Why British colonies in America are more succesful then UK, and Spanish colonies are less succesful than Spain?

Why British colonies in America are more succesful then UK, and Spanish colonies are less succesful than Spain?

Perú will try their best!

warmer climates cause people to be lazy.

The only British colony more successful than the UK is America. Canada, while a nice country, is not as successful as Britain. Furthermore places like Jamaica and Guyana are shitholes.

luck

The British literally made all of their warm American colonies nigger infested shitholes. Take a look at Jamaica, Belize, and the U.S south. Spanish America would look more like Brazil in terms of demographics if the British ruled it

I always thought that US, Canada, Australia, NZ have better living standards than UK. Jamaica and Guyana doesn't count cause they're filled with negroes.

>Spanish colonies are less succesful than Spain?
Shitalian and asSpaniard immigration

america embraced full on capitalism more than us, they have more oil and their economy was not as weakened as ours was after the world wars
also they have more people and lots of cheap land
i don't know much about latin america other than corruption, some socialism, dictators and things like that

>belize
>jamaica

The more natives died during early colonization, the more successful those areas are today.

>haiti

Is half native and half african. Neither of those halves is helping them. In fact, aren't they the worst country in all of the new world?

>half native

>socialism
The banana republic arose in Central America and gained traction in South America and Mexico. The criollo elite pushed market reforms that would make rothbard blush. This was years before Marx ever put ink to paper. These were hardly periods with prosperity and freedom for all. So where does this rhetoric of socialism come from?

>zero european

>hurr their colonies that are shit don't count because of some arbitrary factor

USA and Canada also have negroes dumbass

both monarchies so joke's on you

i said some
there is and was certainly socialist rhetoric and parties claiming to be socialist

Yes, but then you attributed capitalist boon to the heavy regulated and protectionist young America didn't you? So please don't try to weasel out of what you said.

america was more capitalist than britain
that's what i said

i also said (or wrote rather)
>i don't know much about latin america

My BROWN ASSES ARE ON FIRE!!

O B S E S S E D

Generally speaking, for the worldwide British colonies, the Brits treated it like a business. Unsurprising since it was done by the East India Company. This meant they installed efficient civil service admins and practiced sound fiscal policies to turn a profit. Over time, they supplemented this civil service with locals. To do this, the locals have to be trained, so they opened English schools which were usually the first secular education in most colonies. Eventually, the graduates of these schools became educated and in a historical irony, fought for independence. The net result being a new country led by relatively well educated locals compared to those under other colonial powers.

1. Unused arable land
2. Laborers seeking freedom from persecution flocked here
3. Coal
4. Iron

Are you talking about yourself? Because otherwise I don't get it

Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina are pretty successful. Because Spain incorporated large numbers of Indian peasant populated land which remained largely rural areas into our times. Meanwhile the Anglo countries inherited sparsely populated land which was given to European immigrants and the urban areas were industrial powerhouses.

We're going to beat Spain in a couple of years
We're literally next to them in GDP
Don't know about the other losers