Saving Mexico's economy.

[Technosoul]

I believe that saving our own economical down-turn is directly linked to the situations of poverty in Mexico.

What can and what should our government do to insure that our neighboring country is not a thorn in our side, but rather, a helpmate.

So that the economy will improve across the Americas and not just here in the USA, and so that we do not improve our economy at the disadvantage of others countries. This is important also because our population here is made up of a large minority of Mexican-Americans.

I recomend you check out Grandpa's latest blog before responding to this question.

Be prepared to debate your in-put statements.

[Dieval]

One could ask the question...Why doesn't Mexico help out OUR economy? We could use more money to bailout these failing companies. They could print up another 50 trillion peso's to give us....we could another $10,000 to invest in our economy!

[tinybear]

Well one good thing about the current economic downturn is that there fewer illegals from Mexico coming into the country. They just realized that they can't get any jobs here.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tinybear Well one good thing about the current economic downturn is that there fewer illegals from Mexico coming into the country. They just realized that they can't get any jobs here.

I don't see one good thing that could come out of what you say. Of course, I don't agree that there are too many immigrants in this country, or that their lack of hope is a positive.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Perhaps both countries need an amendment that sperates the economy from the government. Let the workers fight it out with the employers over what is a decent wage. Let the shoppers force the stores to "haggle" over the prices being charged. Allow the black market to compete with the chain stores. Let people start up a bussiness on the sidewalks or anywhere you have an open space downtown, sell hot dogs or whatever without a truckload of permits and whatnot.

Anyone in for some TechnoBurgers - 75 cents each.

[Night]

They need to privatize their energy sector, split up PEMEX, and boost their economy by creating a modern banking system throughout the country and make loans easier to get.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: tinybear Well one good thing about the current economic downturn is that there fewer illegals from Mexico coming into the country. They just realized that they can't get any jobs here.

You live in L.A. and have that opinon? Did you really notice reduced numbers looking out of your car window? I am surprised.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Night They need to privatize their energy sector, split up PEMEX, and boost their economy by creating a modern banking system throughout the country and make loans easier to get.

So going into debt will help out their situation?

[Athena]

I am disappointed in you guys. That was a lot of meaningless rubbish.

First, what is need for economic growth? I give the whole contintent of North America before any states were formed by European immigrants. Let's assume you just got here with a few hundred people. Now how do you become wealthy?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Athena Let's assume you just got here with a few hundred people. Now how do you become wealthy?

Start here: History of the United States
End here: Bill Gates

[Rog]

North American currency union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul I believe that saving our own economical down-turn is directly linked to the situations of poverty in Mexico.

End the war on drugs! The Mexican Cartels cripple the Mexican society. The Mexican Government can not compete with the Cartels that have the backing of a billion dollar industry.
Send them condoms! Mexicans population is increasing much faster than they can handle! They do nothing about it except pawn illegals out on America!

What can and what should our government do to insure that our neighboring country is not a thorn in our side, but rather, a helpmate.

See above, but Mexico first and foremost most take care of themselves!

So that the economy will improve across the Americas and not just here in the USA, and so that we do not improve our economy at the disadvantage of others countries. This is important also because our population here is made up of a large minority of Mexican-Americans.

There is an even larger American of German dissent population. There economy is on huge downturn do we need to do something directly for them!

I recomend you check out Grandpa's latest blog before responding to this question.

I read a little of it and I nearly lost my lunch. Mexican argricultural products have been flooding North of the border at a greater rate than ever. Business that have provided jobs have been flooding across the border since NAFTA and even before with the Maquisdoras of the 70s-80s! America and Canada gave Mexico a beautiful gift with NAFTA!

[Charlatan]

If Mexico's economy goes down the tiolet then there will be effects felt in America. The trade which is easy and short distance with Mexico will be desolated leading to less competition and higher prices by American markets, leading to a captive market. Well not so much a captive market seeing as how there are African, Asian, European and South American markets to trade with, but less variety, and variety is good. If Mexico doesn't right it's economy there will be more dependance on aid from the States and then they will need to start their economy over from the point where they have to rely on foreign investment. The good part is that the comapnies will be really cheap and easy to start up again, leading to an economic boom that will see investors making money, Mexico making money, and everyone will be better off in a short while. When Mexico falls someone else is ready to invest, but investing in a downtrodden country is easy as everything is so cheap. This will lead to a 'gold rush' where everyone will buy up all the stocks and see their investments grow, and seeing as how it has a weak currency, everyone will buy their products. This means that Mexican wares will be sought after, not for quality, but for quantity. If they can produce quality then they will be even better off, and the markets will thrive. This only comes with investment though, and it is easier to invest in a ruined country than in an established country. The problem is though that if you invest in a country with few people investing too, you get one dominant monopoly chain openeing up and then you see the market plunge, which is not good for anybody. So if investment comes it will need to come from different parties, unless it is so big that they buy different businesses and run them against each other, meaning that they will be playing with the market and pulling all the strings they feel like doing, which is also a monopoly of sorts, so it will need to come from various backers and not just one.

