Chile will become first develop country in Latam, says world’s richest man
Chile will become the first developed country in Latin America, predicted Mexican communications mogul Carlos Slim, the richest man in the world, in an economic presentation given in Honduras last Thursday.
The criteria that constitute which nations are and are not considered developed are a subject of some debate. Among criteria considered are economic factors such as GDP, per capita, personal income per capita, and industrialization.
GDP is the value of all goods and services provided by a country in a given year. GDP per capita essentially describes the production value of the average person in that country.
International estimates for Chile’s per capita GDP in 2010 ranged between US$11,800 and US$11,900, according to the International Monetary Fund and the CIA World Factbook respectively (nominal GDP values are converted at market exchange rates to US dollars).
Slim, estimated by Forbes magazine in March to possess a US$74 billion fortune, said there are already countries in Latin America that are at an advanced economic level due to massive industrial advances in the past century. These companies include Brazil, Chile and Mexico.
“In the case of Latin America, I believe Chile will be the first to break that barrier (of underdevelopment)” Slim said. “Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, and Mexico will probably be next.”
He cited the booming mining industry in northern Chile as being largely responsible for the country’s march toward official classification as a developed country.
However, Slim said that Chile still needs to improve education and poverty levels in order to be considered a developed country.
According to Slim, the only way to combat poverty is by improving education and creating jobs. Chilean President Sebastian Piñera has voiced his plans to increase the availability of grants for technical education, and is expected to outline his specific plans to do so in his upcoming state of the union address on May 21.
Slim said that despite not producing at the GDP level of some developed countries around the world, one advantage for Latin American countries is that they don’t have the massive amount of national debt that many countries, including the United States, are experiencing.
“We have a secure financial system with a stable macroeconomic foundation,” predicted the Mexican billionaire. “We can say that we are secure because we don’t have an overly-complicated structure.”
By Zach Simon – Santiago Times
Suggested Stories
-
Jun 18th 2013
Thousands camp in the Peruvian Andes to protect a lake from major gold mining project
-
Jun 18th 2013
To silence rationing rumours, Venezuela announces 760.000 tons of imported food is on the way
-
Jun 16th 2013
Booing down of President Rousseff reflects growing dissatisfaction with the economy
-
Jun 14th 2013
Brazil pumps more consumer credit lines trying to bolster the economy
48 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
“However, Slim said that Chile still needs to improve education and poverty levels in order to be considered a developed country.”
I could not agree more. The poor distribution of wealth is holding this country back and education is the way out of poverty for many.
This is the most important paragraph.
Okay... lol
The UK is soooo developed that all their banks needed a bailout that still squeezes the peasants who enjoyed the royal wedding (same banks will come back for another bailout, soon :D), they eat fish and chips, have “great” teeth ( The UK has “excellent” government “free” health care with a “short” waiting list..lol), listen to BBC or Sky News or both and watch the x-factor. Yeah, the UK so sooo developed. Elaine, inflation is still under control there? Oh sure it is, we're not Argentina (Elaine's answer)
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100080317/uk-inflation-rate-is-now-higher-than-zimbabwes/
I still don't fit any of the stereotypes you are so fond of.
Back on topic. It is pleasing to see Chile begin to reap the rewards of managing their economy so well.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-13081777
www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/docs/Severe_Child_Poverty_In_England_February2011.pdf
www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2011/may/11/disabled-people-hardest-hit-march-in-london?INTCMP=SRCH
seem to me that UK share the same problems than undevelop coutries isn´t ?
could be a big fake the UK standard of life with continous gov help ?
The strict class strata and lack of social mobility has to be a contributing factor to the problems you highlight. Time and again I am told that jobs go to friends and family and unless you know someone it is hard to find a good job.
As for the teenage girls getting pregnant, well, it takes a man to impregnate them. You can't lay the blame entirely on the women.
I could tell you some very amusing stories travelling as a solo woman in Argentina and Chile. : )
Like you, I love both countries but could never accept that a man should be paid a higher wage for the same job just because he has a dick. *shakes head* I could go on ........
Sometimes the concern for a woman travelling alone is sweet but most questions seem to be establishing if I am available! lol.
“However, Slim said that Chile still needs to improve education and poverty levels in order to be considered a developed country.” ... an a Mexican said this?? En casa de herrero, cuchillo de palo. JMO
What kind of massive natural resources do they rely on?
Which types of industries do the excel at exactly?
All the major industrial and political developments emanate from Argentina and Brazil, usually... jointly. But Chile will somehow surpass them both.
I get all the anti-Argentine sentiment, but don't be ridiculous.
”. . . . . because of the vast hinterland requiring basic development. Little pockets of Developed World (some of the bigger cities) in a vast continent of backwardness.” (#6)
Chile Superior? Probably not.
Natural resources and industry? You know this already.
Industry and Politics given to them by Ar & Br? You are joking
@ 19. It is not about superiorty or a popularity contest. Developed countries are classified in a number of ways - I am sure you can google them - but primarily on economic grounds, as mentioned in the article. There are also 'human development' issues to consider and I think Mr. Slim mentioned that Chile has to address this area before they can truly be considered a developed country. I happen to agree with this point.
