Originally posted by scacchipazzoMexico has more ways to travel, to be sure, but Columbia has taken longer and still has astronomical death rates, they have the curse of being a supply source rich in drugs, and Mexico has the curse of being right in the way where supply and demand meet, but much work does need to be done and there is some notable progress. I agree about Calderon, he is doing a brave clean-up job, but most analysts say this will take time and I agree, you don't just rid crime families and organizations overnight or make the drugs find better transits overnight either.
Mexico has the natural resources to be a power in the hemisphere, yet they sqaunder these resources through allowing latifundista-like mentality to prevail. I am not sayiing these other prblems I mention are the exclusive domain of Mexico, but there seems to be little effort at doing an about face like Colombia did. I had high hopes for mexico when Fox ...[text shortened]... n the north of Mexico and his diversification extended the same to other parts of the country.
Fox was ineffective, true, he did have a divided congress, but I admit he wasn't as practical as Calderon.
I think Mexico wants to be great, but many reforms have been hard to push through. One problem is that after decades of the Mexican Revolution's violence and instability in government, a peace was made by creating a one-party state with revolving power, which we all know now as the PRI, and they basically used some very government-centric, deeply involved medling in the free markets, government enterprises, peace with unions and drug dealers even, a real mess of a state, but a peaceful one. The ricih families were made happy with their protected little monopolies. The generals were untouched for human rights violations and let them handle internal millitary things, and in exchange they stayed out of politics. It seems the peace did keep Mexico away from many south americacn disasters that suffered under millitary dictatorships and death squads, kept away civil wars, and landed mexico amongst the richest in latin america.
But I agree there is much work to get to the "rich" area. Being richer than Costa Rica per capita is not enough. Watching Chile pass Mexico is not enough.
We actually greatly agree that socialism failed Mexico. 500 publicly owned companies, still a land of monoplies (or at least oligopolies in many cases) controlled by a few hundred wealthy families. I think that "trust-busting" like the US did under Theodore Roosevelt and a couple of other Presidents would do Mexico good. One problem is it's Mexico's gilded age, and there is still much need for "muckrakers" and civil society to step up the heat on the monopolists in government-owned enterprises, in private enterprises, and in unions monopolizing labor (competition-free). It is too much to be done in one administration, but much has been done by Calderon and the people need to help more and call out the monopolists.
Thanks for the referene on Eugenio Garza Sada, very interesting, saw the wiki.
I belief that with the NAFTA generation growing up under free trade and free exchange of ideas with the US, there will be more like him.
Originally posted by badmoonToo bad, lots of good areas, but definitely dangerous along most of the Northern border due to all the drug routs and drug hot-spots like Juarez and Tijuana.
From yesterday's paper there was an item - a mutilated body hanging from a bridge in Tiajuana. That is so much Mexico today, at least what is given to us over the border.
I live in Arziona but no longer visit Mexico. Rockie Point was a great place too.
Except for certain zones, it's still pretty safe for non-drug-related people.
Originally posted by MelanerpesMaybe more industrial parks and less red tape, plus access to reforms struck down by the pri-dominated supreme court like tax reform, perhaps more competition and better institutions even there. Continued improvements in educational institutions and attainment, fight the teacher's unions... lots of things could use lots of work, but it's already got a standard of living comparable to decent european cities.
Besides being on the Mexican side of the border, what is preventing a place like the Monterrey metro area from being as prosperous as Dallas or Houston or Phoenix?
Originally posted by scacchipazzoSome of that's mere aesthetics, but I wouldn't mind seeing progress on that end too.
That's a tough one. Great city, wonderful people, lots of resources, decent education. I have been there a few times. Perhaps they need to start with the small things like cleaning up garbage, fixing broken windows, getting rid of that cesspool of an experimental farm to the north that seemingly gets fertilized with human waste, improving on pollution c ...[text shortened]... ing there. I have not visited after the series of severed heads hit various areas of Monterrey.
Crime and corruption for sure. Regardless of being good for latin american standards, it could always be much better and it should be.
