sh**t hitting the fan in Mexico, millions protest

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It seems that the popular Mexico City mayor is being blocked from running for President.


According to the most recent poll for the El Universal newspaper, 72 per cent of Mexicans believe Mr López Obrador was impeached to remove a political rival, rather than as part of a legal proceeding. Two-thirds said they would be prepared to take part in acts of civil disobedience to support him.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/24/1795/90526

[So the Heroes Fall]

Hopefully they let him run. This will only help his chances. I hear he's a real hardcore far left wing extremist, and therefore would definately be a great President.

[A18]

This rebellion should be crushed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This rebellion should be crushed.

Not a fan of Democracy, I see? At least after Debs was arrested, he was still able to run in the 1920 election. In Mexico, they can block you from running.

[A18]

Well, I prefer freedom to democracy, personally.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I prefer freedom to democracy, personally.

How is arbitrarily denying people the right to run for President freedom?

[A18]

Well, the problem is that once he was elected president, he would infringe upon the freedom of the minority. Certainly terrible.

Anyway, I don't know the situation. If he's just a left-wing extremist, I guess go ahead and let him screw the country over FDR style. Doesn't hurt me any. But if he actually did something wrong, then go ahead and ban him, and crush this rebellion.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, the problem is that once he was elected president, he would infringe upon the freedom of the minority. Certainly terrible.

Anyway, I don't know the situation. If he's just a left-wing extremist, I guess go ahead and let him screw the country over FDR style. Doesn't hurt me any. But if he actually did something wrong, then go ahead and ban him, and crush this rebellion.

So basically you only care about the freedom of the rich?

[A18]

No, of everyone. But helping yourself to property that isn't yours is not 'freedom,' obviously.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, of everyone. But helping yourself to property that isn't yours is not 'freedom,' obviously.

Denying someone the right to run for office just because they want the rich to pay their fair share is not freedom.

[A18]

If he's a left-winger, he obviously wants them to pay more than that. Though really, any tax system that isn't a flat dollar amount is truly 'unfair' to the rich, who benefit much less from the government. I suppose even a flat dollar amount would be unfair in that regard.

But you know, you have to be practical about these things.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If he's a left-winger, he obviously wants them to pay more than that. Though really, any tax system that isn't a flat dollar amount is truly 'unfair' to the rich, who benefit much less from the government. I suppose even a flat dollar amount would be unfair in that regard.

But you know, you have to be practical about these things.

I think Mexico is about the only 1st world country with lower taxes for the rich than the US.

[A18]

Well I certainly want that to come to an end, but I would prefer it happen by means of the United States reducing them, not Mexico raising them!

[The Duke]

Obrador is a mized bag candidate.  His call to use oil to fund anti-poverty program is better than the way PEMEX is run today, but no country has ever actually alleviated poverty by doing that.

See: Venezuela

If its between Obrador and Ms. Fox, I might back Obrador.

Amended as follows: I looked it up, Obrador broke the law and cannot run.  Hence, I can't support his candidacy.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Over 1 million in just one protest.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11479896.htm

[frenger]

If he's a left-winger, he obviously wants them to pay more than that. Though really, any tax system that isn't a flat dollar amount is truly 'unfair' to the rich, who benefit much less from the government. I suppose even a flat dollar amount would be unfair in that regard.

But you know, you have to be practical about these things.

I think Mexico is about the only 1st world country with lower taxes for the rich than the US.

Russia. Estonia and otebhr eastern european countries. switzerland.
I dont know if this qualifies as 1st world, but Syria.

[Beet]

If he's a left-winger, he obviously wants them to pay more than that. Though really, any tax system that isn't a flat dollar amount is truly 'unfair' to the rich, who benefit much less from the government. I suppose even a flat dollar amount would be unfair in that regard.

But you know, you have to be practical about these things.

I think Mexico is about the only 1st world country with lower taxes for the rich than the US.

Russia. Estonia and otebhr eastern european countries. switzerland.
I dont know if this qualifies as 1st world, but Syria.

