along with taxes) at once, allowing citizens to bear arms, and defend themselves...the fringe left that would riot against it would be very quickly neutralized by average citizens defending their property...but it'd be a horrible showing. This is the way Latins must go and will eventually go. As for Kant, I haven't read him, i've been actually learning fiction lately, read 1984 not too long ago (long overdue) and now im reading Greek Mythology. But just because i like you, i will give Kant a try, despite not agreeing with many of them, i still hold great respect for the Enlightenment minds of course.