Mexico 2006
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:24:19 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Mexico 2006
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17
Author Topic: Mexico 2006  (Read 67463 times)
KillerPollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,984
Mexico


Political Matrix
E: -3.15, S: -0.82

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 03, 2005, 10:16:44 AM »

http://www.ocnus.net/cgi-bin/exec/view.cgi?archive=62&num=16154

check it out... will the PAN (Fox's party) take the win again?
or will another PRI winning streak be about to begin?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2005, 12:15:52 PM »

yes! Go PRD!

What exactly is the PRI's platform anyway? PAN is the conservative party, PRD is the leftist one, so what is the PRI and why did no one decide to vote them out until a couple years ago.
Logged
KillerPollo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,984
Mexico


Political Matrix
E: -3.15, S: -0.82

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2005, 01:40:08 PM »

yes! Go PRD!

What exactly is the PRI's platform anyway? PAN is the conservative party, PRD is the leftist one, so what is the PRI and why did no one decide to vote them out until a couple years ago.
The PRI always won elections from 1929 (it's official modern name establishment) until 2000 when Fox won... they won every election for many reasons... mainky money, and to corruption in the 1988 election, which some say it was technically stolen.
I do not know what platform would the PRI be in exactly... Interesting matter to look up though
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2005, 04:29:19 PM »

According to Electionworld the PRI is an Authoritarian Centrist Party. Take that as you will.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2005, 06:56:03 PM »

PRI is the party of The Leader and The Flag. Historically, it was created to give the revolutionary generals a platform where they could interact and share spoils without shooting. Since the founders were, generally, sociallist, so was the party, at least early on.  Rather quickly, it converged to the following arrangement. The party would completely and loyally support the president in whatever he decided to do during a single 6-year term. At the end of the term, the president would nominate a successor (from within the party, and not a relative of himself),  which the party made sure would be overwhelmingly elected, and then unconditionally retire from politics.   In return, the party was guaranteed (honestly or otherwise) all but a handfull of congressional seats, all governorships and all but a few   municipal administrations.  Opposition (mainly, the right-wing PAN) was usually allowed to elect a half-dozen congressmen and a mayor of a village or two.  If they disagreed with such a paltry alotment, they were free not to take their seats.

Starting in the mid 1980's PRI had a sequence of 3 pro-market presidents. Once the new orientation of the presidency (and, hence, of the party) became clear, the left wing of it split, forming the PRD. The first 2 pro-market presidents (de la Madrid and Salinas) were not really democrats, but did allow slightly greater degree of political freedom, resulting in the opposition (PAN) capturing a few large municipalities and, eventually, some governorhips.  The left-wing of PRI (now the PRD), probably, won the 1988 presidential election, but a timely "computer glitch" spoiled their chances.

In 1994 an "accidental" (and, as it turned out, disloyal to the party) president Zedillo came to power. He wanted to ensure his place in history by introducing democracy to Mexico. PRI was in a bind: loyal to the presidency, PRI congressmen were forced to vote for their own defeat, by creating an independent electoral commission and electoral tribunals. In 1997 they lost majority in Congress, and in 2000 the presidency (they still have the largest congressional faction and most governorhips, though).

The current system is, roughly, like this. The left-wing PRD (the true PRI of old) is a socialist party. They address each other "comrades" the way and govern in the capital city and the states of Guerrero, Michoacan, Baja California Sur and Zacatecas, and have a strong presence in Tlaxcala and Tabasco and parts of the Mexico State. Their organization in the rest of the country is near negligible. Their congressional faction is weak. In some states they may have inherited the PRI patronage network. Their color is yellow, not red.

The right-wing PAN is the traditional opposition. Early on (in the 1950s) it had an economic conservative and a religious conservative wings.  Later the religious conservatives were dominant, but  the current leadership has a number of outsiders (including president Fox himself), so the religious wing is somewhat in check. The party governs in a number of central and northern states and is the principal opposition in most of the remainder (usually, to PRI, to PRD in the capital). They control the presidency and have the second-largest faction in the Congress. They run under the blue-white colors.

The PRI is ... well, the patronage party. It has multiple factions and is, in general, a "big tent". Traditionally, they also address each other "comrades" (though, they use a different, milder word than the PRD). They are in league with the unions and the free-market wing is blamed for the defeat in 2000, so these days they are somewhat more to the left, but they won't insist on it too much.  Their colors are green-white-red, so if you vote against them, you vote against the national flag.