Mexico is not a 1st world country, neither is Russia. They are middle income countries, which is to say not fully developed. Out of all the countries mentioned only Switzerland makes it to that category. The U.S. GDP per capita in 2003 was $37,800. In order to qualify as first world, one must have a GDP per capita of at least $15,000, or about 60% of the Western European "big four" benchmark. That qualifies Switzerland ($32,700) and Portugal ($18,000) but not Mexico ($9,000) or Russia ($8,900).

[frenger]

If he's a left-winger, he obviously wants them to pay more than that. Though really, any tax system that isn't a flat dollar amount is truly 'unfair' to the rich, who benefit much less from the government. I suppose even a flat dollar amount would be unfair in that regard.

But you know, you have to be practical about these things.

I think Mexico is about the only 1st world country with lower taxes for the rich than the US.

Russia. Estonia and otebhr eastern european countries. switzerland.
I dont know if this qualifies as 1st world, but Syria.

Mexico is not a 1st world country, neither is Russia. They are middle income countries, which is to say not fully developed. Out of all the countries mentioned only Switzerland makes it to that category. The U.S. GDP per capita in 2003 was $37,800. In order to qualify as first world, one must have a GDP per capita of at least $15,000, or about 60% of the Western European "big four" benchmark. That qualifies Switzerland ($32,700) and Portugal ($18,000) but not Mexico ($9,000) or Russia ($8,900).

If we consider purchasing power parity, estonia ais above that mark.

[opebo]

The U.S. GDP per capita in 2003 was $37,800. In order to qualify as first world, one must have a GDP per capita of at least $15,000, or about 60% of the Western European "big four" benchmark. That qualifies Switzerland ($32,700) and Portugal ($18,000) but not Mexico ($9,000) or Russia ($8,900).

Where are you getting all these GDP per capita figures?

[Colin]

The U.S. GDP per capita in 2003 was $37,800. In order to qualify as first world, one must have a GDP per capita of at least $15,000, or about 60% of the Western European "big four" benchmark. That qualifies Switzerland ($32,700) and Portugal ($18,000) but not Mexico ($9,000) or Russia ($8,900).

Where are you getting all these GDP per capita figures?

Well according to the CIA World Factbook the US GDP per capita - perchasing power parity is $37,800. Switzerland GDP per capita - ppp- 32,700. Portugal is 18,000. Estonia is 12,300. Russia is 8,900. Mexico is 9,000. His facts are all right.

[Beet]

The U.S. GDP per capita in 2003 was $37,800. In order to qualify as first world, one must have a GDP per capita of at least $15,000, or about 60% of the Western European "big four" benchmark. That qualifies Switzerland ($32,700) and Portugal ($18,000) but not Mexico ($9,000) or Russia ($8,900).

Where are you getting all these GDP per capita figures?

Well according to the CIA World Factbook the US GDP per capita - perchasing power parity is $37,800. Switzerland GDP per capita - ppp- 32,700. Portugal is 18,000. Estonia is 12,300. Russia is 8,900. Mexico is 9,000. His facts are all right.

Yeah, thats where I got them.

[opebo]

The U.S. GDP per capita in 2003 was $37,800. In order to qualify as first world, one must have a GDP per capita of at least $15,000, or about 60% of the Western European "big four" benchmark. That qualifies Switzerland ($32,700) and Portugal ($18,000) but not Mexico ($9,000) or Russia ($8,900).

Where are you getting all these GDP per capita figures?

Well according to the CIA World Factbook the US GDP per capita - perchasing power parity is $37,800. Switzerland GDP per capita - ppp- 32,700. Portugal is 18,000. Estonia is 12,300. Russia is 8,900. Mexico is 9,000. His facts are all right.

Oh I had no doubt they were right, I was just curious where they came from.  I like those kind of figures.  However I really dislike Purchasing Power Parity estimates - I would much rather have the cold hard figures based on real exchange rates.