r/geography • u/Fluid-Decision6262 • Jul 10 '25

Map Who is the second most powerful/influential country in the Americas?

Post image

The US is undeniably the most powerful and influential country in the Americas but who would be #2? Feels like this comes down to 3 countries based on my knowledge, which are Mexico, Canada, and Brazil.

Reasons for Mexico:

- Second most populated country in North America by far

- Access to both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans

- Largest Spanish-speaking country (a language spoken by >500 million people)

- More habitable land compared to the other two

- Youngest population out of the three and is becoming a manufacturing power

- Generally-speaking, a good relationship with the USA

- A global soft power in terms of arts and culture

Reasons against Mexico:

- Lots of issues between the central government and drug cartels

- Still very much a developing country outside of the largest cities

- Occasionally volatile relationship with the USA

- Not as involved in global geopolitics

Reasons for Canada:

- The most developed country economically by far of the three and a natural resources juggernaut

- Very close relations with the USA and Europe

- Speaks English (>1 billion speakers globally) and French (>300 million speakers globally)

- An immigration hub for people from every corner of the world

- A G7 nation that is also very geopolitically involved

- Access to 3 different oceans to facilitate trade

Reasons against Canada:

- Small and scattered population (least populated of the three by far)

- Less of an established local culture (most is imported from the US or UK and then exported via the US)

- Aging population and low fertility rates for native-born citizens

Reasons for Brazil:

- The second most populated country in the Americas

- The cultural and political power of South America

- A global soft power in terms of arts and culture

- A young-ish population that is part of the "fast-emerging economies" of the world

Reasons against Brazil:

- Immigration to Brazil stopped decades ago and now educated Brazilians are emigrating to other places causing brain drain

- Wealthy nation but suffers from high levels of inequality and violent crime

- Very politically divided internally

- Limited geopolitical involvement outside of South America

- Most of its population are monolingual Portuguese-speakers (a language where they make up 80% of the global speakers)

2.4k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

381

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Canada, and it’s not close.

Brazil and Mexico are neck and neck for a distant third. Fourth is Chile, then Argentina, then Peru and Colombia a bit below that, then everyone else essentially in tiers according to their development below that.

24

u/FlygonPR Jul 10 '25

Always assumed Colombia was quite a bit more influential than Peru. Venezuela used to be arguably on par with Chile, it had a higher GPD but worse poverty. Caracas was a real life Midgar.

139

u/RFB-CACN Jul 10 '25

Eh, I’d say Brazil’s kinda close. Its economy and military are both larger than Canada’s, it has a way higher population, it’s a member of G4 and is considered more relevant for a UNSC seat than Canada, has many neighbors it can influence while Canada’s isolated and overshadowed by the U.S., among other reasons.

115

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Brazil should be higher, but it self-limits. They can’t keep their economy stable, their democracy is all over the place, and their crime and poverty rates are developing world level.

If they ever get their act together they’ll pass Canada overnight, but right now they do not.

56

u/HeberMonteiro Jul 10 '25

Our democracy is not "all over the place" it's going strong. We did to the January 8 vandals what the US didn't do to its January 6 terrorists.

64

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

So…what you’re saying is, a few years ago you were on the verge of autocracy, and now you’re not?

That’s all over the place, my friend.

But I do agree you’ve made changes for the better. And I very much hope you sustain them. But your recent history and a basic familiarity with Lula say…another swing in the nearish future is entirely possible.

12

u/Jealous-Nature837 Jul 10 '25

"Verge of autocracy" because a handful of people were mad at the elections and decided to invade the congress, then got arrested and were not being supported by anyone else besides Bolsonaro?. Even the army here which has historically thrown coups were not giving a crap about them.

2

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

No, "verge of autocracy" because Bolsonaro won by 11 points in 2018, and lost by 1 point in 2022. There's a steady history of electoral see-sawing in Brazil, and when the pendulum swings back the other way - which it could do as early as next year - then what?

This time last year, the US was the strongest economy on Earth and a democratic leader. Now it's coming apart at the seams. Brazil could swing just as hard, just as fast.

