Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Reuters: Gosh, Trump May Ruin Mexico’s Economy

Reuters: Gosh, Trump May Ruin Mexico’s Economy

Worried about “the risk that Donald Trump’s agenda poses to the country’s broader economy”

https://youtu.be/fupp2plTEI0

Following the news that Ford had cancelled its planned $1.6 billion auto assembly plant in Mexico, Mexican officials are concerned about the impact this will have on their economy.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Ford Motor Co.’s decision to cancel a planned $1.6 billion assembly plant in the Mexican industrial city of San Luis Potosí caught the nation’s elected officials off guard and represents a major blow to one of the main engines of Mexico’s economy.

. . . .  The developments come at a crucial time for Mexico’s economy, which has seen a slowdown in foreign direct investment in the manufacturing sector. If other manufacturers follow Ford’s lead, it could put the brakes on foreign direct investment, which partly finances Mexico’s current account deficits.

The auto industry accounts for a third of Mexico’s manufactured exports. Production of cars and light trucks edged up to 3.2 million units in the first 11 months of last year, while exports were flat at 2.6 million units, of which nearly 2 million went to the U.S.

Ford’s production in Mexico from January to November was 363,400 units, down almost 10% from the year-earlier period, and its exports from Mexico were off 8%, near 352,000 units, according to the Mexican Auto Industry Association.

“This is not what we needed to start the year,” said Alonso Cervera, chief Latin America economist at Credit Suisse. “What is particularly damaging is that this is the auto industry, which has been one of the main drivers of growth.”

Watch the report:

Reuters apparently thinks that President-elect Trump’s agenda should include building Mexico’s economy.

In an article entitled, “Ford plant turns ‘cemetery’ as Trump wrenches Mexican autos,” the writer observes that “Ford Motor Co’s (F.N) abrupt move to scrap a planned $1.6 billion car plant in central Mexico has spooked a network of suppliers who bet on a growing customer base and dramatized the risk that Donald Trump’s agenda poses to the country’s broader economy. “

Reuters continues:

Many auto parts makers had started to expand in anticipation of Ford’s plant in the state of San Luis Potosi, where industry is “easily 70 percent” dependent on the auto sector, said Julian Eaves, managing director of Preferred Compounding de Mexico, a U.S.-owned maker of rubber compounds operating here.

“It’s going to have a huge impact on the local community,” said Eaves.

The loss to the economy, Eaves calculates, could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, and maybe even into the billions, over the next five years, as manufacturing, contracting and indirect jobs all fall short of plans. Officials say they are still analyzing the economic impact of the Ford decision.

The hemorrhaging may be just the beginning of Mexico’s pain from Trump’s vows to shake up trade and bring manufacturing jobs back north when he takes office on Jan. 20.

Bringing much needed jobs “back north” to America is apparently a bad thing.

In a matter of days, Ford’s retreat has turned the factory site into a barren plain bereft of its economic promise.

“It now looks like a cemetery,” said Fernando Rosales, 28, a hydraulic hoses contractor preparing to abandon the site. “(There is) only death here, we are all leaving.”

. . . .  Some Mexican states have come to depend on autos almost entirely for growth. In San Luis Potosi, 15,000-17,000 new direct jobs are expected to be created in 2017, all in the auto sector, according to federal labor delegate Edgar Duron. The total does not include the Ford plant, which had been expected to create thousands of additional jobs in coming years.

The San Luis Potosi state government had already paid part of the 1 billion pesos ($47 million) it owed under a contract to support the Ford plant, Puente said, without specifying how much. The federal government said Ford would reimburse the sum.

Projects, both private and public, are underway to spend hundreds of millions of pesos to expand the city’s airport and build a new bus line in expectation of a busier future.

But the real fear in Mexico is that, as Trump himself tweeted after the Ford decision, “This is just the beginning.”

The article nicely illustrates exactly why we want these jobs in America, so that’s something.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It just shows what power the President has and Obama never used. Obama was more worried about Mexicans than Americans. It’s about time an American President put America first.

    scooterjay in reply to Jackie. | January 8, 2017 at 7:40 am

    Absolutely! Let the Incas and the Aztecs make Mexico great again.

      casualobserver in reply to scooterjay. | January 8, 2017 at 8:01 am

      Why do you pick those groups?