Additionally, there are a few small parties, which control some seats/ offices.  The Greens are a family business directed at getting campaign funds and sellig the votes to the highest bidder (somewhat in the mode, but with a lot fewer principles, then the old NY Liberal party) . The Labor Party (color - red) is a more radical version of the PRD (the non-PRI leftists). The Convergence party and a couple of newer start-ups complete the picture.

To make slight sense, here is a sample of party adverts for the fothcoming Mexico State election (one of the few states were all three parties are strong).  The election is next month, the adverts are seen all over the city subway (which gets out into the state).

PAN: "under the PAN goverment in the last 4 years 3 million people bought new houses" (subsidezed by the government). "under PAN x gazillion citizens got sociall security!"/

PRD: "The PRD-controlled government  of the Capital City has introduced old age pensions for y hundred thousand capitalinos". "The City assambley has passed the old-age and the young-age laws protecting your rights" "Mexico - a different government".

PRI (note: the current governor is from PRI): "Join the party and win! Your party-membership card is your lottery ticket!". In front of a big pyramid or a big montain, or a torso of a soccer player the national (and party) tricolor and a slogan: "Very Mexican. PRI".

I guess, that's enough.
Logged
Redefeatbush04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,504


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2005, 01:16:09 AM »

PRI is the party of The Leader and The Flag. Historically, it was created to give the revolutionary generals a platform where they could interact and share spoils without shooting. Since the founders were, generally, sociallist, so was the party, at least early on.  Rather quickly, it converged to the following arrangement. The party would completely and loyally support the president in whatever he decided to do during a single 6-year term. At the end of the term, the president would nominate a successor (from within the party, and not a relative of himself),  which the party made sure would be overwhelmingly elected, and then unconditionally retire from politics.   In return, the party was guaranteed (honestly or otherwise) all but a handfull of congressional seats, all governorships and all but a few   municipal administrations.  Opposition (mainly, the right-wing PAN) was usually allowed to elect a half-dozen congressmen and a mayor of a village or two.  If they disagreed with such a paltry alotment, they were free not to take their seats.

Starting in the mid 1980's PRI had a sequence of 3 pro-market presidents. Once the new orientation of the presidency (and, hence, of the party) became clear, the left wing of it split, forming the PRD. The first 2 pro-market presidents (de la Madrid and Salinas) were not really democrats, but did allow slightly greater degree of political freedom, resulting in the opposition (PAN) capturing a few large municipalities and, eventually, some governorhips.  The left-wing of PRI (now the PRD), probably, won the 1988 presidential election, but a timely "computer glitch" spoiled their chances.

In 1994 an "accidental" (and, as it turned out, disloyal to the party) president Zedillo came to power. He wanted to ensure his place in history by introducing democracy to Mexico. PRI was in a bind: loyal to the presidency, PRI congressmen were forced to vote for their own defeat, by creating an independent electoral commission and electoral tribunals. In 1997 they lost majority in Congress, and in 2000 the presidency (they still have the largest congressional faction and most governorhips, though).

The current system is, roughly, like this. The left-wing PRD (the true PRI of old) is a socialist party. They address each other "comrades" the way and govern in the capital city and the states of Guerrero, Michoacan, Baja California Sur and Zacatecas, and have a strong presence in Tlaxcala and Tabasco and parts of the Mexico State. Their organization in the rest of the country is near negligible. Their congressional faction is weak. In some states they may have inherited the PRI patronage network. Their color is yellow, not red.

The right-wing PAN is the traditional opposition. Early on (in the 1950s) it had an economic conservative and a religious conservative wings.  Later the religious conservatives were dominant, but  the current leadership has a number of outsiders (including president Fox himself), so the religious wing is somewhat in check. The party governs in a number of central and northern states and is the principal opposition in most of the remainder (usually, to PRI, to PRD in the capital). They control the presidency and have the second-largest faction in the Congress. They run under the blue-white colors.

The PRI is ... well, the patronage party. It has multiple factions and is, in general, a "big tent". Traditionally, they also address each other "comrades" (though, they use a different, milder word than the PRD). They are in league with the unions and the free-market wing is blamed for the defeat in 2000, so these days they are somewhat more to the left, but they won't insist on it too much.  Their colors are green-white-red, so if you vote against them, you vote against the national flag.

Additionally, there are a few small parties, which control some seats/ offices.  The Greens are a family business directed at getting campaign funds and sellig the votes to the highest bidder (somewhat in the mode, but with a lot fewer principles, then the old NY Liberal party) . The Labor Party (color - red) is a more radical version of the PRD (the non-PRI leftists). The Convergence party and a couple of newer start-ups complete the picture.

