HorseSoldier : Doubtful. Mexico's economy is entirely too dependent on trade with the US.
That couldn't ever change?
Isn't China rising as a super power? I've read and heard these Mexican radicals talk and write about how much they admire China and that they might try and get political and economic backing from China when the time comes.
Just because the Mexican economic situation is like that now doesn't mean that it will always be so.
This is the economic state that Mexico is in right now. You're just not trying to envision what it'll be like in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. I'm not talking about a year from now, I'm talking about a ways off in the future. Besides, war is not always bad for an economy and just because Mexico is dependent on the US right now does not always mean that it will be so. Maybe they'll recieve backing from China and maybe they won't, but they aren't looking to the US to hold their hand forever.
1994 Economic Crisis in Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_economic_crisis_in_Mexico
Mexico Got into a bind economically when it tried to reach too far, too fast.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Mexico
While the crisis took place under President Zedillo, the causes are usually attributed to Carlos Salinas de Gortari's outgoing administration. Salinas de Gortari partly coined the term "December Mistake" when he stated in an interview that Zedillo's sudden reversal of the former administrative policies of tight currency controls was "a mistake." It must be mentioned that Salinas de Gortari's popularity and credibility at the time was still high; even though his government's currency policy put an unbelievable strain on the nation's finances, the resulting economic bubble gave Mexico a prosperity not seen in a generation. This period of rapid growth coupled with low inflation prompted some political thinkers and the media to state that "Mexico was on the verge of becoming a First World nation.", and in fact, it was the first of the "newly industrialized nations" to be admitted into the OECD in May 1994.
As in prior election cycles, a pre-election disposition to stimulate the economy temporarily and unsustainably led to a self-fulfilling prophesy of post-election economic instability. Well before this, there were concerns of the sheer level and quality of credit extended by banks during the preceding low-interest rate period, as well as the standards for extending credit. Credit booms often precede credit busts. Later on, the country's risk premium was also affected by an armed rebellion in Chiapas which made investors even more wary of investing their money in an unstable region. The Mexican government's finances and cash availability were further hampered by two decades of increasing spending, debt loads, and low oil prices. It's ability to absorb shocks was hampered by its commitments to finance past spending.
It was a known fact that the peso was overvalued (by at least 20%, according to some sources), but the extent of the Mexican economy's vulnerability was either not well-known or downplayed by Salinas de Gortari's tame políticos and media. Nonetheless this vulnerability was further aggravated by several unexpected events and macroeconomic mistakes of his administration.
Economists Hufbauer and Schott (2005) have commented on several events in 1994, and the macroeconomic policy mistakes that precipitated the crisis:
1994 was the last year of the sexenio or 6-year administration of Carlos Salinas de Gortari who, following the PRI tradition on every election year, launched an amazingly high spending splurge, which translated into a historically high deficit
In order to finance the historical deficit (a 7% of GDP current account deficit) Salinas issued the Tesobonos, an attractive type of debt instrument that was denominated in pesos but indexed to dollars
Mexico experienced (common to those days) lax banking or corrupt practices; moreover, some members of the Salinas family (though only his brother, Raúl, was imprisoned) collected enormous illicit payoffs
The most-likely-to-win candidate, Luis Donaldo Colosio, was assassinated in March of that year; a couple of months later José Francisco Ruiz Massieu, in charge of the investigation, was assassinated as well
The EZLN, an insurgent rebellion, officially declared war on the government on 1 January; even though the armed conflict ended two weeks later, the grievances and petitions remained a cause of concern, especially amongst some investors.
All of these, and the increasing current account deficit fostered by consumer binding and government spending, caused alarm amongst savvy investors that had bought the tesobonos, mainly Mexican and a few foreigners, who sold them rapidly, depleting the already low central bank reserves. The economically orthodox thing to do, in order to maintain the fixed exchange rate functioning (at 3.3 pesos per dollar, within a variation band), would have been to sharply increase interest rates by allowing the monetary base to shrink, as dollars were being withdrawn from the reserves (Hufbauer & Schott, 2005).
China-who might be their savior. Then again they may not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China
Low intensity warfare in the SW USA, even before considering any economic sanctions against Mexico, is bad for business.