        Well, you want to go by liberal mores, those groups are among the ‘native’ Mexicans, which the Spanish transplants are not, right?

          Tom Servo in reply to rdm. | January 8, 2017 at 9:05 am

          Sorry to be pedantic, but the Inca’s were based in Peru.

          And it’s kind of sad to point out that the Empire of the Incas was the last time there was actually a competent and functional government anywhere in South America.

          rdm in reply to rdm. | January 8, 2017 at 9:18 am

          True servo. My mind just auto filled mayans instead of incas on first glance.

          casualobserver in reply to rdm. | January 8, 2017 at 10:24 am

          Pick any correct indigenous groups you want. That’s not the point. The question is what the heck do they have to do with trade, Mexican policy, or anything related to manufacturing cars? It’s just a silly and sophomoric way to inject some “others” idea into the topic where it doesn’t even fit.

          Milhouse in reply to rdm. | January 8, 2017 at 2:06 pm

          Competent and functional? The Inca empire was literally communist. Communism, besides being morally evil, is also structurally incapable of being competent or functional. Communist economies collapse not because they’re evil but because for the same reason poorly constructed buildings do; they can’t not collapse, it’s only a matter of how long it takes, which depends on how strong the economy was before it went communist.

          Paul in reply to rdm. | January 8, 2017 at 3:12 pm

          Not to mention that pesky ritual child sacrifice thing.

      scooterjay in reply to scooterjay. | January 8, 2017 at 10:30 am

      who were the native Mexicans?

casualobserver | January 8, 2017 at 8:00 am

I wonder how concerned those Reuters writers or the whole of the news agency are about the negative impact trade policy has had on U.S. workers. Perhaps they view American workers through some of the many prisms of the progressive “privilege” fabrication.

Since when is it our president’s job to look after and promote mexico’s economy?

If this continues Mexico will offer to pay for the wall and add a moat filled with alligators as well

Reuters is just worried that they might lose their housemaids and gardeners.

DINORightMarie | January 8, 2017 at 8:36 am

Narrative. Framing.

Propaganda.

All scare-mongering, undermining the POTUS-elect before he’s even sworn in.

As I’ve noted often, gradients are powerful things.

The healthier and more wealthy Mexico can be, the lower the gradient that so powerfully attracts people to illegally come to the US, or even LEGALLY come to the US.

It’s always in our best interests to have every people around the world in a position of prosperity. If you doubt that, conjure the alternative and its ramifications.

Also, Mark Levin did a masterful job of screwing the T-rumpian bullshit the other day. Building cars in Mexico is attractive for reasons you’d never guess, listening to demagogues.

https://soundcloud.com/conservativereview/levin-chevy-cruze-4jan2017

Thought question: why…besides pure demagoguery…is it swell to have American car companies in Canada but not in Mexico?

    I take your point, Rags, but at this point, we’ve far too long been the adults on the plane who forgot to put the oxygen masks on ourselves before helping others. We’re gasping for air, and if we don’t address that, we won’t be in any shape to spread the wealth around the globe.

      Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 8, 2017 at 11:32 am

      We won’t breath easier for choking others, Fuzzy.

      We can’t prosper the T-rumpian way. We certainly CAN hurt millions of people, including our own.

      I don’t care for your oxygen mask analogy for several reasons.

      One, it suggests we’ve helped others at our own expense. I don’t believe any such thing. Market exchanges are mutually enriching. Period. And screw the idiots who say that only applies to individual players in a market, and not the larger populace. That’s simply a lie. We have centuries of models proving this.

      It also suggests a limited pie, which I also don’t believe.