To make slight sense, here is a sample of party adverts for the fothcoming Mexico State election (one of the few states were all three parties are strong).  The election is next month, the adverts are seen all over the city subway (which gets out into the state).

PAN: "under the PAN goverment in the last 4 years 3 million people bought new houses" (subsidezed by the government). "under PAN x gazillion citizens got sociall security!"/

PRD: "The PRD-controlled government  of the Capital City has introduced old age pensions for y hundred thousand capitalinos". "The City assambley has passed the old-age and the young-age laws protecting your rights" "Mexico - a different government".

PRI (note: the current governor is from PRI): "Join the party and win! Your party-membership card is your lottery ticket!". In front of a big pyramid or a big montain, or a torso of a soccer player the national (and party) tricolor and a slogan: "Very Mexican. PRI".

I guess, that's enough.

Very informative post AG
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2005, 03:49:48 AM »

Weird PRI ads... Smiley

Oh yeah, what Red NJ said.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2005, 11:26:29 PM »

Mexico having, probably, one of the longest election campaigns in the world, already has the "pre-campaign" for the July 2006 in full swing. Thus, with the elections due in 11 months (and the current presidential term with almost 16 months to go!) there is actual news to report.

The PRI "pre-candidates" other than the party leader Madrazo, having previously united in the anti-Madrazo front (literally called "All united against Madrazo") have run their "pre-primary".  The winner is the outgoing Mexico State governor Arturo Montiel. He is now to run pretty much one on one in the full party primary against Madrazo. Granted, Madrazo has a fair chunk of the party machine on his side, but Montiel is as good an old dinosaur as they ever made - he is not to be written off. Today's Reforma poll (usually one of the best polling organizations in Mexico) puts Montiel at 44% to 41% for Madrazo among the PRI members and, and gives him an even healthier 46% to 37% lead among those who intend to vote. What is even more interesting, among the general electorate 43% would prefer Montiel as the PRI candidate (against 28% for Madrazo).  Montiel could be a tough cookie as a PRI candidate - he knows how to play the party machine, and owns much of it in Mexico State, which is the major battlefront of the campaign, since 15% of the country's population live there (Madrazo's home state of Tabasco, which he shares with PRD's Lopez Obrador, is a lot smaller). Of course, there are still wild cards out there, but, unless a wild card is actually needed, it is down to these two for PRI.

As for the rest - not much news. For PRD Lopez Obrador has all but gotten the nomination - there won't be any serious candidates to rival him. PAN will have a noisy contested primary with a half dozen of serious and semi-serious contestants. So far, I would still think Creel and Calderon being the front-runners. Lopez Obrador has resigned his mayoralty and those PAN contenders who had been in the Cabinet have resigned their posts (by law one has to resign before the start of the general election campaign - i.e., some time in January, - but these days most parties require the same for candidates in the primaries before they can be formally registered to run).

So far outside the race, the "moral leader" of the PRD Cuauhtemoc Cardenas continues sulking and thinking about running as independent. Somewhat suggestively, a Federal Senator from Mexico City viewed as close to him has indicated that he might either run for the City Mayoralty as an independent, or even by contesting the PAN primary. This is a bit akin to Sen. Schummer making noises about contesting the Republican primary for NYC Mayor.  That election is on the same day as the presidential, and the race is almost as interesting at this point - perhaps, I should write about it some other time.

On a wilder note, the Zapatista rebels have come out of the jungle to make vehement pronouncements against PRD in general and Lopez Obrador in particular.  They've called him "trator" and worse. While they are not much of a force outside those parts of Chiapas which they control (and where they could make the election impossible), the surprise is that it is the leftmost candidate in the race they find particularly unacceptable (I guess, they view him as the most direct competition).
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2005, 11:39:57 PM »

Where do you live by the way? You seem to have a lot of insight about the whole world, but know quite a lot of the specifics about Mexico.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2005, 12:48:14 AM »

Mexico having, probably, one of the longest election campaigns in the world, already has the "pre-campaign" for the July 2006 in full swing. Thus, with the elections due in 11 months (and the current presidential term with almost 16 months to go!) there is actual news to report.

