In Latin America, many nations struggle to keep up prosperity amongst high levels of poverty, but this is an outcome of a failed administration. Economics has a very strict structure, and if plans don’t work as expected, the effects can be either long-term or short-term [depending on the problem’s size]. As we know, social movements have occurred throughout history, and it has shown us that they can also be an effective call to politicians (or those in power) to remind them that the struggle is real and needs to be addressed. In El Montero’s Revista Senātus Populesque Romānus, they share how middle-class people initiate social outbreaks, and they prove it by pointing out that during the Boston Tea Party, middle-class families were infuriated with the tax idea of the British Government at the time, and this resulted in a rebellious social outbreak. (4) Moreover, the magazine expresses the drastic economic fall of Venezuela when Hugo Chavez took power in 1999. Before 1998, the income per capita of Venezuela reached US$ 12,726; however, after he took power, it decreased to US$ 7,282. (6) With this in mind, we can see how Venezuela’s fall could be a potential sign for other nations that are prosperous, have a higher population, and have the idea of creating a Marxist government. Over time, society has shaped the concept of poverty, influencing social movements, but it has never been the case. At least shown in the American government. Social issues are one thing, but what creates an outbreak/revolution, poverty has not taken the role of initiating it since they are more focused on survival.