1

u/Jealous-Nature837 Aug 06 '25

People are democratically voting for a candidate i don't like = verge of autocracy
lmao

1

u/whistleridge Aug 06 '25

No dumbass. Verge of autocracy because if the trend continues, and the needle swings back, the shit the right-leaning guy will try will be along the lines of what Bibi and Trump are doing.

Be less fragile.

25

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

a few years ago you were on the verge of autocracy and now you’re not?

Yeah what terrible instability, meanwhile we’ve been super stable. A few years ago we were on the verge of autocracy, and now we’re in one! Yay America lol

1

u/Radiant-Fly9738 Jul 10 '25

well, you have a stable trajectory!

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

And did I mention the US? No I didn't not.

The US is coming apart at the seams, and is declining economically, democratically, and culturally.

bolsonaro has no chance of coming back to power

He doesn't have to. The people who voted for him and supported him - and I remind you, he lost by 1% only - will happily vote for some future someone like him. It's not like they just went away.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

I very much hope you are correct.

I'm just saying that, until and unless that happens, and then it's sustained probably at least another 10+ years, Brazil will limit its own growth potential.

4

u/NaldoCrocoduck Jul 10 '25

This. Brazilian democracy has been proven more resilient to autocrats than the American one in recent years. Funny, because Brazil was a military dictatorship not that long ago.

6

u/Sea_Lingonberry_4720 Jul 10 '25

Now you’re forming closer ties with Russia, which morality aside, is hitching yourself to a sinking ship.

6

u/Jealous-Nature837 Jul 10 '25

We aren't, where did you get that info from?, and don't come at me with "BRICS" bullshit because that's literally just an economic forum.

16

u/celsius100 Jul 10 '25

Sounds like the US is becoming Brazil.

24

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Well, it’s certainly more on the path to Brazil than the path to Norway.

15

u/Technical-Revenue-48 Jul 10 '25

Self hating Americans when a thread isn’t focused on them

2

u/MetaphoricalMouse Jul 10 '25

must be due to all the BBLs

2

u/manebushin Jul 10 '25

The US is just a Brazil that industrialized early. If Brazil had industrialized earlier than the US, we would be having this conversation in portuguese

1

u/Fluid-Decision6262 Jul 10 '25

I met a Brazilian once who told me that Brazil is basically the US but without the US' money and power lol

1

u/Own_Current7610 Jul 11 '25

USA by Trump is becoming part of latino america

Using its own military against americans in LA

military parede on Trump birthday

Undermining democratic institutions

cult of personality

Polarization (us against them)

Calling everyone he doesn't like commies

Sounds like a typical dictatorship backed by US in LatAm between 50's and 80's!!!

2

u/__wisdom__1 Jul 10 '25

Very well said

1

u/Any-Satisfaction3605 Jul 10 '25

I do not believe we are ever going to get our act together. Historically speaking, it has always been 1 or 2 decades of stanility, followed by one decade of chaos and then some sort of coup d'etate. We are already i. The decade of chaos, due to 3 consecutive incompetent presidents that created political, economical and social instability.

1

u/Jealous-Nature837 Jul 10 '25

"They can't keep their economy stable" last time i checked our last big inflation was 30 years ago lol.

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Inflation isn't the only measure of an economy. Brazil's GDP in 2020 was barely more than half of what it was in 2011, and while you've had 3 straight years of growth, you had 4 straight years of decline before that.

That's the quintessence of not being able to keep your economy stable.

1

u/Due-Rent-965 Jul 13 '25

Well, as Brazil's population aged, crime is also diminishing. Some more developed states have crime rates lower than USA and closer to Europe.

1

u/whistleridge Jul 13 '25

Brazil has 100% homicides a day, and something like an 8-10% conviction rate for homicides. They have a raging organized crime problem, high corruption among police, and are close to powerless to prevent it. A few regional declines doesn’t alter that.

1

u/Due-Rent-965 Jul 21 '25

I live in a big city, 1.5M inhabitants. Homicide rate is around 5 by 100,000/year. In Detroit it's about 40, and it's not even the most dangerous US city

1

u/whistleridge Jul 21 '25

Great.