For many decades Chile has managed their economy well and this cannot be said of many of its' neighbouring countries that have lived in economic turmoil. Chile's good housekeeping has enabled them to have stability, enjoy steady growth, improvements to standards of living and, very importantly, gained the trust of investors.
And just because a country is classed as 'developed' it does not indicate utopian status; all countries have problems. It does generally indicate a better standard of living.
I have absolutely no anti-Argentine feelings at all.
I don't know about the immigration lines but just hopping from one country to the other the differences in the economies is immediately apparent.
How come I knew you'd be the first one to start the denial ?
Your antichilean patterns are so simplistic and previsible :D
@ Artillero 23: This is a question, which probably will never be answered. Maybe yes, maybe no. We don't know, what would have happened with Allende still on power after 73. Probably he might have continued the process towards so called “real socialism” he wanted a, version of Cuba-light, or maybe his government wouldn't have been elected anymore, due to increasing dissatisfaction of the population due to the self inflicted economic crisis ( YES, self inflicted, and not by the CIA, their influence is nowerdays so overrated, unless you can prove me, that they “ordered” Allende to print money non stop, disappropriation of private companies and lands with food shortages as result, etc...). Maybe Chile would have started a civil economic recovery even earlier than it did midth of the 80ies in the post-allende period.
From the social point of view, Chile did not benefit of the military process. The scars are very deep in society. Society has been taught to “function” and to defer individualism. This is changing since some years, but this pattern and traces will not dissapear too soon.
From my perspective, I have never personally encountered any overtly anti-English behaviour towards me whilst in Argentina. Maybe some gentle teasing and a few robust discussions but never the kind of invective I have witnessed on this forum. I have made some great friends there that I am sure will be life-long.
I could say more if you are interested.
What is your opinion?
First, before the “never well evaluated” Allende´s office term, Chilean economic way was through “statised” and import replacement, with high import taxes, so we were many light-years back from the developed countries. That means that if the Allendes Gvt. were no reelected, probably we would continued the previous way...so far keeping us in the under developed world for ever....So, was the Military Gvt. a good change for us in any order of matter???? YES, IT WAS !!!! We change our looser mind for a challenging winner mind, a new way to see the future so big that even the “return” to the democracy the leftist Gvts. kept the economic model (not so well executed, BTW) for 20 years. Now, with the new Gvt. the change will be deeper and faster to get our goal to be a developed country, no matter if the first or the second, but developed....We had the opportunity some years ago, but leftist didn´t do it well enough to reach it.
Second, is Chile superior than other LATAM countries ? Probably not, of course..but we have done our homework better, a lot, than the remaining LATAN countries...no doubt, even we could do it the best with other kind of Gvt., no leftist...certainly.
Third, will be enough with the required GDP incomes to feel us as a developed country ? Of course, not...We have a really big challenge to win...like improving education (we are in the good way now, fortunately), improving job opportunities (this year were created over new 400.000 jobs), improving richness share (through education, job opportunities, less corruption, etc.).
Fourth, the social scares will never end while the leftist redhat don´t recognize that all had started because their wrong policies and ways to impose them to us during Allende´s term...and stop to blame to all others for their own guilt...
It´s my humble opinnion, naturelly....
“Industry and Politics given to them by Ar & Br? You are joking”
I have no idea of what you tried to say, please explain.
22 jakesnake
“...go to the immigration office in Santiago and see how many Argentines are standing in line trying to immigrate to Chile”
Emigration from Chile to Argentina is constant, particularly those Chileans of middle class that aspire to a higher level of education. There are approximately 500.000 Chileans living in Argentina.
In contrast, there are approximately 90.000 Argentines living in Chile.
Chile population: 17 million
Argentina population: 41 million
GOOGLE IT.
22 jakesnake, 25 ManRod,
You couldn't be more wrong, I have nothing against Chile. I was simply pointing out an inaccuracy. Clearly neither one of you has read any of my previous posts about Chile.
I'm the only one in this forum that's suggested several times, that Chile and Argentina should agree on a joint sovereignty over Antarctica.
I had a conversation with Sergio Vega above, recently, and even though we disagreed I treated him with nothing but respect. Sergio if you think this isn't true please let everyone know.
The truth is that this article is designed to instill animosity, to drive a wedge between groups. Apparently this is the only method Mercopress relies on to get attention... we can rule out serious journalism.
All of South America is increasingly integrating, rather than competing, that is the model of Unasur. So take this article Mercopress and shove it where the light don't shine.
Ar = Argentina, Br = Brasil
“You are joking” In English, this means that your assertion is seriously doubted
so now you want to rule the whole of antarctica, might i suggest sovereignty over Africa as well, perhaps middle and north America,
hey, i know, why not build an empire while you are at it,
[ Martin_Fierro ] your ideas are impressive, but to be truthfull, you and chile have more chance of finding atlantis on friday the 13th.
Than ever getting all of antarctica, but no doubt with British help, we can come to some deal lolol,,,,,,,,,justa joka
They are integrated into Argentinian society and do not consider “returning” to Chile, many of them consider themselfs Argentinans, as they lived for decades or even were born there.