Originally posted by eljefejesusMexico is a great country and should be a shining example for the rest of Latin America and the world. Changing even the aesthetics seems to work wonders elsewhere. I'll give you a comparison. NIagara, Canada, Vs. Niagara, USA. The USA side is run down, dirty, trashy and the motels/hotels are old and decrepit. The Canadian side is spic and span, attractive, thriving and taking business away from the USA side the old fasioned way. Hard work and old fashioned capitalism. I'n proud of the Canadians. When I go through the border into to Mexico it is not hard to see how you might get depressed. Clean surroundings lift you up whereas dirty ones drag you down. I am not referring to a little litter here or there, but major problems like open air fecalism, contamination of water sources, etc. Compare the two Laredos, for example. Nowhere is the first versus third world contrasts more glaring. If you have been to NYC you can see it is a dirty city, yet the trashy aspect of it comes from the sheer logistics of so many people residing in such small quarters eating, engaging in commerce and being producitve. Yu don't find "aguas negras" in NYC whereas in Nuevo Laredo it seems to be everywhere. If Texas can make its citizens clean up, so should Mexico. After all it is the same ethnic group predominant on both sides. It proves there is no inherent racial defect or a liking of filth. The Texas side is pretty darn clean. A cousin in Torino travelled to Mexico. I asked what she thought. Summed it up in one word: sporco! Not the people, the place. These bad habits are hard to break, but if broken nationally might go a long way towards improving the national psyche.
Some of that's mere aesthetics, but I wouldn't mind seeing progress on that end too.
Crime and corruption for sure. Regardless of being good for latin american standards, it could always be much better and it should be.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoI'm all for improving the aesthetics, I think one advantage in the US side is they have the economic side in order, so there are less people in poverty who have more important things on their minds. Not sure a forceful law is really so simple a solution, but there is certainly room for projects and innovation, but funding will remain an issue. A more open and transparent politics is slowly taking hold in some parts of the government, and I think it could be another useful part of the process if it could be brought to the cities. Economic growth, more transpartent and responsive government, innovative project, all could do a lot of good.
Mexico is a great country and should be a shining example for the rest of Latin America and the world. Changing even the aesthetics seems to work wonders elsewhere. I'll give you a comparison. NIagara, Canada, Vs. Niagara, USA. The USA side is run down, dirty, trashy and the motels/hotels are old and decrepit. The Canadian side is spic and span, attract ...[text shortened]... break, but if broken nationally might go a long way towards improving the national psyche.
I'd love to see Mexico look the way it deserves to look, rather than how much of it looks... as prove, some parts of Mexico today are already nicer than parts of Mexico years ago, although overall, there could be a more widespread and general change.
Heck, I think even openly discussing this helps focus attention on the issue and even discourse is part of the solution.
Originally posted by eljefejesusI'm telling you it goes beyond mere aesthetics. Studies have been done by academics on this very issue. There is one neighborhood where people decided to clean up, chase the hookers and drug dealers away and the transformation was impressive. One isssue we have combated in my neighborhood is the exploitation of young Latina females to sell beer in scanty outfits. It is demeaning, exploitive, frequently a front for prostitution and these girls end up pregnant and tossed to the side. We have successfully closed two of four, but they keep coming back. My neighborhood is multiethnic and quite gentrified. These establishments are a blight!
I'm all for improving the aesthetics, I think one advantage in the US side is they have the economic side in order, so there are less people in poverty who have more important things on their minds. Not sure a forceful law is really so simple a solution, but there is certainly room for projects and innovation, but funding will remain an issue. A more o ...[text shortened]... discussing this helps focus attention on the issue and even discourse is part of the solution.
Originally posted by rwingettLike the USSR, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Ukraine, Poland, East Germany, Cuba, Angola? Mexico should look to those shining examples of leftist badness and stick with capitalism. The stalinist-leninist system is sooo great hundreds of thousands of Cubans risk their lives to escape it. Mexico, already quais-socialist has nothing but poverty and misery and leave by the millions to come to the USA. How many people died to escape East Germany? Then there's those pesky Soviet purges. Nah! Mexico would do better under a true free market system.
No...making life more difficult (perhaps) in the short run. In the long run it would be better.
Originally posted by scacchipazzoNo again. As I clearly stated earlier, Mexico should join the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas and drop out of the Western dominated "free trade" alliances. It has nothing to do with your favorite Stalinist whipping boys.
Like the USSR, Cambodia, Viet Nam, Ukraine, Poland, East Germany, Cuba, Angola? Mexico should look to those shining examples of leftist badness and stick with capitalism. The stalinist-leninist system is sooo great hundreds of thousands of Cubans risk their lives to escape it. Mexico, already quais-socialist has nothing but poverty and misery and leave ...[text shortened]... there's those pesky Soviet purges. Nah! Mexico would do better under a true free market system.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettEnlighten me then. What is this magical Bolivarian Alliance? Who would be their main trade partners? Chaves, Evo, Zelaya wannabes? Castro light?
No again. As I clearly stated earlier, Mexico should join the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas and drop out of the Western dominated "free trade" alliances. It has nothing to do with your favorite Stalinist whipping boys.
No need to respond, rwingett. As I suspected it is a Chavez initiative. I would strongly advice mexico to distance itself from Hugo Chavez! It is the usual socialist claptrap. Social justice for some, repression of the opposition, financing terrorism. Corruption by leftists usually leads to death for many.