      Finally, it also seems to accept the T-rumpian model of government interference with market players. I am radically, violently opposed to that.

        inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2017 at 11:53 am

        I’m certainly no economist nor do I know much about international trade but I do know that the base of US workers in manufacturing is dwindling and being replaced with much lower paying service jobs. If this trend continues because of exported jobs, due to lower wages, then we will be a country of a very small middle class and a smaller big ticket market. True capitalism dictates that we always go for the cheapest cost but when other factors are included in that simple idea, we see that it is not as pure as seems. Many other competing countries with lower labor do not have the burdens that our country has placed on our corporations to produce the same product, Mexico being one of them. Should we give up our way of life so that items we buy are cheaper in the short run but more expensive in the long run? Just look around and ask yourselves what would happen today if we had to mobilize the nation as we did in WWII. There is no way. We are losing manufacturing jobs every year and under obama we have lost over 300,000 of these high paying jobs to foreign countries. We are becoming like the CEO who sees the world through two-year glasses and cannot see it as a lifetime business. Profits today and to hell with tomorrow! There has to be a balance and a level playing field.

          Ragspierre in reply to inspectorudy. | January 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm

          There’s too much bullshit in your post to deal with timely (no offense…just an observation).

          We’ve lost manufacturing jobs MAINLY to technology, not cheap foreign labor. Our manufacturing output is at an all-time high. This is the same trend seen in every industrialized nation in the world.

          Technology is ALSO challenging traditional retail, and there’s nothing that will stop that short of the force of government.

          T-rump has demagogued the jobs of coal country, but those are largely gone and won’t come back. We may bring back the use of coal as a fuel in the US, but mining will be increasingly automated. Unless the government outlaws automation.

          As to “wait and see”, I don’t EVER have to do that. You were a commercial pilot, if I recall. Did you have to “wait and see” the results of a violation of the laws of aerodynamics, or good, sound experience in the area of professional flying?

          I don’t, and never have had to, wait to see cause >>>> effect. By the same use of basic knowledge and reasoning, I was very able to predict what would happen in the early days of the Obamic Decline.

          It’s no different now.

        Again, I take your point, and the analogy is imperfect (as analogies so often are). I’m not sure that making moving American companies back to America more attractive should be viewed as hurting anyone, per se. We were hurt when they left (for the same reason that other countries will be hurt when they leave there; it’s not a one-way street), so trying to get them back is a way to help ease our economic woes. We aren’t courting Mexican companies to come build their factories here; we just want ours back because we need that cog in our economic engine.

        That said, I do think that even if taxes, tariffs, regulations, etc. are all eased, many companies will continue to have plants and “help” desks and whatever else overseas; we’ll never be able to compete with $1/day salaries, nor should we. We should also not throw up roadblocks to that decision should it be made once the climate is more conducive to remaining in the States. But there’s also no need to make it so unfeasible for American companies to function in our country.

        And I don’t believe in a limited pie, either, but I do think that it’s unworkable to keep serving up so much of the American pie (ugh!) to the rest of the world, when our own workers are starving. We simply can’t keep being the drivers of everyone’s economy but our own.

        If we had a truly free market and we didn’t already have so much federal interference with business, I’d be opposed to moving in that direction (as indeed I have been all along), but that’s not the case. The government already interferes with market players and in ways we don’t even think about as directly related, and you seem to be arguing for the status quo of big government meddling in everything from taxes and tariffs to salary and benefits to healthcare and zillions of alphabet agencies’ arbitrary regulations and rules.

        The status quo isn’t working for us and judging by the flow of Mexicans across our southern border, American auto companies haven’t made Mexico the land of milk and honey, either.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 8, 2017 at 12:39 pm

          “…and you seem to be arguing for the status quo of big government meddling in everything from taxes and tariffs to salary and benefits to healthcare and zillions of alphabet agencies’ arbitrary regulations and rules.”

          Most of your post was beneath you, but that shit was simply bizarre.

          I’m a frothing-at-the-mouth free market capitalist. Way more so than you, even. Apparently.

          Don’t be silly. What is “free market” about the federal government taxing, regulating, and legislating business to the degree that it’s no longer attractive for companies to function in America? I’m for getting rid of those roadblocks. Period. Beyond that, I do not think that the federal government, including Trump’s WH, should meddle at all. If companies want to continue out-sourcing overseas once we’re more competitive, fine, let them. But constraining them to the extent our federal government does is insane.