The PRI "pre-candidates" other than the party leader Madrazo, having previously united in the anti-Madrazo front (literally called "All united against Madrazo") have run their "pre-primary".  The winner is the outgoing Mexico State governor Arturo Montiel. He is now to run pretty much one on one in the full party primary against Madrazo. Granted, Madrazo has a fair chunk of the party machine on his side, but Montiel is as good an old dinosaur as they ever made - he is not to be written off. Today's Reforma poll (usually one of the best polling organizations in Mexico) puts Montiel at 44% to 41% for Madrazo among the PRI members and, and gives him an even healthier 46% to 37% lead among those who intend to vote. What is even more interesting, among the general electorate 43% would prefer Montiel as the PRI candidate (against 28% for Madrazo).  Montiel could be a tough cookie as a PRI candidate - he knows how to play the party machine, and owns much of it in Mexico State, which is the major battlefront of the campaign, since 15% of the country's population live there (Madrazo's home state of Tabasco, which he shares with PRD's Lopez Obrador, is a lot smaller). Of course, there are still wild cards out there, but, unless a wild card is actually needed, it is down to these two for PRI.

As for the rest - not much news. For PRD Lopez Obrador has all but gotten the nomination - there won't be any serious candidates to rival him. PAN will have a noisy contested primary with a half dozen of serious and semi-serious contestants. So far, I would still think Creel and Calderon being the front-runners. Lopez Obrador has resigned his mayoralty and those PAN contenders who had been in the Cabinet have resigned their posts (by law one has to resign before the start of the general election campaign - i.e., some time in January, - but these days most parties require the same for candidates in the primaries before they can be formally registered to run).

So far outside the race, the "moral leader" of the PRD Cuauhtemoc Cardenas continues sulking and thinking about running as independent. Somewhat suggestively, a Federal Senator from Mexico City viewed as close to him has indicated that he might either run for the City Mayoralty as an independent, or even by contesting the PAN primary. This is a bit akin to Sen. Schummer making noises about contesting the Republican primary for NYC Mayor.  That election is on the same day as the presidential, and the race is almost as interesting at this point - perhaps, I should write about it some other time.

On a wilder note, the Zapatista rebels have come out of the jungle to make vehement pronouncements against PRD in general and Lopez Obrador in particular.  They've called him "trator" and worse. While they are not much of a force outside those parts of Chiapas which they control (and where they could make the election impossible), the surprise is that it is the leftmost candidate in the race they find particularly unacceptable (I guess, they view him as the most direct competition).

Two very thoughtful and informative posts.

I see Calderon as the PRD candidate (think he will get 21 per cent of the vote in the general), Obrador as the PAN candidate (32 per cent in the general) and Montiel as the PRI candidate (43 per cent).

A simple but relatively accurate way to look at Mexico geopolitically is to divide the county into thirds.  The northern third is the PAN stronghold, the middle third largely PRI, with the south the PRD stronghold.

BTW, will Quintanna Roo every get to become a state again?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2005, 12:25:19 PM »


I see Calderon as the PRD candidate (think he will get 21 per cent of the vote in the general), Obrador as the PAN candidate (32 per cent in the general) and Montiel as the PRI candidate (43 per cent).

A simple but relatively accurate way to look at Mexico geopolitically is to divide the county into thirds.  The northern third is the PAN stronghold, the middle third largely PRI, with the south the PRD stronghold.

BTW, will Quintanna Roo every get to become a state again?

Well, it is Calderon for PAN and Obrador for PRD (unless, of course, the parties decide to rename themseleves).

Your geographic analysis is out of date. The South is not a PRD stronghold, the center is where PRI is the weakest, not the strongest, and PAN has been largely defeated by PRI in the North (though not in the center).

PRD is not that strong either in Oaxaca or in Puebla (PRI is), or in Morelos (governed by PAN), nor pretty much anywhere in Yucatan (all states there are governed either by PRI or by PAN). The Chiapas politics is somewhat special, but it still isn't much of a PRD stronghold (the current governor won as a joint nominee of every party other than PRI). Even Tabasco (where Lopez Obrador is from), I believe, has never elected a PRD governor (Lopez Obrador himself lost).  Thus, the only states with strong PRD that have a claim to be in the "south" are Guerrero  (where they've just one the governorship for the first time) and Tlaxcala (where they have just lost the governorship to PAN because of an intra-party conflict). The main strength of the PRD is in the capital (Center) and in the state of Michoacan in the (Center-West). It is also strong in Zacatecas (Center-North) and Baja California Sur (North). 