What is needed therefore is lots of investors rather than more investment. That could happen with the division of wealth, but that needs to come about naturally. Luckily wealth gets divided each generation as parents die and leave money to their children, so the number of investors is increased, but not at a rate that will make the economy right itself. So there needs to be not more investment, but rather more investors. Investors could be poorer and get loans from the bank. As companies buy each other out, you end up with lots of rich people and a few investors in the markets. This decline in investors means that over time all investment will be channeled to fewer people, magnifying the number of players in the market. But these people put their money into banks, so it is still in circulation, so it is up to the banks to invest in the markets and right the whole world's economy, as they have replaced the players in the markets as people decide to sell their businesses off.

Think of the equation where a small business opens it's doors, does really well, and sells itself off to a larger business. The owner might stick their money in the bank - especially now with the failing economy - and be done with living off of interest. You cannot force people to buy stocks, but the banks can use the money in the bank to fund other businesses starting up. Unfortuantely these businesses often fail, so there is a risk involved. If it were the past owners themselves starting a new business then there would be less risk as it is their money. You cannot play with money that is not yours, so the banks have a ceiling to what they can invest in and how much. This though leads to banks becoming the only players in the market, and that is akin to a monopoly, so, the banks need to grant lower fees to their clients or incentive to play the market, as then there will be competition for the monopolies, prices will come down, and there will be cutting of fat here and there, resulting in a better business. As a business grows to a monopoly it gets lazy, and that is bad for investors, so benefitting smaller businesses starting up will have a galvanizing effect on the markets as a whole.

Seeing as how the only players at this time are banks and the government, they will buy the businesses they choose and let the smaller businesses go down. This will lead to an even more desperate market and then they will be aiding monopolies - the state and the banks, until they have no market left. To get the market going again you need more players on the field, not more investment. The longer it goes that the state is the only player in the market the longer the crisis will continue, so, the government should take out that big loan and loan it themselves to other people as that will increase the amount of players in the market and help it recover, and then grow. Seeing as how the ordinary person though doesn't have the capital to invest in the market, they should issue loans to qualified brokers to play the market themselves and rectify the situation. A broker knows what to buy, and coming up with a choice where they would make a lot of money on one deal, and not getting it, will be able to identify the next best deal to go for, stimulating the economy. The brokers would surely make a little less money than no money at all, right? I can't think of any better way to deal with the crisis than by granting loans to brokers, or, university people that can then invest where they see the best deal. This will lead to a competitive market and will make the economy recover quicker, with a competitive edge, especially in today's situation.

What else can the state do? What is needed is a competitve market with lots of players, and the only way to get players is to offer incentives to people with money or offer loans to brokers or university students of economics. A student with a large loan granted to them will know what to buy in, and it will cut the costs of the total loan, as the markets recover due to investment by various parties. Of course the students should be willing to undertake such a plan and be limited to markets of the country they live in, to keep the money 'in house'. To have the state own a wide variety of companies is akin to a rich person owning a wide variety - they will only succeed if the various businesses are in diferent sectors, as if they are in the same sector then there will be a monopoly, so, they should not keep the money they lend, but act as a bank granting risky loans. The only way out of this is to take a chance, so investing in their people, and making their people invest in the country is the only way out. So effectively the state will be a middle man and see that instead of forcing people to invest in the market, they take the money anyway and see to it it gets invested in the markets from the people that play the markets, leading to a healthy environment.

Maybe they could allow various people working for the state to own the loans and then the stocks they choose. What is needed is individuality, without it it will just get worse, so, they need to personalise the market, as competition thrives on being personal, holding the business close to you is essential for caring for it and seeing it do well, and then the market with personalised businesses will be competitive and thrive on that edge it has when personal.