          I don’t see in your comments anything about supporting or promoting the free market. Are you not arguing that we shouldn’t change anything to improve the climate for free market capitalism to work so that Mexico can . . . what was it you said? Be wealthy and healthy so that we can discourage illegal immigration? That’s just shifting the reason for artificially manipulating the free market to bolster another country’s economy from spreading the wealth to national interests. What is free market about that?

          Gah! I love chatting with you, Rags, but I really have to get back to work. I’m not ignoring you, promise. 🙂

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 8, 2017 at 1:17 pm

          Crap, Fuzzy. It’s like you’ve never read a thing I’ve said over the years.

          I’m a TAX REFORM radical. Burn down the flucking code to the ground, and dig out the roots. Start with a clean sheet of paper, and NEVER let it be a redistribution program again! T-rump is just screwing with the margins, and his plan has been rated to INCREASE the debt by trillions.

          I’ve been an outspoken advocate of deregulation and the abolition of the administrative state long before I ever wrote a post here. Decades before!

          My position is NOT that we help any nation over helping ourselves. I simply understand that market transactions help everyone. And, sure, there are going to be some individuals and businesses that are impacted by that, but that is the “creative destruction” that means we drive great cars at the expense of the carriage and livery businesses. Or that we get out stuff the next day on our porch from Amazon instead of fighting our way into a mall for more money.

          I’m surprised by your use of straw man fallacies, too. That “milk and honey” crap was beneath you and an insult to me.

          Oh, well…

          I have read your posts for years and loved them. I love these, too, by the way. You’ve been reading me for years, too, so you know that I like a turn of phrase, a bit of hyperbole, and a dash of snark. I would never insult you intentionally, Rags.

          As to the rest, I don’t think anyone is saying that we shouldn’t trade with other countries (straw men aren’t mine alone); I know I’m not saying that. I just think that we can make the climate better for business here in America and that doing so will help our economy. In some instances it will ding another country’s economy, and when it does, the market dictates that they find a way to fill the gap or hobble along without doing so. I don’t see that as our problem because part of the free market concept means that things change in response to supply and demand and consumer influence. We’re mostly on the same page, partly at cross-purposes.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 8, 2017 at 1:44 pm

          “I don’t think anyone is saying that we shouldn’t trade with other countries”

          Neither do I. Even T-rump is not that daft.

          What he IS saying is that American companies can only trade on terms he deems appropriate. This includes not using their capital as they see fit to use it.

          No POTUS has any such right or power. Not under the Constitution. Nor is it even sound economics. It will lead to harm all across the world if it is allowed. It always has. This is nothing that hasn’t been seen before, with immense damage. It’s one of the things that made the “Great Depression” so “great”.

Oh f#@k off Rags ???????? It’s going to be a long cold and dark 8 years for you my friend ????????

    Ragspierre in reply to mailman. | January 8, 2017 at 9:13 am

    The other day, most major retail chains announce tens-of-thousands of jobs will be lost in the near future.

    How is the Great Orange Economist in DC going to make all that right?

    Does he propose they all go to work in pin factories? Home weaving? Back to the farm…Mao style?

    Central planning and industrial policy don’t work. Every time they’re tried, ya moron.

      casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2017 at 10:27 am

      Where is the central planning? Agree it’s a bad thing. But using the buzzword in this case seems a massive stretch. Not advocating Trump’s use of Twitter to demonize companies like he has. But if his tactic so far in “central planning” by making more favorable economic conditions continues, I guess I’m in favor of “central planning” as you apply it…..

        Ragspierre in reply to casualobserver. | January 8, 2017 at 10:43 am

        You’re confused.

        T-rump intends to impose the same fascist economic model we’ve seen from Barracula for eight years…crony crapitalism on a Federal scale…with some variations on emphasis. See ethanol.

        As to actual pro-liberty reforms, such as regulatory scale-backs and SOME tax policy proposals, I have no objection and considerable agreement. I’ll also believe them when I see them.

        If you have The Great God Cheeto or his Deemocrat/Soros buds telling Americans or their companies who they may or may not trade with, THAT IS “industrial policy”, and it IS central planing (as it comes for the central government, and not you, me, or the companies we form).