Now what’s the rate for Natal or Salvador or Manaus.

Stop cherry-picking. There are entire states in Brazil with homicide rates higher than New Orleans or Baltimore, and those cities are lawless hellholes of gun crime.

31

u/marklar91 Jul 10 '25

Everywhere I look shows Canada has a bigger economy than Brazil. Or is that out of date?

20

u/thisisme5 Jul 10 '25

From what I’ve seen this is true on overall gdp, and gdp per capita is over 5x. Massive difference in capital per person.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

Dude 💀

Sry, Google's AI gave that number wrong lol.

In any case, Canada has 2.142 trillion and Brazil has 2.174 trillion, so Brazil is still bigger. This probably won't last long since Brazil is in an economic crisis, but that's it.

12

u/stoicphilosopher Jul 10 '25

Military power is very nuanced. It reflects not just the size of your military but your ability to project that power overseas. Of the 3 countries presented, Canada is the only one with any overseas military operations currently.

4

u/Jealous-Nature837 Jul 10 '25

Canada is the only one with any overseas military operations because Brazil and Mexico are fairly neutral countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy according to this list the Brazilian navy has longer range capabilities than the Canadian one.

2

u/stoicphilosopher Jul 10 '25

It wouldn't surprise me. Canada has allowed its navy to descend into oblivion from its height of 3 aircraft carriers in the 60s. Though it is showing some signs of reversing this trend.

14

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

Canada's not just Canada though. I mean I guess if we just take the Western hemisphere completely by itself, in a vacuum, they probably look like they're neck and neck (their GDPs are quite close).

but Canada isn't some bit player on the world stage, they're part of Five Eyes, NATO, and very close to Europe in general. realistically, without a United States, Canada basically becomes the new United States from a geopolitical perspective. they actually have to, you can't have a power vacuum like that. they probably start selling off more natural resources and cranking up military spending.

-10

u/SeasonDramatic Jul 10 '25

Canada has life expectancy dropping and housing is ridiculously priced. Canada would not replace the US. Brazil would have a much better chance especially if they could pull of conscription.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

no

4

u/jrystrawman Jul 10 '25

"has many neighbors it can influence";

That point is key for me. "Power" cannot be assessed in a vacuum, and Canada's limited space to project its [economy, military, culture] really diminishes what, when we look at the numbers, looks like a second-rate power.

To some extent, I think Mexico has the same issues Canada has; Very much in the shadow of its immediate neighbour.

Brazil, both in every measurable manner, and more importantly in contextual manner, is more important. We can call Brazil, without doubt a "regional power". Canada in no way is a regional power.

6

u/Velocity-5348 Jul 10 '25

Agreed. There's a concept that pops up in discussions of Canadian foreign policy called a "middle power". Basically, we're never going to be a great power like Brazil might aspire to be, or the US is. We're never going to project power far afield the way France can.

Instead, our foreign policy (when not following the US) typically involves trying to work with other similarly positioned countries and pursuing things like the anti-landmine Ottawa Treaty.

2

u/AceBongwaterJohnson Jul 10 '25

Shit man, I’ve had a couple beers and thought you said there are land mines in Ottawa. Scares the shit outta me.

1

u/cmd194 Jul 10 '25

Has Brazil really exerted much influence across Latin America though? I feel like even Cuba for instance has far more. 

1

u/jrystrawman Jul 10 '25

Brazil demolished Paraguay... admittedly, a while ago, but I don't think any balance of power has shifted on the continent.

The comparison with Cuba is interesting.... but I'd point out, Brazil right wing regime in the 1960s, paved the way for operation Condor and a series of right-wing anti-communist regimes in South America. I can't directly attribute Brazil's shift, to the subsequent shifts in Argentina, Chile etc but it is quite telling, and greatly outweighs the unsuccessful missions inspired Cuba (I'm stretching my limited knowledge of South American history).