The only way to solve this is with money. The banks have it, the market needs it, so, it has to find a way out of the banks and investors onto the market floor. The wyas you can do that is by offering incentive, or, maybe, taxing people for keeping their money stagnant, or, loaning the money to interested people. If people had money to spend on one thing and one thing only, and a time limit to spend it in, with incentives, they would do what is good for themselves, and that is good for the economy. What they need is a sprigboard for the people, and then the markets will benefit.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Athena I am disappointed in you guys. That was a lot of meaningless rubbish. First, what is need for economic growth? I give the whole contintent of North America before any states were formed by European immigrants. Let's assume you just got here with a few hundred people. Now how do you become wealthy?

Open a bank or rob one. hee hee.

Wealth would not be all that important, what you would need is knowledge. Knowledge about farming or hunting. How to survive the winter months. It would be a good idea if those hundreds of people all worked together to help each other build those cabins, and so forth.

Trade was mostly with the natives and so cash would not be of much use, you would need ships so that you could export tobacco and stuff to other rich countires, then bring back that money and loan it to farmers and small companies at a profit to your self. Paying people to chop more trees to build you more ships. Import free labor perhaps to cut overhead costs.

I don't see that can solve our current problems very much.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 End the war on drugs! The Mexican Cartels cripple the Mexican society. The Mexican Government can not compete with the Cartels that have the backing of a billion dollar industry. Send them condoms! Mexicans population is increasing much faster than they can handle! They do nothing about it except pawn illegals out on America! See above, but Mexico first and foremost most take care of themselves! There is an even larger American of German dissent population. There economy is on huge downturn do we need to do something directly for them! I read a little of it and I nearly lost my lunch. Mexican argricultural products have been flooding North of the border at a greater rate than ever. Business that have provided jobs have been flooding across the border since NAFTA and even before with the Maquisdoras of the 70s-80s! America and Canada gave Mexico a beautiful gift with NAFTA!

I do not find a lot to object to in your comments, except sending them condoms, they have those already. You would need to get the Pope to change his views for the religion that dominates in Mexico.

They do export a lot of produce into U.S. and elsewhere, or course those products are not marked "grown in Mexico" and so some people are not aware of that fact. Corn might be a problem area.

The input of Mexican grown crops became even more in demand because some of the areas in the USA got hit with bad weather last year, or so.

One of the cheapest foods in Mexico is beef, they got a lot of cattle.

What they seem to not have is a lot of high-tech companies with all those office buildings filled with tiny cubicals and computers, at least I do not think so.