Similarly with PAN - the party governs in such central states as Guanajuato (Fox was the first PAN governor there), Jalisco (capital - Guadalajara), San Luis Potosi and Queretaro. It also has governors in Morelos and Tlaxcala in the South and is the main opposition to PRD in and around the capital city.  However, all the states bordering on the US except for the PAN-governed Baja California Norte are in PRI hands these days (PAN used to be strong to dominant in Chihuahua and Nuevo Leon, but PRI is newly ascendant there; other states, like Tamaulipas and Sonora, where never much in play as PRS strongholds)

These days it would make sense to say that PAN , PRI and PRD fight each other for the Center of the country, PAN and PRI contest  the North (with PRI ahead at present), while PRI is dominant in most of the South and the Yucatan peninsula (with a PAN-PRD alliance trying to compete with it there). This is an oversimplification, though.

What makes you think QR is not a state? It is as much a state as any other (though it is the newest state in the Union). If you wonder why there is no state gov't in Cancun, it is because the capital is in Chetumal on the Belizean border, so the governor, the state legislature, etc. are there. Next time you are in Cancun watch the local TV broadcast - when they start and finish, in addition to the National Anthem they play the state one.

And the most recent news on the presidential race. The Supreme Court has ruled that the election law which prohibits independent (non-partisan) candidacies for presidency cannot be challenged by a private citizen who wants to run as independent. While it did not rule on the substance, only a government branch or agency would have a standing.  This pretty much finishes off the independent campaign of the former Foreign Secretary Castaneda (it was he who went to court).  Castaneda's only chance now is to get a minor party nomination (he has been in talks with the Convergencia party), but even that does not look very promising. It's a pity - he's been the best of the branch, though his chances were always slim to non-existent.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2005, 12:59:18 AM »

Sorry, but I haven't been following politics in Mexico for several years.

My question about Quintana Ro was historical (thanks for the answer).  It was a state in the 1830, then reduced to the same status as Baja Sur (I believe by Santa Ana) following a revolt there.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2005, 11:43:17 AM »
« Edited: August 10, 2005, 11:45:02 AM by ag »

My question about Quintana Ro was historical (thanks for the answer).  It was a state in the 1830, then reduced to the same status as Baja Sur (I believe by Santa Ana) following a revolt there.

QR was not a state in 1830s - it was a part of the Yucatan State (as was the present-day State of Campeche). There wasn't much of a population there back in the time. During the war with the US in the 1840s Yucatan tried to secede from Mexico (they wanted to continue trading with the US). In the process they armed the mayans, who revolted, capturing pretty much the entire Yucatan (except for the cities of Merida and Campeche). Ladino (spanish-speaking) Yucatecans asked everyone possible to annex them: the US, the Spaniards and the Brits - but none would. Then they pleaded to rejoin Mexico - which saved them from annihilation, but only got them to recapture what are now the States of Yucatan and Campeche.  Eventually, Campeche was made a separate state.

What is now QR remained effectively independent through the early 1900s (slowly decaying due to extremely unproductive land - it is for a reason, that other than Coba there are almost no major pre-hispanic ruins in the interior QR; Tulum, of course is also there - but it was a fishing town, and Mexicans controlled the sea and the islands, including Cozumel, so that the mayans couldn't fish, or even come out to the shore).

In the early 1900s (between 1905 and 1912) the Mexican government pushed through the rail and telegraph lines and re-established control. At the same time, they formally detatched QR from Yucatan (though Yucatan state government had only been in control of the islands there) and made it, first into a Territory, and later (in the 1950s, I think?) into a State. It remained the most "out of the way" place in Mexico, until in the early 1970s, when they started developing Cancun as a resort (until then, the only town of any size had been the capital, Chetumal).  QR was the last state in Mexico to get a university - might have been as late as in the 1990s!

By the way, BCS has been a state for quite some time as well!

 
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2005, 10:29:19 PM »

Does it really matter who wins in Mexico?  It seems that Mexican economic policy is basically the same no matter which party is in power:   Export workers to the US (mostly illegally)-get said workers to wire money back home to float  corrupt government.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2005, 10:08:48 AM »

Does it really matter who wins in Mexico?  It seems that Mexican economic policy is basically the same no matter which party is in power:   Export workers to the US (mostly illegally)-get said workers to wire money back home to float  corrupt government.