        Remember, fascist economics don’t require state ownership of capital, just control of capital by the central authority. It loves BIG, compliant business (see GE; see also United Technologies), and it HATES entrepreneurial, market driven business.

        Watch and see.

          inspectorudy in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2017 at 11:57 am

          Rags, why not start the new year off with a “Wait and see” attitude? You are getting as bad as the msm that has already condemned Trump on every issue. Just like the label on a hair restoration bottle, the proof is in the use of it. Just wait for a few months to see if your impressions are correct and then be like the msm and say the world is going to end soon!

          casualobserver in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2017 at 12:05 pm

          “…who they may and may not trade with..”
          Most of your points start with fact and get expanded into hyperbole. Will Ford not be able to buy or sell with certain partners, for example?

          Nice job with labels, though. Teheehee.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2017 at 1:19 pm

          Apparently not. Not without incurring the wrath of the Great God Cheeto. Did you miss this…???

      This is more organic, though, in that consumers are making the decision to shop online rather than in bricks and mortar stores. Companies can adapt. Or not. Another factor is the calls for, in many cases, doubling the current salaries of /per hour workers. Retailers simply can’t afford it and cannot compete with online retailing at the same time they are juggling minimum wage hikes and the onerous costs of ObamaCare to business.

      What is likely to happen, though, is that Congress will come up with more internet taxes and other regulations to “even the playing field.” Or at least that would have happened under Obama. Who knows what, if anything, Trump will do.

      I just don’t see government as the solution to retailers closing up shop, and as far as Ford goes, they weren’t going to continue with that particular auto assembly plant in Mexico, anyway.

      If Trump wants to ease regulations and the tax burdens (and other costs like ObamaCare) that pushed American manufacturing overseas, I’m all for it. If he plans to bully one company at a time on Twitter . . . not so much.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | January 8, 2017 at 11:18 am

        You should listen to the Levin clip I posted, Fuzzy.

        One of the big factors favoring Mexican auto manufacturing is that they are MORE free-market than we are. They impose LESS by way of tariffs than do we, and they have MORE free-trading arrangements with the rest of the world than do we.

        It isn’t just relative wage rates or regulatory burdens. It’s everything.

          Okay, Rags, I will. I have to write some things up first, but I will listen to it. 🙂

          From what you’ve said, though, Trump wants to ease all those burdens here in America. We have far too much government interference in our “free” market, and we all know it. I do agree that replacing one brand of heavy-handed federal government meddling with another is not a good plan, but getting rid of a bunch of stuff that pushes our companies overseas is good for our country.

Just wait until the use of I-9’s and E-verify kick in. Tens of billions are sent home by illegals and that is a huge part of the Mexican economy. If indeed the illegals begin self-deporting because of this, providing the infrastructure (schooling, medical care, etc.) for them when they return to their true homes will be very expensive for Mexico. The long free ride is coming to a screeching halt.

    Ragspierre in reply to 94Corvette. | January 8, 2017 at 9:32 am

    Well, that’s a condition that very much remains to be seen!

    I wonder how the net effect will look when all the ‘really, wonderful, amazing’ touch-backers are re-admitted.

    Plus, that sword you like so much is a double-edged one. Depending on the amount of time this displacement you imagine takes, it WILL devastate the US housing market for years.

    It will also have effects on school districts as they LOSE tax-base (in property and sales tax jurisdictions), cities, etc.

    We want our borders under control, and we want to control immigration. Pretending that will bring Nirvana is silly. It will be expensive, as we accommodate a new reality.

As described here, the situation seems excellent for an auto manufacturer in Mexico. The market is established, the technology isn’t too terribly mysterious, all the technical problems have long since been solved. All that’s needed to crank out cars and sell them is capital for the production machinery and factory physical plant, and labor at a variety of skill levels.

And what do we see? Mexico waiting for somebody else to do it. They have the ingredients, but they’re not stitching them together into something useful; they’re not even trying. That’s no way to blaze a trail to a dynamic economic future.