Furthermore, the detail you do not mention is, the vast majority of these Chileans have moved to Argentina between 1950 and the 70ies, originally due to economic reasons in the 50ies and the oil boom in Patagonia, but later due to political asylum during the Pinochet dictatorship.
Now, the 90.000 Argentines in Chile you mentioned, have almost all migrated to Chile between 2000 and 2010, and I can assure you, that in this period migration from Chile to Argentina was definitely lower. Indeed, since 1990, the balance regarding movement of Chileans from Argentina to Chile is higher than the ones migrating to Argentina. This might be the reason for Jakesnakes observation:
“...go to the immigration office in Santiago and see how many Argentines are standing in line trying to immigrate to Chile”
You write:
“The truth is that this article is designed to instill animosity”
Do you see it like that? Do you think that Slim Helu had this intention, when he outlined the countries he first expects to reach the level of an developped nation? I am not sure about that, I guess this is rather your personal and somehow emotional interpretation. I do not see reasons for any drama in what Slim Helu states. Actually he just reflects something which is quite known. He's no nostradamus to reveal what economist already say since some time. Looks like this fact is the one that bothers you, is it?
I can have a go at answering your question.
Before 1982, there seem to have been quite strong social links between the Islands and 'the Coast'. People went from here to Argentina for work or education, and some Islanders were born there. Some people still have family ties and friendships from that time and still visit Argentina.
Since 1982, most of that seems to have stopped. No-one is educated there, we use different hospitals and most people would rather go on holiday to Chile. I understand that quite a few Argentines visit the islands, some of them on cruise ships.
All the major industries are in Argentina and Brazil. Mercosur originated in Argentina and Brazil. Unasur started as a conglomerate strongly promoted by Brazil, without Brazil's initiative Unasur would probably still be in the drawing board.
35 briton,
No stupid, only our sector of Antarctica.
36 ManRod,
You're the one getting emotional, I'm just pointing out facts. I'm not bothered in the least by Chile succeeding, on the contrary. And I don't give two shits what Slim Helu's intention is, I was referring to Mercopress.
Chile's export success and world trade profile has little to do with Argentina (or Brasil for that matter).
Copper, Salmonid farming, seasonal fruits, wine, chemicals , (financial services) - all these have relatively massive trade relations with the USA, the EU and with China.
This places Chile's economic model far ahead of that of Argentina.
but I doubt that Chile's status wrt Mercosur has any bearing on its FTAs.
Probably its status within CAN has no bearing in practical terms either.
South American countries are falling over themselves to make bilateral agreements outside their trading blocs - largely, I think, because it takes years (centuries?) of maturity and trust, to have primary faith in the ultimately better benefits of their embryonic trading blocs.
I have heard a lot of muttering in South America about just how successful Mercosur has been in reality.
and you only want that bit if the ice, that you are claiming,
is anybody else claiming that bit of antartica, and why are you claiming it ,
Export what we are best on, import what we suck at...
Both models are not right or wrong, but accomodate to local circumstances. If Chile would have joined Mercosur, it could not incentive its exports the way it does today.
Back to Mercosur, I have been watching with amusement at the attempts by Venesuela to become a full member and the repeated blocking. I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on that, if they feel inclined to share.
I think that it is just Paraguay's 'disturbed' political position.
When Pa. arrive at a voting majority the block will disappear, and Dilma Rousseff will be in charge of the welcome celebrations.
This displeases me,
as I view one side of schizophrenic Dilma's personality as being much more valuable to Brasil, Mercosur, Unasur and the world than the other personality trait:
her pragmatic admin. capability and personal 'power' could lead Brasil to great places *if* her left wing dogma (fed by Chavez, etc) is subsumed during her terms in office.
I fear her health will fail her and Brasil will dissolve into left-dominated coalitions of the extreme (even more) corrupt kind.
Wrt Venezuela:
It is a high GDP country that has a spectacularly failed economic model - arguably worse than its lower GDP neighbours.
It *should* be a nett contributor to the advancement of poorer surrounding SA states; instead it is a prime basket-case, unable to feed adequately its own people.
Should it stay isolated and away from the trading blocs?
Yes.
It is, atm, a virulent virus able to contaminate and destroy, in the embryo, the best and latest chance of SA (Mercosur) economic co-operations. This destruction may happen in any case through internal collapse, but this is no reason to make certain such a collapse.
The Chavez economic model (if that is what it is ) is 'immiscible' with the trade models of Chile and Brasil and everything in between; it would act like a scum on water or a sediment in a wine - ie. better off not there at all.
Perhaps Chavez should have invested some of the $5billion he spent buying Argentine bonds on his own country. He seems to buy favours to futher his own power. Maybe he sees himself as the President of South America in his dreams. : )
I happened to be in Argentina a couple of years ago when they were hosting the Mercosur summit in Tucuman. I was in Mendoza, I think, and was watching the coverage on TV. I was surprised at how much attention the Argentine media gave to Chavez over other leaders.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!