Hm. Mexico is one of the giants of world trade, one of the main trading partners of the US. Mexican-based multinationals have started buying up companies all over the world (have you heard of Cemex?). The fourth-richest person in the world, according to Forbes, is a Mexico City-based  Mexican (next time you buy anything in CompUSA, keep in mind that he is the owner - a minor one of his many businesses).  Mexico is a major consuming nation: the largest per capita consumption of Coca Cola in the world, the largest number of Wal Mart stores outside the US. Mexico is an enormous manufacturing power (huge car factories, for one) and one of the most important sources of oil consumed in the US (US buys relatively little oil in the Middle East, most of its imports are Mexico and Venezuela). Mexico is a major tourist destination, but also a major source of tourists for the US, and these tourists frequently spend a lot of money (all along the border there are huge shopping malls selling brand name goodies to rich Mexicans). The economies of US and Mexico are highly integrated and interdependent, each country being directly and indirectly responsible for millions of jobs in the other one.

Of course, there is also labor mobility. But keep in mind, that though there are millions of Mexicans (legally and illegally) in the US, there are also hundreds of thousands of Americans (legally and illegally) working in Mexico (that is not counting hundreds of thousands of US retirees resident there). In fact, you might find it unexpected, but Mexicans don't create any major (illegal or legal) migration to Canada or Europe (even though a Mexican Citizen only needs a passport to travel to those places - of the rich countries only US requires visas for Mexican Citizens).

Mexico is indeed much poorer than the US - but it is not even a poor country by international standards. The development and wealth gap between US and Mexico is comparable to that between Mexico and Guatemala (and there are countries poorer than Guatemala). And it is a huge country (three times the population of Canada, the largest Spanish-speaking country in the world) - within Mexico City there is easily a first-world city the size of Toronto (i.e., if you look at middle-class neighborhoods of the city, they are no smaller in population - nor are they poorer - than the great Canadian metropolis).

As for economic policy differences between candidates they do exist and are non-negligible (probably larger than the nebulous economic difference between the economic policies pursued by US Democrats and Republicans when in power).  If you wish I could talk about it, but that would be a long post.

Of course, no Mexican government is going to do anything about northward migration - nor can anyone realistically do anything about it other than nuking northern Mexico and Southern US. When you have a long frontier with oversupply of cheap labor on one side and shortage of cheap labor on the other side the free markets spring into action, and it is hard to fight markets. To stop the flow you'd have to create Soviet-style frontier and police mechanisms (e.g., requiring US citizens visas to travel to San Diego and Mexican citizens visas to travel to Tijuana - like Soviet citizens needed visas to travel within 200 km of the frontier on their own side of it).  Even then you'd, probably, have to stop unauthorized phone communications between the countries and censor Mexican media  to avoid giving any indication that you can earn more money in the US. Since you can't do this in democracies, one has to live with it.  It is, really, the matter of markets and democracy - you can't eliminate them in one matter only, without endangering them nationwide.
Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2005, 09:49:55 PM »

ag,


yeah, maybe, but the third largest source of income in Mexico is US dollars flowing from Mexican immigrants back to their families in Mexico.  Name another nation in the G-8 that list its third largest source of revenue as welfare from its expats.
Logged
jaichind
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,153
United States


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2005, 10:19:24 PM »

I would tend to agree with AG.  But GDP/capita by PPP standards is about $41,000 for USA, $10,000 for Mexico, and $4200 for Guatemala.  The USA-Mexico gap is far greater than the Mexico-Guatemala Gap.  At $6500 for Mainland China, Mexico is not that much richer than Mainland China in terms of GDP/capita in PPP terms.  While Mexico City is advanced in some ways, Shanghai is more advanced than Mexico city.  Furthermore, crime is a major problem in urban Mexico, especially Mexico City.  The wealthy shop in fancy malls in Mexico City but are too scared to get out of their cars en route to the malls from their houses.  All rich people need an army of bodyguards.
While food is cheap in Mexico, many products that the middle class needs, like a color TV, DVD players and so on are often more expensive than USA.   
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2005, 10:41:34 PM »

ag,


yeah, maybe, but the third largest source of income in Mexico is US dollars flowing from Mexican immigrants back to their families in Mexico.  Name another nation in the G-8 that list its third largest source of revenue as welfare from its expats.

Well, this just shows you that the economy is fairly diversified Smiley. You know, playing with such statistics newspaper-style is fun but pretty meaningless (if I have 90 sources of income that are equally important, but one of them is slightly more important, 2 percent can make it the top source of income) - the relevant statistics is the proportion of GDP (it is not small, but neither it is extremely large).