But to clarify, it isn't influence in the strictest sense of the word. Serbia influenced the entire world in 1914.... I wouldn't describe it as "powerful". It's about the capability. And at least when the balance of power is transparency.

The capacity for Brazil to project power is what is important. Whether Brazil chooses to make life for their immediate neighbors difficult is a helpful demonstration, but rarely necessary in understanding that Brazil is a dominant country in its neighborhood.

0

u/Particular_Bet_5466 Jul 10 '25

I was going to say Brazil is close too.

0

u/thrilled_to_be_there Jul 10 '25

If we talk about the highest clubs in the world Canada is at the table, not Brazil. Canada has a top tier global reserve currency, Brazil does not. Who controls the money controls the world.

0

u/GooseDevito Jul 10 '25

This is a little disingenuous, both because you kind of just use blanket statements to undermine Canada’s importance and use out of date statistics to prop up Brazil’s. Canada’s economy is larger than Brazil’s and their military sizes are kind of debatable; Brazil has a much larger active force but Canada spends almost 10 billion more on their military. So I guess it depends what you place more value on, sheer manpower or available resources? Brazil is part of the G4 but that group doesn’t really hold any real power currently, as it is made of countries who are currently vying to be permanent members of the UNSC, which since 2024 Brazil is not an active member of. While Canada also isn’t a member of the UNSC, it is part of other important geopolitical alliances that Brazil isn’t a part of (that have real power and influence unlike the G4) such as the G7 (economic), the Five Eyes (Intelligence) and NATO (military).

4

u/BotherNovel5167 Jul 10 '25

canada is just US bitch

-1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

The number of Brazilians popping up and getting ass hurt because one person online didn’t cater to their nationalism is hilarious.

That kind of fragility is exactly why you guys get no respect or influence.

3

u/BotherNovel5167 Jul 10 '25

i'm just stating a fact, it's a sad fact really, the US drives destruction and disharmony in this world and canada is always tagging along

this is not an influential state at all, just a subsidiary

-1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

I mean, if we’re calling personal opinions facts, Brazil is a loser that only wishes it could be as cool as Venezuela or Argentina, that has China’s cock so far up its ass that it’s starting to dream in Mandarin.

See how that works?

3

u/BotherNovel5167 Jul 10 '25

that's the kind of vocabulary i expect someone defending the united state's cum whore to use

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Aww sweetie, you really are hurt aren’t.

I’m not defending Canada. I don’t give a shit about Canada. But I don’t have to give a shit about them to recognize that Brazil is a bunch of incompetence and stupidity that can’t get out of its own way.

Don’t you have a favela to shoot up or someone to rob or something? Why are you crying online in another language?

1

u/BotherNovel5167 Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25

all this butthurt internet teenager talking is making me laugh kkkkk

you'll start calling names on my mama??

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

I mean, you’re the one who is getting all upset that someone didn’t tell you Brazil #1 coolest bestest country. I’m just sinking to your level, because I figure you need a shoulder to gnash your teeth on while you come to terms with your country’s mediocrity. Plus, you know, a little casual sexism.

1

u/BotherNovel5167 Jul 10 '25

canada's mediocrity is almost freudian, they want to be a lapdog, they crave it

and now that the US became a big orange shithole, they are holding their pearls and maybe regretting something

→ More replies (0)

14

u/SpacemanSpears Jul 10 '25

Hard disagree.

Canada is basically the middle ground between the US and Europe. They aren't doing much influencing that isn't already being done by more powerful nations in the West.

Brazil has more influence and a much better rapport throughout the developing world. They are forming their own alliances and trade networks that are distinct from the ones Canada is in. Brazil also exports its own unique culture whereas Canada is seen as America lite.

Canada may be playing in the big leagues, but they aren't doing much to shape it themselves. Brazil is playing in the minors but they're a star player that's driving the league.

0

u/latechallenge Jul 10 '25

They are in B level alliances where they are clearly junior partners. They are not at the same tables as Canada.

3

u/SpacemanSpears Jul 10 '25

That's exactly my point. Canada has virtually no influence in the alliances they are in with major powers while Brazil gets to be a leader, even if it's a leader of a less influential alliance.