Germany (and Africa) are the roots of many citizens but their boarders do not touch ours. Which makes a difference.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Charlatan If Mexico's economy goes down the tiolet then there will be effects felt in America. The trade which is easy and short distance with Mexico will be desolated leading to less competition and higher prices by American markets, leading to a captive market. Well not so much a captive market seeing as how there are African, Asian, European and South American markets to trade with, but less variety, and variety is good. If Mexico doesn't right it's economy there will be more dependance on aid from the States and then they will need to start their economy over from the point where they have to rely on foreign investment. The good part is that the comapnies will be really cheap and easy to start up again, leading to an economic boom that will see investors making money, Mexico making money, and everyone will be better off in a short while. When Mexico falls someone else is ready to invest, but investing in a downtrodden country is easy as everything is so cheap. This will lead to a 'gold rush' where everyone will buy up all the stocks and see their investments grow, and seeing as how it has a weak currency, everyone will buy their products. This means that Mexican wares will be sought after, not for quality, but for quantity. If they can produce quality then they will be even better off, and the markets will thrive. This only comes with investment though, and it is easier to invest in a ruined country than in an established country. The problem is though that if you invest in a country with few people investing too, you get one dominant monopoly chain openeing up and then you see the market plunge, which is not good for anybody. So if investment comes it will need to come from different parties, unless it is so big that they buy different businesses and run them against each other, meaning that they will be playing with the market and pulling all the strings they feel like doing, which is also a monopoly of sorts, so it will need to come from various backers and not just one. What is needed therefore is lots of investors rather than more investment. That could happen with the division of wealth, but that needs to come about naturally. Luckily wealth gets divided each generation as parents die and leave money to their children, so the number of investors is increased, but not at a rate that will make the economy right itself. So there needs to be not more investment, but rather more investors. Investors could be poorer and get loans from the bank. As companies buy each other out, you end up with lots of rich people and a few investors in the markets. This decline in investors means that over time all investment will be channeled to fewer people, magnifying the number of players in the market. But these people put their money into banks, so it is still in circulation, so it is up to the banks to invest in the markets and right the whole world's economy, as they have replaced the players in the markets as people decide to sell their businesses off. Think of the equation where a small business opens it's doors, does really well, and sells itself off to a larger business. The owner might stick their money in the bank - especially now with the failing economy - and be done with living off of interest. You cannot force people to buy stocks, but the banks can use the money in the bank to fund other businesses starting up. Unfortuantely these businesses often fail, so there is a risk involved. If it were the past owners themselves starting a new business then there would be less risk as it is their money. You cannot play with money that is not yours, so the banks have a ceiling to what they can invest in and how much. This though leads to banks becoming the only players in the market, and that is akin to a monopoly, so, the banks need to grant lower fees to their clients or incentive to play the market, as then there will be competition for the monopolies, prices will come down, and there will be cutting of fat here and there, resulting in a better business. As a business grows to a monopoly it gets lazy, and that is bad for investors, so benefitting smaller businesses starting up will have a galvanizing effect on the markets as a whole. Seeing as how the only players at this time are banks and the government, they will buy the businesses they choose and let the smaller businesses go down. This will lead to an even more desperate market and then they will be aiding monopolies - the state and the banks, until they have no market left. To get the market going again you need more players on the field, not more investment. The longer it goes that the state is the only player in the market the longer the crisis will continue, so, the government should take out that big loan and loan it themselves to other people as that will increase the amount of players in the market and help it recover, and then grow. Seeing as how the ordinary person though doesn't have the capital to invest in the market, they should issue loans to qualified brokers to play the market themselves and rectify the situation. A broker knows what to buy, and coming up with a choice where they would make a lot of money on one deal, and not getting it, will be able to identify the next best deal to go for, stimulating the economy. The brokers would surely make a little less money than no money at all, right? I can't think of any better way to deal with the crisis than by granting loans to brokers, or, university people that can then invest where they see the best deal. This will lead to a competitive market and will make the economy recover quicker, with a competitive edge, especially in today's situation. What else can the state do? What is needed is a competitve market with lots of players, and the only way to get players is to offer incentives to people with money or offer loans to brokers or university students of economics. A student with a large loan granted to them will know what to buy in, and it will cut the costs of the total loan, as the markets recover due to investment by various parties. Of course the students should be willing to undertake such a plan and be limited to markets of the country they live in, to keep the money 'in house'. To have the state own a wide variety of companies is akin to a rich person owning a wide variety - they will only succeed if the various businesses are in diferent sectors, as if they are in the same sector then there will be a monopoly, so, they should not keep the money they lend, but act as a bank granting risky loans. The only way out of this is to take a chance, so investing in their people, and making their people invest in the country is the only way out. So effectively the state will be a middle man and see that instead of forcing people to invest in the market, they take the money anyway and see to it it gets invested in the markets from the people that play the markets, leading to a healthy environment. Maybe they could allow various people working for the state to own the loans and then the stocks they choose. What is needed is individuality, without it it will just get worse, so, they need to personalise the market, as competition thrives on being personal, holding the business close to you is essential for caring for it and seeing it do well, and then the market with personalised businesses will be competitive and thrive on that edge it has when personal. The only way to solve this is with money. The banks have it, the market needs it, so, it has to find a way out of the banks and investors onto the market floor. The wyas you can do that is by offering incentive, or, maybe, taxing people for keeping their money stagnant, or, loaning the money to interested people. If people had money to spend on one thing and one thing only, and a time limit to spend it in, with incentives, they would do what is good for themselves, and that is good for the economy. What they need is a sprigboard for the people, and then the markets will benefit.

Sounds to me like you have some workable solutions, I hear tell that Japan is investing in Mexico and is in the process of building cars there.

It appears that those few people who have the powers to control things, namely those in governmental positions or their banks, would hamper that from happening. So how to get around that roadblock is in demand of another solution.

I know of some people who invested in property and build houses on those properties and then some government offical re-claimed their land as belonging to "people of Mexico". If people do not trust the countries government and if it is not stable then investing there would seem unwise.

Most people invest in proven sucess if they can, in a good company that is growing by leaps and bounds. Although other upstart companies might be less expensive to invest in the risk is higher.

