American Capitalism

Urban growth is a worldwide phenomenon which can been linked directly to the growth of capitalism. Latin America, as we currently know it, was formed by capitalist countries, and is the most urbanized region in the world. Yet this process of urbanization, whilst attributable at least in part to its relationship with capitalism, is also about global interdependence.
During European economic expansion between the eleventh and fourteenth centuries, the Roman Empire city system was essentially rebuilt across the globe, resulting in a commercial trading market with the African coast, Middle East and Asia. Cities became political, religious, commercial and cultural centers, and a class system based on land-ownership soon began to flourish.
As European economic expansion continued in the fifteenth century, new commercial trade routes were sought, with cities further establishing themselves as the foundation of this global commercial control. Though there were urbanized zones in Latin America before European conquest, the process of expansion and hegemony was accelerated with the imposition of European urban patterns and urbanization models.
In Latin America’s first two centuries of colonial dependence, metal production became the most important area of commerce, principally providing raw materials to the European market. This allowed Spain to gain a dominant position in the European inter-metropolitan power system. This interdependence is typical of Latin American economic growth. Historically, urbanization in this region has been used for the fiscal benefit of further advanced metropolitan societies, and the structure of these societies has in turn shaped both the cities and the culture of Latin America.
As the region went through the process of de-colonization, interdependency remained, though this time through the economic structures of global markets rather than political structures. International relations remained predominantly based on an interest in raw materials. This culture of interdependence also became apparent on a national level, with countries becoming largely dependent on the economic activities of their cities.
The urbanization of Latin-American society happened before industrialization. Though economics was inevitably a contributor to urban growth, post-colonial Latin American urbanization was also fueled by cultural and political influence, creating capital cities that truly were the centre of Latin American life.
However, commercial capitalism did begin to dominate during the nineteenth century, with three main economic structures developing in the region. Enclave economies, where a concentration of raw materials were exploited by foreign groups, brought economic growth to some countries, though urbanization was less rapid as a result. Instead, economic development created ‘company towns’ around the location of raw materials, with Bolivia and Venezuela being two examples of countries shaped by this economic structure.
Predominantly agricultural and livestock economies, such as Argentina and Uruguay, generated strong urbanization. The export infrastructure required by such economies concentrated urban growth, creating commercial, administrative and political centers.
Plantation economies, such as those of Central America and Brazil pre-1920, were labor-intensive, producing goods for foreign companies. These countries tended to be politically repressive, with low urbanization and expansion of infrastructure. However, there are two exceptions: Panamá and Cuba. The first urbanized strongly as a result of the Panama Canal and strong presence of the USA. Cuba also urbanized, largely as the capital had the country’s administrative functions, and was the last Spanish point of control in the nineteenth century.
The economic growth of Latin America has been shaped by the dominance of external markets. Latin Americanist scholar Richard M. Morse stated that once national unification was secured, political systems were centralized, national markets were created, and infrastructure linking nations was implemented, the city was able to affirm itself as the economic hub of Latin America.
While the political and social upheavals that have transformed Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have attracted great interest, an even more remarkable revolution has been taking place next door to the United States and Canada—the spread of free market capitalism throughout much of Latin America.

For years, Latin American economic development lagged despite abundant natural resources, vast fertile lands, and a sophisticated culture. This was because Latin American nations were slow to discard the economic and social controls inherited from their Spanish colonial masters, who had ruled by selling government privilege and by suppressing indigenous markets for goods, services, and capital.

This book describes the efforts to combat established local plutocratic elites and international agencies in order to privatize state industries and establish independent markets. The author re-examine the orthodoxies of international development and the regulation of markets, and point to the success of rapidly growing, open markets in Mexico, Argentina, and Chile. This book provides an insightful portrait of the dramatic economic turn-around, with crucial lessons for the United States. –

In every economic system, entrepreneurs and managers bring together natural resources, labor, and technology to produce and distribute goods and services. But the way these different elements are organized and used also reflects a nation's political ideals and its culture.
The United States is often described as a "capitalist" economy, a term coined by 19th-century German economist and social theorist Karl Marx to describe a system in which a small group of people who control large amounts of money, or capital, make the most important economic decisions. Marx contrasted capitalist economies to "socialist" ones, which vest more power in the political system. Marx and his followers believed that capitalist economies concentrate power in the hands of wealthy business people, who aim mainly to maximize profits; socialist economies, on the other hand, would be more likely to feature greater control by government, which tends to put political aims -- a more equal distribution of society's resources, for instance -- ahead of profits.
Does Pure Capitalism Exist in the United States?
While those categories, though oversimplified, have elements of truth to them, they are far less relevant today. If the pure capitalism described by Marx ever existed, it has long since disappeared, as governments in the United States and many other countries have intervened in their economies to limit concentrations of power and address many of the social problems associated with unchecked private commercial interests. As a result, the Americaneconomy is perhaps better described as a "mixed" economy, with government playing an important role along with private enterprise.
Although Americans often disagree about exactly where to draw the line between their beliefs in both free enterprise and government management, the mixed economy they have developed has been remarkably successful.