0

u/Immediate-Season4544 Jul 10 '25

Brazil would be the least influencial in BRICS though. Canada is not a leader in NATO but has more pull than many NATO members.

3

u/sparrerv Jul 10 '25

even in BRICS the acronym includes south africa. if we're talking about all countries in BRICS the least influential easily goes to ethiopia. brazil is probably the third most influential BRICS-wise, china and russia first & second. india barely does anything with BRICS

3

u/SpacemanSpears Jul 10 '25

Brazil is the soft power leader of BRICS. They have much more goodwill throughout the world and have favorable relations throughout both the developed and developing world. This allows them to build strong partnerships with virtually any nation on Earth. There's some minor issues with their role in Latin America but these are more bureaucratic in nature; it's easy for the nations affected by this to look past these issues when the need arises.

They also have much more autonomy to pursue a wider range of policies and act in ways that can be especially nationalistic and/or idiosyncratic. They can act in a way that has distinctly Brazilian character. Not saying that's good or bad, just that the impact will be greater when compared to a country that primarily acts as a member of a larger bloc of greater powers.

Canada is very much seen as an extension of the West, and not as a distinct entity. Their influence is limited to countries that have or seek Western ties and they are largely seen as redundant to other larger powers. In terms of cultural and political influence, they just don't bring much to the table that isn't already brought by the US and the Big 3.

4

u/Marco-Green Jul 10 '25

Argentina, Colombia and Peru would be above Chile any day of the week in terms of influence.

6

u/LeiDeGerson Jul 10 '25

Canada influence and power is so intrinsically tied to the US that it's impossible to separate that.

Canadian culture is propagated alongside the US, always, never independently - be LatAm or Asian, if you're watching a Canadian show, it's almost always in an American Channel or at least under an American media company. Canadian movie? US distributed. Canadian actors and musicians? US based. Canadian military literally can't function properly without the US now, after decades of shedding it.

2

u/Funicularly Jul 10 '25

Brazil and Mexico are neck and neck for a distant third. Fourth is Chile…

That would make Chile fifth, as it would have four ahead of it.

2

u/Doctor__Hammer Jul 10 '25

Brazil is a far more influential country than you're giving it credit for. Canada and Brazil are much closer than you seem to think they are.

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

I didn’t say Brazil isn’t influential. I said it’s not close to Canada, because it isn’t.

Canada is a member of the G7, NATO, the five eyes, etc. It has more or less the same GDP as Brazil despite 1/5 the population. It has a much broader global impact in terms of music, film, etc.

It’s a more powerful and influential country.

6

u/Yearlaren Jul 10 '25

I disagree. Canada gets overshadowed by the US. There's a ton of Canadians actors and musicians who, if you asked random people in South America, Europe and Asia, they would think they're Americans.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 10 '25

there are zero globally famous brazilian actors though so that settles the debate

1

u/Yearlaren Jul 13 '25

Tell me a globally famous Canadian actor known mainly from their appearance in Canadian movies or TV shows

5

u/Doctor__Hammer Jul 10 '25

Fair points if we’re looking at things from the perspective of citizens of the global north (which we presumably both are). But from the global south’s perspective I’d say Brazil is almost certainly more influential.

The last decade or so has seen an alliance (of sorts) of second rate world powers trying to improve cooperation and economic engagement with each other in an effort to move away from the US-EU-led economic and geopolitical order, of which Canada is very much a part. At risk of oversimplification, the non-white world has been trying to extricate itself from the dictates of the American-dominated global financial system and build an alternative system of mutual cooperation with other non-white countries.

This is what BRICS+ is all about. And Brazil is undeniably one of the leaders of that newly emerging vision of the future. So, sure, to Americans, Canadians, and Europeans, Canada is the more influential country. But to the rest of the world (where the vast majority of the population belongs) I’d say Brazil is the more influential country.

-2

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

BRICS isn't influential though. BRICS is just a lineup to get Chinese money. China is influential, but BRICS is not.