Mexico is not part of G-8 (which is an arbitrary grouping of 7 rich countries plus Russia).  True, Mexico has a 9th largest economy in the world in dollar terms (though essentially tied with a few other countries - these things oscillate wildly because of the exchange rates).  Since Mexico is also one of 15 largest countries in the world by population, this only suggests that it is slightly above average in per capita income (which it is).

And name me another major middle-income country that is located right accross a long and naturally unprotected frontier from the largest and richest major economy in the world? That's it: an arbitrary line on one side of which the price of unskilled labor is 10 times that on the other side (it is a lot less for skilled labor - skilled people migrate both ways). Think of it this way: if Mexico were sloping twards the border and were 10 meters higher above the sea level than the US along the frontier and if all along this frontier there was water flowing from Mexico to US all along the line, would you expect any government action to stop the flood? Would it make much difference if the height difference were only 2 meters? Enough said.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2005, 10:50:05 PM »

ag, i'm going to guess you are...Canadian?
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2005, 11:23:55 PM »
« Edited: August 11, 2005, 11:28:55 PM by ag »

I would tend to agree with AG.  But GDP/capita by PPP standards is about $41,000 for USA, $10,000 for Mexico, and $4200 for Guatemala.  The USA-Mexico gap is far greater than the Mexico-Guatemala Gap.  At $6500 for Mainland China, Mexico is not that much richer than Mainland China in terms of GDP/capita in PPP terms.  While Mexico City is advanced in some ways, Shanghai is more advanced than Mexico city.  Furthermore, crime is a major problem in urban Mexico, especially Mexico City.  The wealthy shop in fancy malls in Mexico City but are too scared to get out of their cars en route to the malls from their houses.  All rich people need an army of bodyguards.
While food is cheap in Mexico, many products that the middle class needs, like a color TV, DVD players and so on are often more expensive than USA.   

Aside from my slightly sceptical attitude to conversion coefficients used for converting dollars into PPP terms (there is a good reason these things fluctuate quite a bit from year to year), you'd have to also assume that one dollar for a poor individual is the same value as one dollar for the rich one (taking ratios of these things is pretty meaningless). Anyway, let me take them at face value for the moment.

Guatemala is essentially a feudal country. It is owned by a few wealthy white families lock, stock and barrel. The GDP is extremely concentrated - I have a Guatemalan colleague about whom they joke that if his family ever left the country they'd have to recalculate the GDP (his grandpa's picture is on the money)!

Guatemala has fairly recently gone through a major civil war which lasted for decades.  The mayan population (majority there) was consistently viewed as the enemy by the government throughout the war and held at subsistence level. Even within the mayan community there is almost feudal level of inequality between the chiefs and the poor.

The war has largely destroyed the country's infrastructure (or it wasn't maintained). In many places paved roads end where Mexico ends (within Guatemala only the major tourist routs are reasonably paved).  During the war a huge chunk of GDP was spent on the army. Though the war is over, Guatemala still has a stronger army than Mexico does (the story goes that when some 20 years ago there was a rumour of hostilities, Mexican generals could promise that the capital wouldn't fall, but couldn't promise that Guatemalans wouldn't take a chunk of Mexico several times the size of Guatemala itself, including the city of Puebla just 2 hours away from the capital! Mexico's population is 8 times that of Guate's). This costs a tonne of money!

An average Guatemalan is a lot worse off than his northern neighbour - the difference is quite comparable with that between US in Mexico (of course, all comparisons are impresise - there is simply no presise way of making them).  Of course, there are a lot of people in Guate who live well (as there are a lot in Mexico), but it ist the poor that migrate illegally (interstingly, Mexico is as intolerant of the Central American migrants as the US is of Mexican).

It is hard for me to compare things with China - that's not my area of expertise. That country has huge geographic disparities (large areas are horridly poor), but I would easily trust that Shanghai looks, and in some aspects functions, in a manner much more modern than that of Mexico City (or New York, for that matter) - the local prosperity is so recent, things have to be modern.

Mexico is in general a very disorganized country - it has a propensity to look like a dump even in fairly wealthy areas (the prosperity is frequently hidden in sidestreets).  That's cultural. I know many wealthy places that look like slums until you penetrate them deeper. It is part of the "national character", I guess.  It is also consequence of very fast population growth during the 20th century - things got developed faster than they could call up city planners, architects, or even simply paint the walls.