Add to that the economic vitality of el Norte to the Mexican economy as well, right where its utterly vulnerable to interdiction, air strikes, raids from the US and whatever else and we're really and truly into fantasy land with this "Mexico versus the US" silliness.
If you're trying to argue that there will be no war between Mexico and the US or a civil war involving a significan portion of the Hispanic population just because it's bad for business then think again. This is what Ludwig von Mises had to say on the subject that you're talking about (war being bad for the economy).
Quote from LVM from this site.
http://www.mises.org/nsande/pt2ch4.asp
About Ludwig Von Mises.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises
His Economic Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute
Nation, State, and Economy
Ludwig Von Mises
The Economy's War Costs and the Inflation
The losses that the national economy suffers from war, apart from the disadvantages that exclusion from world trade entails, consist of the destruction of goods by military actions, of the consumption of war material of all kinds, and of the loss of productive labor that the persons drawn into military service would have rendered in their civilian activities. Further losses from loss of labor occur insofar as the number of workers is lastingly reduced by the number of the fallen and as the survivors become less fit in consequence of injuries suffered, hardships undergone, illnesses suffered, and worsened nutrition. These losses are only to the slightest degree offset by the fact that the war works as a dynamic factor and spurs the population to improve the technique of production. Even the increase in the number of workers that has taken place in the war by drawing on the otherwise unused labor of women and children and by extension of hours of work, as well as the saving achieved by limitation of consumption, still does not counterbalance them, so that the economy finally comes out of the war with a considerable loss of wealth. Economically considered, war and revolution are always bad business, unless such an improvement of the production process of the national economy results from them that the additional amount of goods produced after the war can compensate for the losses of the war. The socialist who is convinced that the socialist order of society will multiply the productivity of the economy may think little of the sacrifices that the social revolution will cost.
But even a war that is disadvantageous for the world economy can enrich individual nations or states. If the victorious state is able to lay such burdens on the vanquished that not only all of its war costs are thereby covered but a surplus is acquired also, then the war has been advantageous for it. The militaristic idea rests on the belief that such war gains are possible and can be lastingly held. A people that believes that it can gain its bread more easily by waging war than by work can hardly be convinced that it is more pleasing to God to suffer injustice than to commit injustice. The theory of militarism can be refuted; if, however, one cannot refute it, one cannot, by appeal to ethical factors, persuade the stronger party to forgo the use of its power.
The pacifistic line of argument goes too far if it simply denies that a people can gain by war. Criticism of militarism must begin by raising the question whether the victor can then definitely count on always remaining the stronger or whether he must not fear being displaced by still stronger parties. The militaristic argumentation can defend itself from objections raised against it from this point of view only if it starts with the assumption of unchangeable race characters. The members of the higher race, who behave according to pacifistic principles among themselves, hold firmly together against the lower races that they are striving to subjugate and thus assure themselves eternal predominance. But the possibility that differences will arise among the members of the higher races, leading part of their members to join with the lower races in battle against the remaining members of the higher ones, itself shows the danger of the militaristic state of affairs for all parties.
In any case, not too much economic insight is needed to recognize that a war means at least direct destruction of goods, and misery. It was dear to everyone that the very outbreak of the war had to bring harmful interruptions in business life on the whole, and in Germany and Austria at the beginning of August 1914 people faced the future with fear. Astonishingly, however, things seemed to work otherwise. Instead of the expected crisis came a period of good business; instead of decline, boom. People found that war was prosperity; businessmen who, before the war, were thoroughly peace-minded and were always reproached by the friends of war for the anxiety that they were always showing at every flare-up of war rumors now began to reconcile themselves to the war. All at once there were no longer any unsalable products, enterprises that for years had run only at a loss yielded rich profits. Unemployment, which had assumed a menacing extent in the first days and weeks of the war, disappeared completely, and wages rose. The entire economy presented the picture of a gratifying boom. Soon writers appeared who sought to explain the causes of this boom.[10]
Read the entire article and tell me what you think.
It can be in a PM or on here. Or don't tell me what you think if you don't want to, but I'd be interested in whatever you had to say on the subject. To my way of thinking Von Mises is saying in that article is that economics really doesn't matter in war if you're past a certain point economically. Read the whole article if you like as I wasn't going to print the whole thing.