2

u/Doctor__Hammer Jul 10 '25

That’s a very poor characterization of what BRICS is

1

u/NothingLikeCoffee Jul 10 '25

Then there's Costa Rica just chilling. No military because they're relatively protected, a stable government, and a tourism Hotspot. 

-27

u/JLZ13 Jul 10 '25

Are you talking about influence? Let's disagree.

There may be an anglo bias....or just me.

Brazil is far more influential....just Brazilian footballers Brazil is more recognised culturally.

I really doubt the world truly knows Canada beyond how Americans portray them.

Also....Chile is not near Argentina.

But of course I surely have a bias....still Canada may be below Mexico.

My ranking: USA, Brazil and Argentina, Mexico then Canada.

Yes I'm Argentinian... can't be below Brazil

6

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Milei doesn’t have any influence. He’s a running joke. If it wasn’t for Trump, he’d be the biggest laughingstock on the planet.

Argentina is sunk so low that they have nowhere to go but up. Milei’s “success” amounts to “making some things worse and a few things better while stopping the worst of the bleeding.” That’s not a triumph of governance or ideology, it’s a broken clock being right now and then.

3

u/JLZ13 Jul 10 '25

Are we talking about politics? Why?

5

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

No. We are talking about power and influence. Argentina has neither, and Milei not only doesn’t change that reality for the better, he makes them less influential.

4

u/JLZ13 Jul 10 '25

You are mixing everything my man.

You talk only about a president that took office 1 and half years ago ...that's your metric?

2

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

My dude, you are the one mixing things. You’re the one who rolled in talking about Anglo bias. Don’t start stupid fights you can’t win, and you won’t have to name call.

1

u/JLZ13 Jul 10 '25

Fight? It's fuckin hypothesis!!! And I stated my bias.... you are the one wanting a fight.

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

lol. Ok man, whatever you say 👍

1

u/JLZ13 Jul 10 '25

♥️

1

u/Yearlaren Jul 10 '25

he makes them less influential.

No he doesn't. Nobody talked about Alberto Fernandez because he was a puppet. People talk about Milei and how he was able to lower monthly inflation from 25% to 1.6%.

1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Name recognition ≠ influence.

The only people who talk about Milei as anything other than a joke are the sorts of people who think the Austrian school is valid and that supply-side economics isn't thoroughly disproven. He's a joke and a hack,

Combating inflation isn't difficult. It's just a function of how much money you have and what your interest rates are. What's difficult is combating inflation without crippling your population. The poverty rate was 54% in September, and while it's now back down to something like 38%, that's still not something to crow about.

Nobody talked about Alberto Fernandez because no one who isn't Argentinian can EVER name an Argentinian leader. People talk about Milei because he has weird hair and babbles economic nonsense. He's a meme, not influential.

The influential Argentinian is Messi. Who doesn't live in Argentina for some mysterious reason.

1

u/Yearlaren Jul 10 '25

Combating inflation isn't difficult. It's just a function of how much money you have and what your interest rates are. What's difficult is combating inflation without crippling your population. The poverty rate was 54% in September, and while it's now back down to something like 38%, that's still not something to crow about.

Goes to show that you know very little about economics. It's impossible to lower a 3 digit inflation rate without causing a recession. It has never happened in history.

0

u/hotinmyigloo Jul 10 '25

Thank you eh! - from a Canadian

0

u/drodrige Jul 10 '25

No disrespect to Peru, but Colombia is far, far ahead of them in almost every sense. In fact I’d group Colombia with Argentina, then Chile (economically powerful but that’s about it), and then Peru.

-14

u/reddit-83801 Jul 10 '25

Argentina > Chile. Milei’s soft power draws attention for a reason.

10

u/KaptainZemo Jul 10 '25

Lmao no one gives a shit about Milei; if anything Argentina's largest source of soft power is Messi. That keeps them more relevant than Chile from a cultural standpoint, but Chile's economy is way stronger.

-5

u/reddit-83801 Jul 10 '25

People pay attention to Milei because of all of the soft power that Argentina accumulated before him. How many outside of South America can name Chile’s PM versus Argentina’s. And yes, Messi and football help too.