But what I think you are suggesting is that Mexico must improve their outreach to gain more investors, more players. Like the Gov of Califiornia goes all over (Japan - etc) to talk business to come to our state here in the USA with their investments, getting them to open a branch here instead of somewhere else. Mexico should do more of that as they have a handy work force and good weather. But not sure about "highly educated workers". They might need to concentrate on their schools systems as well to prepare their people for the next wave of industry.

To open their own businesses and to seek investors is another matter, they must have business wise people running those companies and evidence that the products are marketable.

[Plus Ultra]

The Mexican economy is not doing so bad. The war on drugs is causing a lot of trouble but its not like there's much of an alternative.

Improving Mexico's economy would be good for the US because aside from reducing the immigrant flow, it would be advantageous to have a more prosperous neighbor, they would buy more things made in the US.

Mexico has become an attractive place to locate manufacturing because its right next to the US where there is a strong market. Lower regulatory and labour costs make manufacturing in Mexico much cheaper than in the US and the NAFTA arrangements mean Asian and European multinationals can ship to the US from Mexican factories saving money in shipping costs and import duties.

Mexico had a very negative experience with US oil companies which led to the nationalization of oil extrating activies, it is very difficult to convince Mexicans it would be better to end the government's monopoly, particularly if this would entail letting US oil companies profit from this resource.

The most important Mexican oil field is on the wane and Mexico lacks the capital or technological capacity to reach newly discovered fields in the Gulf. Mexico needs to secure arrangements that will allow it financing for the expensive technology to exploit those fields without relinquishing their sovereignty over the oil. Recently Mexico passed legislation (much to the chagrin of the left) that will allow limited foreign participation in extractive activities. This is progress, but there will be no privatization of the oil sector. Mexico needs to build at least 3 new refineries to cope with growing demand, and these could involve foreign investment since they are not strictly "extractive". I expect global demand will encourage Mexico to allow foreign financing for these refineries.

[Athena]

Quote by: Technosoul Open a bank or rob one. hee hee. Wealth would not be all that important, what you would need is knowledge. Knowledge about farming or hunting. How to survive the winter months. It would be a good idea if those hundreds of people all worked together to help each other build those cabins, and so forth. Trade was mostly with the natives and so cash would not be of much use, you would need ships so that you could export tobacco and stuff to other rich countires, then bring back that money and loan it to farmers and small companies at a profit to your self. Paying people to chop more trees to build you more ships. Import free labor perhaps to cut overhead costs. I don't see that can solve our current problems very much.

Great a real attempt to answer the question. What has to do with the current problems, is a matter of developing what you said.

Once the trees are gone, what happens to everything dependent on trees? How long can Mexico support itself with its timber industry?

What happens when one large farmer can out produce 50 farmers? This is a very serious question for much of the world.

Very important, what is that other stuff?

[Athena]

Quote by: Plus Ultra The Mexican economy is not doing so bad. The war on drugs is causing a lot of trouble but its not like there's much of an alternative. Improving Mexico's economy would be good for the US because aside from reducing the immigrant flow, it would be advantageous to have a more prosperous neighbor, they would buy more things made in the US. Mexico has become an attractive place to locate manufacturing because its right next to the US where there is a strong market. Lower regulatory and labour costs make manufacturing in Mexico much cheaper than in the US and the NAFTA arrangements mean Asian and European multinationals can ship to the US from Mexican factories saving money in shipping costs and import duties. Mexico had a very negative experience with US oil companies which led to the nationalization of oil extrating activies, it is very difficult to convince Mexicans it would be better to end the government's monopoly, particularly if this would entail letting US oil companies profit from this resource. The most important Mexican oil field is on the wane and Mexico lacks the capital or technological capacity to reach newly discovered fields in the Gulf. Mexico needs to secure arrangements that will allow it financing for the expensive technology to exploit those fields without relinquishing their sovereignty over the oil. Recently Mexico passed legislation (much to the chagrin of the left) that will allow limited foreign participation in extractive activities. This is progress, but there will be no privatization of the oil sector. Mexico needs to build at least 3 new refineries to cope with growing demand, and these could involve foreign investment since they are not strictly "extractive". I expect global demand will encourage Mexico to allow foreign financing for these refineries.

How long has Mexico been producing oil?
What happens to the revenue gained from oil?
What happens to the economy when the oil is gone?

[Plus Ultra]

Not sure when Mexico started producing oil, but do know it was by US oil companies. Oil profits not lost through corruption and poor management have been spent on educational, medical, and other infrastructural needs.