[ffgjgf1]

> Because I think its clear that the reason the rest of the Americas didnt become wealthy like North America is because of the same habit of plunder that made the US rich but instead of that wealth being sent to Boston or New York or wherever

Not it’s not at all clear. They stopped shipping that plunder about at the same time as US became independent (+ 10-20 years). So both were on a comparable even footing in the early 1800s.

Also there was hardly any comparable “plunder” available to be shipped anywhere Boston or London. How many silver mines where there in NA prior to the 1800s?

The main advantages US/preceding colonies had over Latin America was a much nicer climate in the Northeast i(malaria and other diseases were a huge issue) and better geographic location which made trade with Europe easier.

There was no real plunder to speak of besides land. Which was of course a big deal because it mean that an average American was much more productive per capita even before industrialization began.

[WalterBright]

The land was plundered in S America and Mexico, too. Why didn't they become rich, industrialized countries?

[ffgjgf1]

Because of course there were also other factors.

Productivity generally remained relatively low (most land was still farmed by the subjugated native populations), trade and commerce extremely restricted by the policies of the Spanish government and most of the surplus was shipped back to Europe.

In contrast in British North America the colonists got to keep pretty much all the wealth they generated.