But it is not true that Mexico City, for one, is so dangerous you can't get out of your car. The city was very safe before the 1995 crisis - at that point the crime rates have skyrocketed, making many long-term residents scared. But it is all relative: the murder rate in the City is where it was in NYC in the early 1990s - bad, but not so bad you can't walk the street. The locals are more scared than those of us who'd been to NY in 1993 are.  The very rich (those who'd be very rich even in the US) do tend to hide in gated communities these days, but the millions of middle-class residents do nothing of the kind. There are many neighborhoods where sreet and cafe life is in full swing till well past midnight daily (I myself have been out that late many times and I am visibly foreign from 2 miles away). Kidnappings have become a problem and one has to be careful with cabs - but it is not like one is scared daily to get out. And there are many provincial cities (away from the borders and their drug wars) that are outright safe.  
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2005, 11:24:54 PM »

ag, i'm going to guess you are...Canadian?

No. Try another one. Though even myself I am no longer sure who I am.
Logged
2952-0-0
exnaderite
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,221


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2005, 02:26:21 PM »

ag, i'm going to guess you are...Canadian?

No. Try another one. Though even myself I am no longer sure who I am.
Usted es mexicano.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2005, 03:43:07 PM »
« Edited: August 12, 2005, 03:44:53 PM by ag »

ag, i'm going to guess you are...Canadian?

No. Try another one. Though even myself I am no longer sure who I am.
Usted es mexicano.

Well, I guess that is not too wrong - I did get naturalized recently as a Mexican. A pretty nice passport to have (and fairly easy to get)!

Logged
Notre Dame rules!
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 777


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2005, 10:48:53 PM »

Happy to hear that the situation in Mexico is so bright.  I'll pass that on the the disgruntled campesinos in Chiapas.
Logged
ag
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,828


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 14, 2005, 07:09:17 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2005, 07:12:24 PM by ag »

An update on Mexican election.

PAN is running its primaries. In the first round, which included such important strongholds as Queretaro, San Luis Potosi and Nuevo Leon, as well as the vote hoard of Mexico State, unexpectedly, Santiago Creel, the designated heir of Fox, lost to the "disobedient son" Felipe Calderon (roughly, 35% to 46%, with 18% going to the third candidate Alberto Cardenas). The turnout was extremely light, though (under 30% of membership). The remaining two rounds will take place October 4? and 23.  If no candidate obtains 50% overall, there will be a runoff, I think.

Creel losing the first round, which he was supposed to win, probably, ensures he will not be the nominee. He is a lousy public politician (his attempts to pretend being "a man of the people" are decidedly Dukakis-in-the-tank-like) and he is not very popular with the party rank-and-file. He is a long-time friend of Fox (they were both part of the group of  newcomers into PAN who "took over" the party for Fox's nomination), who has been pushing him despite his previous loss in the mayoral election in Mexico City and a disappointing performance as the "Gobernacion" Secretary (a cross between the Interior and the State in the US - the first-ranked position in the Cabinet).  Because of that he was perceived as front-runner.  Now, once his front-runner status is gone, rats will be running off the ship en masse.  It is Calderon's race to lose now.

The change, probably, makes PAN chances better. The former party chairman and Energy Secretary Calderon had broken with Fox because of insisting on running against Creel. While he is, so far, not "bigger" than PAN, he is quite popular with the rank-and-file and does have more of "common touch" than Creel (though, having "less common touch" is, probably, outright impossible).  While part of the "old PAN", he is a Catholic moderate by the party standards, and might have a chance of broadening the appeal.  His public resignation as Energy Secretary (he was, essentially, fired for the "premature" campaign start) does enough to distance him from Fox's failures, but, since it was done for wholy intraparty reasons, it does not alienate him from the normal PAN electorate.  In fact, the party machine, to the extent it exists, is more likely to go out for him than for Creel - and Fox will support him no matter what.

So, the race now seems to be Lopez Obrador (PRD) - Calderon (PAN) - Madrazo or Montiel (PRI).  Actually, I'd probably buck the conventional wisdom and say that Montiel is likelier than Madrazo. Between those two there is not much to choose: both would have made a brilliant carreer as mafia dons (Montiel, in fact, is really "central casting" as one) .  There is also still some intrigue involved in whether Lazaro Cardenas (the PRD moral leader) decides to through his support for a minor party candidate and whether Castaneda (the former Foreign Secretary) manages to get to the balot on a minor party ticket.

The latest polls have shown Obrador about 10 points ahead of either Creel or Calderon, with Creel a couple of points ahead of Madrazo. But that was before the Calderon victory, which might change some dynamics. 10 months to go!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 17  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.091 seconds with 11 queries.