To me what he's saying is that wars always have a way of being fought and that the rich industrialists always have a way of getting rich. He's also saying in there that whether there was money or not, people would still make weapons to fight wars as whether they have money or not, they still have the materials to make them.
A good economy won't prevent a war just because people are making money and neither will a poor one because people will still find a way of profiting from it as well. We may be having fun in consumer bliss enjoying our wide screen TV's and computers, but there can still be war no matter what.
The "It Can't Happen Here" syndrome won't prevent it from happening.
And the hippies wanted us all to live in Wigwams and wear roman sandles or whatever. Aztlan advocates tend to be hippie analogs, only latino ones -- second or third generation immigrants, probably in college or with some college education, and affluent enough to waste their time on ridiculous ideas. Also like the hippies, they enjoy scaring the establishment.
So you're saying that just because radicals are educated then they become less dangerous rather than more? I seem to remember American Communist students in the 1960's and 70's that blew up buildings, shot people, robbed banks, rioted in the streets and cause all manner of mayhem. They were educated and many of them recieved advanced degrees.
If you doubt me do a search on the United Freedom Front or The Weather Underground. In the UFF most of them were college graduates who recieved Bachelors and Masters degrees. They went on to rob 20 something banks, bombed various targets and killed a policeman.
The Weather Underground wasn't made up entirely of former college student like the UFF was, but most of them were college students at one time or another and many of them were well educated. They bombed targets, robbed banks and killed several policemen and some armored car guards.
The terrorists in the Italian Red Brigades and the German Red Army Faction were well educated as well and most of them met at college. So were the radicals that tore apart the countries of Brazil, Columbia, Uruguay and several other South American countries for years with political violence.
Is that still your argument that just because they're leftist students that they can't be violent?
As for real Mexican immigrants and migrant workers? The "Invaders" under discussion?
I've argued and talked with alot of Mexican-Americans when I worked construction when I was younger about why they were here in the US illegally. They told me that this country used to belong to Mexico and that it would again. That's what alot of the regular Mexican-Americans believe. If you don't believe me, ask some of them.
They believe that they have every right to be here despite the fact that they're violating the law. They believe that the Southwestern US is their country and they intend on taking it back. Haven't you ever talked to a Mexican-American about this subject?
You think they want the carve part of the US off the map and align it with Mexico? Are you nuts?
I never said that. From the things that I've read they want to set up the Republic del Norte or Republic of the North which would be separate from Mexico. They don't want to return the territory to the Mexicans, they just don't want to be part of the US.
In order to understand the situation you have to understand how wealthy and well to do Mexicans and the Mexican elite view Illegal Immigration into the US. Basically they need the pressure release. Releasing poor people into the US is taking some of the pressure off of them. The people (Illegals) don't want to be there and they see more opportunities in the US and Mexican elites don't want them back as if they stayed then the poor Mexican people might eventually demand some kind of reform or revolt against the corruption the way that they did during the Mexican Revolution. It's just a large safety valve to release some of the pressure on the Mexican government. It works out for them both if they come to the US, then those people are the US's problem. It just doesn't work out that well for the American people, but who cares about us right?
Wikipedia on Aztlan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n
Wikipedia on MECHA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEChA
Who is MECHA
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html
Professor Predicts Hispanic Homeland.
http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm
The Nation of Aztlan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkAP_M4ZAM
Aztlan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auo4shn_cJQ
Aztlan Rising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCCVUot-hBo
Cost Of Illegal Immigration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY6t2ckpb5g
Mexican Corruption Spurs Illegal Immigration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvm4A9IZytM
Republic Del Norte
http://www.unm.edu/~ecdn/socialcontract.html
You think they haven't figured out that Mexican government or Mexican style government is why they can't find a job that pays more than pennies a day back home (if they can find one at all)?
When people want war and are angry, economics seems to take a backseat in peoples emotions. But like Ludwig Von Mises talks about, just because there's a war on does not mean that the economic situation will become bleak. You're just having trouble envisioning the situation many years from now, as you're looking at the situation NOW.
Are you nuts? You think they haven't figured out that Mexican government or Mexican style government is why they can't find a job that pays more than pennies a day back home (if they can find one at all)?