Oh, and this seems like a good place for a bit of info from the real world. The word from my contacts among US-based manufacturing types—the people who actually run and maintain factories churning out consumer goods in Mexico—is that the big problem in operating there is the pervasive crime. It’s just beyond belief. Even paying your employees is an adventure when armed gangs routinely walk in off the street on payday and steal your entire payroll. It’s just so much easier and cheaper—not to mention safer—to make stuff anywhere else. Poland. Spain (well, Basque or Catalan territory, anyway). China. Korea (South, of course). The Philippines. Estonia. Russia. India (great for working in English). Indonesia. Even Haiti … Ummm, maybe not Brazil.

As every honest journalist in Mexico will tell you, the primary cause of Mexico’s economic and social ills is its rampant, pervasive corruption. Mexico’s been using the US as an escape valve for dealing with public anger and desperation over that corruption. Now, Trump is closing that valve. This cannot end well. More than a decade ago, the US Army made the assessment — apparently accurately — that Mexico was in danger of turning into a failed state like Afghanistan. All we can do is identify the best alternative among the bad ones that are available to us, and try to implement it.

Here is an inconvenient truth about the world economy. the United States of America accounts for 26% of the consumer market for the ENTIRE WORLD. That’s right 300 million people, out of the 7.5 BILLION people living on the planet, buy over 1/4 of all the consumer goods made. And, those people all live in the same country. If the population of the US suddenly reduced their consumption by not buying a new car every 2 years, or a new television or cell phone every year, and wore the same clothes for two or three years, the world economy would be in dire straits. The big threat to the world economy and its financial backers is that the US will produce enough consumer products, internally, to supply all of its needs. This would cause the economic collapse of vast areas of the 2nd and 3rd world. The financial establishment has been promoting policies, in the US, which will reduce the US economy to the level of the rest of the world for only one reason. To eliminate the power of the American consumer. Right now, the USA essentially controls the world economy and that worries the financial establishment.

80% of Mexico’s exports go to the US. And, a significant amount of the consumer goods produced there are produced by US companies. Also, remittances from the US to Mexico, which come largely from illegal aliens living in the US, account for a cash infusion of approximately $26 BILLION every year. That is $26 BILLION dollars in US salaries and public assistance which leave the US and never return. Then there is the untaxed revenue generated in the US through criminal imports from Mexico. Again, money leaving the US which is spent elsewhere. So, will the Trump policies destroy the Mexican economy? They could. Whether they do or not will depend upon Mexico, not the US. There are literally trillions of dollars in yearly global wealth that can be directly impacted by the Trump administration. Buckle up for a bumpy ride.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | January 8, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    More inane bullshit.

    Item: “And, a significant amount of the consumer goods produced there are produced by US companies.”

    BUT…

    “That is $26 BILLION dollars in US salaries and public assistance which leave the US and never return.”

    Well, sure it DOES…!!! If US companies are producing “a significant amount of consumer goods” the money is coming from somewhere, and it’s coming (as profits and other costs) back here!

    Also, Mexicans are BIG consumers of American goods produced here.

    Jeebus…

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2017 at 5:43 pm

      I thought that you understood economic systems. The money which goes out of the country does not come back to the US, because the products on which this money is spent are not being manufactured in the US. And, aid, derived from the taxation of US workers should not be shipped out of the US to be spent overseas.

      What is happening with the US economy is that money is not completing the economic cycle in this country. Workers get paid to make consumer goods, in the US. They get paid in dollars. Then, those dollars are spent to buy consumer goods, which those workers, and others in the US make. This supports the economy in the US.

      However, when those dollars go to foreign workers, or are paid to illegals in the US, who then send the dollars outside this country where they are used to buy products made in other countries, it does not benefit the majority of people living and working in the US. If the funds are spent on products produced outside the US by US owned companies, these sales do not benefit the US worker. They would only benefit the US owner of the company.

      So, if US manufacturers produce these products in the US, then the US consumer can not only continue to be the premier customer for consumer products, but he can afford to do it without government assistance. Instead we have a developing welfare situation where the US is being asked to subsidize the rest of the world, by purchasing consumer goods which are produced in other countries whose citizens can not afford them AND to send our tax dollars to these countries to further subsidize them. Sooner or later, the well will run dry in the US and we will be reduced to the level of 2nd and 3rd world countries whose citizens can not afford to purchase the products that they produce.

