A symptom, at most. Mexico and South American countries have very few assassinations, yet all of them are failed states.

>Mexico and South American countries have very few assassinations, yet all of them are failed states.

Mexico has had at least 88 political assassinations since last September.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/30/americas/mexico-political-kil...

Wow. I stand corrected. Thank you.

While I understand why people tend to put all of South America under the same umbrella, saying that all South American countries are failed states is a bit too much. Uruguay in particular is doing really well.

> While I understand why people tend to put all of South America under the same umbrella

The only explanation is rampant ignorance. How could one consider that, say, Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia are all "under the same umbrella" except by simply failing to pay attention in school?

It's like saying that every country in North America is more or less the same.

Rampant ignorance is right. At least in my subjective experience as an American, public education about South America pretty much stopped after the beginning of Europe’s colonial expansion.

Unless you studied it in college or on your own time, the only people who know much of anything about South American countries are people who’s social circles contain people from South America.

You mean the 2 North American countries? Yes, the U.S. and Canada are similar in that they have functioning economies, and citizenry that is not desperately trying to flee.

I expect more than this kind of ignorance from an HN reader.

The US and Canada are not the same just because they both have functioning economies.

Even worse, "South American countries" in general don't have their populace "desperately trying to flee". Some might, many don't. The phrase "South American countries", as if Brazil and Argentina for example were a single entity, is so stupid it boggles the mind.

Here's my suggestion to you: educate yourself, learn about other countries, and stop making blanket, incorrect and offensive statements.

I think you can use some enlightenment, as well. You should visit the US/Mexico border to see the "some".

Generalizations are never 100% complete (by definition). But so much poverty and corruption, and so much desperate migration, sustained for such a long time (decades) is a picture of overall failure.

Mexico has the fewest excuses. It is perfectly positioned in the middle of the earth, with coasts on both the Atlantic and Pacific, and with abundant resources. They could be an economic _powerhouse_, with trade relations with the entire world (thing manufacturing, shipping, ...) if they could get it together (and I hope they do). But, history seems to show that isn't likely for a long time, if ever.

You're encountering trouble in this thread because your understanding of geography appears to be very different from most people's, e.g. writing that Canada and the US are the only to countries in North America (while common definitions would include Mexico), or writing "South America" where you (I think?) mean what most would call "Central America".

> Generalizations are never 100% complete (by definition)

Yet you decided it was a good idea to call out "South American countries". It's not too late to admit you made a mistake, you know.

At this point you don't even know (nor seem to care) if you're arguing specifically about Mexico, all of South America or what.

Canada and the US being considered the same doesn't bide well for the quality of your generalizations, either.

North America includes everything from and including Panama northward, including the Caribbean, and Greenland. Ain’t just the US and Canada.

There are three countries in North America.

That's ignorant bullshit. Venezuela is the only SA country one can call a failed state. The rest is doing well. No first world countries nor the highest HDI but call them failed states it's just stupid.

South American countries are not doing well. The region is one of the places with more inequality "Of the 20 most economically unequal countries in the world, eight are in Latin America"[1]. So maybe the rich in latinamerica are doing well. Also is a political polarization scenario between left and right extremism some countries close to a conflict or war. [1] https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/inequality-and-s...

Then why are so many migrants crossing Mexico (walking, spending lifes' savings on coyotes, sending children alone, ...) to come to the US?

Earning potential is simply better in the US. It’s not just Mexicans that figured it out, but immigrants worldwide did. People with decent lives all over the world fly here and overstay their visas because the earning potential is just greater. The truth behind the ‘all immigrants are desperate’ narrative is most are not desperate, but ambitious, and literally making a business decision.

How many of those are from South America? My understanding was that most of that migration was from Central America, largely Guatemala and Mexico itself.

Among other things walking (or traveling in any way, really) through the border area between Colombia and Panama, including southern Panama, is tough-bordering-on-impassable, even relative to crossing the US border in the desert.

Mexico isn't in South America

Are you proposing that it is possible to travel by land from South America to USA without entering Mexico? Or perhaps the impoverished South Americans are buying yachts and tourist visas to bypass Mexico?

Mexico and Central America are not South America.

Mexico could be worse, but could also be better.

Neither Mexico nor "South American countries" (which ones? That sounds like an incorrect blanket generalization) are "failed states".

Mexico is literally run by narcos, and the government can't do anything about it. A failed state? depends on your definition of it, a narco state?, for sure. - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/19/mexico-amlo-el...

Mexico might qualify, in that the de jure government comes nowhere near having 100% de facto control of its territory, and doesn't appear to be on a path to reaching such a point, either.

What's the definition of a failed state?

I travel to Mexico somewhat frequently and although some things work differently then in the U.S by and large everything works. The power is on, the roads are decent, there are a very large number of fully stocked stores (including chains you would see in the U.S like Walmart and Home Depot).

Is it corruption and crime? Well by that definition many areas of the U.S are failed states. Or is it just politicians getting killed that makes a failed state?

IT is an open question if Mexico will remain like that. They have been reforming, if those reforms stick and continue they are no longer a failed state. There are many who don't want the reforms to stick (it is better for them personally even though it is worse for the country as a whole), if they win the country is still a failed state. Your guess is as good as mine as to what the future will hold.

A failed state is one which has lost an effective monopoly on violence over part of its claimed territory. Stable, functional states have occasional illegal violence but the state security forces are still fundamentally in control. But in Mexico there are large regions under de facto control of organized crime where the official government has been evicted.