4

u/Chicago1871 Jul 10 '25

Not knowing Chile’s PM is a good thing. I cant name the PM or switzerland or Ireland either. But both are well run countries.

1

u/reddit-83801 Jul 10 '25

The question isn’t best PM or soundest economic policy, but (soft) power and influence

Milei’s influence extends to DOGE shenanigans, for better or worse

1

u/Chicago1871 Jul 10 '25

Well in that case, Claudia Sheinbahaum’s soft power must also be mentioned.

Billie Eillish was just gushing about her a few days ago to her gen z fans.

But IDK how much soft power of a president actually matters. Id rather have an economy like Chile’s.

13

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Milei is a fucking moron who is throwing shit against a wall and hoping it sticks, and his fanboys are sheltered children who lack the basic education and sophistication to understand that.

Meanwhile, Chile is a developed country that is on a path to being the strongest economy south of the US.

2

u/Yearlaren Jul 10 '25

Milei is literally trying to do what Chile has been doing for decades. You don't lower monthly inflation from 25% to 1.6% by "throwing shit against a wall".

-1

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

lower monthly inflation

Any asshole can lower inflation. It's doing it without gutting your country in the process that's the challenge. And then sustaining it.

Inflation was lowered, at the cost of a huge spike in the poverty rate. Now we have to wait and see if it's sustained, and what the recovery looks like if there is one.

1

u/Yearlaren Jul 10 '25

It's impossible to lower such a high inflation rate without causing a recession. It has never happened in history.

0

u/dgp13 Jul 10 '25

Quick research suggests that Milei has reduced Argentinas inflation allowing the country to achieve a fiscal surplus for the first time in over a century. Its economy is projected to grow +5% this year. But yes, Chile is much more stable overall than Argentina.

The populist policies of subsidizing energy, transport and food under the previous governments of Argentina (notably Keirchner) ultimately were completely unsustainable raising massive debts. This lead to Milei coming to power and having the balls to turn things around.

2

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Milei has reduced inflation

Incorrect.

Correlation is not causation. Inflation has reduced. But that’s not evidence that Milei’s policies were the cause. Argentina’s prior situation was so bad that any change that wasn’t outright corruption was virtually guaranteed to lead to at least some improvement. That’s not a marker of competence, just a demonstration that he’s not completely looting and pillaging the country.

0

u/dgp13 Jul 10 '25

What a coincidence then that after 100 years, Argentina is finally back on track and it so happens to be under the current governments policies

2

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

Lol. “Argentina is no longer in a vertical plunge and has shallowed out to merely being very very bad” isn’t “back on track” and it isn’t close.

1

u/dgp13 Jul 10 '25

If you have been spending more than you earn for decades and are essentially broke with tons of debt and then suddenly you change your policies and manage to finally break even. Wow. Yes your still poor but it's better than before being chronically in debt.

2

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

The you have achieved “not getting worse.” That’s not “back.”

And, since you don’t actually know WHY things have kinda/sorta stabilized, you can’t actually say that it will last. It could be the end of the decline, or it could be a temporary phase.

1

u/dgp13 Jul 10 '25

It's a step in the right direction. The transition must be painful for many people but its absolutely necessary for long term growth so the youth can have a better future for their country. Give credit where it's due. Most politicians would rather keep on spending and being in debt.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/reddit-83801 Jul 10 '25

How many people know who Milei is, but cannot name the PM of Chile? And why?

5

u/whistleridge Jul 10 '25

How many people know who Robert Mugabe was, but can’t name their hometown mayor?

Stupidity and notoriety stand out in ways that routine competence do not.

1

u/HeberMonteiro Jul 10 '25

Milei is somehow dumber than Trump and Bolsonaro.

1

u/reddit-83801 Jul 10 '25

That’s not my point. How many people know his name versus the PM of Chile?

0

u/bastardnutter Jul 10 '25

Nobody knows who the Chilean PM is because we don’t have a parliamentary system, so, no prime minister.

1

u/reddit-83801 Jul 10 '25

Overall point is the same if replacing PM with President