      As I noted without the current open border situation between the US and Mexico, Mexico will collapse. Without unlimited trade with the US, Mexican manufacturing can not support the working population. Without virtually unlimited emigration to the US, Mexico is saddled with millions of citizens for whom there is no work. And, without this emigration to Los Estados Unidos, Mexico loses a $26 million a year infusion of cash, plus the illegal cash infusion from illegal imports into the US. So, when the wall is complete and NAFTA renegotiated, Mexico is going to have nearly insurmountable problems. That is why the leaders of Mexico are sweating bullets. And, if Mexico falls, the rest of the under developed world is likely to follow. Finances will dry up and the financial establishment will be destroyed.

      There is a reason why the USA is the richest nation in the world; we earned it. We would be fools to simply give it all away for no significant gain.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | January 8, 2017 at 7:34 pm

        “I thought that you understood economic systems. The money which goes out of the country does not come back to the US, because the products on which this money is spent are not being manufactured in the US.”

        I DO understand, and you’re full of shit.

        You said that Mexicans purchase American goods.

        You ALSO said that Mexicans purchase goods produced in Mexico by American companies.

        Both conditions result in the return of money to the US.

        ADDITIONALLY, dollars spent on Chinese goods (or any foreign goods) comes back to the US because they have no other place to go.

        What a dope.

      Mac45 in reply to Ragspierre. | January 8, 2017 at 5:58 pm

      Free trade sounds like a good idea. And, it is, when all of the trading partners are on a nearly equal footing. But if one partner is significantly richer than another, then the richer power ends up supporting the poorer. In the past, this led to economic colonialism, where the wealth of the poorer partner was stripped for the benefit of the richer. Now, however, global economic socialism exists which attempts to force the richer partner to support the weaker. To the benefit of the poorer and the detriment of the richer. This is the situation between the US and Mexico, China and a score of other favored trading partners. The common denominator in all of these partnerships is a drain on the economic welfare of the US, without any long term gain for US citizens.

        Ragspierre in reply to Mac45. | January 8, 2017 at 7:37 pm

        “Free trade sounds like a good idea. And, it is, when all of the trading partners are on a nearly equal footing.”

        More remarkable bullshit without the slightest support.

        Relative wealth of trading parties has NOTHING to do with “goodness”. At all. Ever.

        WTF do you even get this shit?

Reuters: the Andrea Mitchell of news agencies.

For decades, hell since the time of Santa Anna, the Mexican government has been corrupt. Supporting their own form of crony capitalism and shoving the poor of on the US as a release valve to keep the pressure under control.

Closing off the border will do one of two things. It will either force Vicente Fox and friends to clean up their act and treat their own poor with some dignity. Or it will cause the poor to rise up and put Fox and friends heads on pike and create new governments which will have to be much less corrupt.

It’s time we stopped being the enablers.

    Ragspierre in reply to RodFC. | January 8, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    Ergo, you’re a big advocate of trade with Mexico.

    As I pointed out WAAAAAAYYYYY back up yonder.

    If you want fewer “poor Mexicans” (actually, they’re more like the surplus middle class) being drawn here, you want them to be comfortable at home.

    No less true for Chinese, Indians, whoever.

    And the sole, sovereign means to make that happen…proven for centuries to make US more wealthy, too…is to have free and open trade.

It doesn’t have to happen this way. Emigration reform is also in Mexico’s interest. The issue is the rise of left-wing anti-nativism that threatens peoples homes, families, and lives, and erects roadblocks to reconciliation.

    Mac45 in reply to n.n. | January 8, 2017 at 5:48 pm

    No, emigration reform is not in Mexico’s interest. Mexico can not sustain itself without the reduction in population and the influx of cash from the US allowed by the current border situation. If Mexican citizens had to stay home and find work there, they could not. This would lead to wide spread civil unrest, which would cause the collapse of the country. The Mexican government knows this.

Its not America’s job to boost Mexico’s economy at our expense? Who knew? Oh,Trump knew. No one else really mentioned it.

What the Mexicans will not do:

Design and build their own cars.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend