re: Why is Mexico a failed country?

quote:

---

The rich people take care of themselves and their ilk. Instead of the govt making it an equal playing field for all, they decided to keep the power and resources for themselves instead of giving it to the people. Pancho villa tried, and he was the last one to really make a difference.

---

In other words, it's basically the equivalent of Apartheid S. Africa that the American Left, for some reason, wants to continually prop up and perpetuate.

quote:

---

Why isn't this discussed more? The country is of similar age to the United States. Is geographically diverse. Has natural resources. What is holding them back?

---

First off: Mexico started with a considerable amount of disadvantages, and early government policies compounded those issues. Imagine the below in the context of history, not just 'now'.

- Mexico has few natural harbors of any size. It costs a lot of start up money to build harbor infrastructure that could be used elsewhere.

- Mexico has no navigable waterways into the interior. This makes goods more expensive because infrastructure must be built, and it makes transportation costs 30 times more expensive in some cases.

- Mexico is dominated by a high interior plateau which is arid and makes poor farmland. This, in combination with the lack of natural transportation, retarded Mexican economic growth since the first settlements.

- Mexico encouraged settlers just like the US, however it instituted land usage policies which made immigration to Mexico from Europe MUCH less attractive than immigration to the US. As a result, the cultural and economic development outside the coasts and Mexico city was nearly non-existent. Due to the lack of settlement, many areas of Mexico remained largely native culture, which was not ready to adapt to changing global conditions, and lacked the cultural knowledge and organization to industrialize. In addition, due to the Mexican electoral system favoring large population centers over rural areas, the government lacked any incentive to improve the countryside.

In contrast, the USA and the various Canadian provinces (which were largely or totally independent of each other until the 1800s, and in Newfoundland's case, the 1900s) possessed large natural transportation networks which provided free initial trade integration and encouraged economic development of the interior(s). Both nations had generous land grant policies and prioritized settlement of vacant areas. In the US's case, the particular sharing of power between the states encouraged more even development, where in Canada's case, the provinces were themselves independent colonies or dominions for most of their history.

If you know those things, do you think Mexico's leaders know those things?

Perhaps they should work to change them.

I think the real answer is they like it the way it is. Which is OK.

Our politicians just need to take that in consideration when dealing with them.

ETA: And I wouldn't call it a failed state. Parts of it essentially lawless, and there's rampant corruption everywhere. OTOH it works well enough for foreign companies to build plants there. A true failed state is one that no one wants to invest in.

It's the Constitution, buddy, imo. And the blessing of the Good Lord for codifying the Idea that God is the giver of all Rights. And that individuals are equal in respect to their treatment re the Rights and Laws that result from the Document.

That our Vision is always ahead of our ability to (perfectly) implement said Vision...says nothing about that particular Vision.

Side note: I went to the WWII Museum in NO yesterday. Hard to bear really. But I never knew that the Japanese feared us (our cultural influence) because of our "materialism and individualism". That was a slap in the face for me. For all honest Americans...we realize that Freedom is highly problematic. And the Founders did note that it (Constitutional Republic) would only work for "a moral and Religious people".

Fascinating. As long as we don't end up in WWIII.

quote:

---

I think the real answer is they like it the way it is. Which is OK.

---

Yep. The people with the power own the businesses and have cheap labor. It's a win win for them.

A good Mexican friend of mine comes from a millionaire family. I've spent time with them there and it's unreal. We played golf on his uncle's course which was reserved for five of us for the day. If you're a have you have a lot. If you're a have not you ain't got shite, and other than drugs you probably don't have enough education to make a good living wage.

Furthermore, there is no safety net. It's feast or famine, very little in between. Some can work hard/smart and make it, but that is few and far between and generally those folks have lighter skin.

quote:

---

Freedom is highly problematic. And the Founders did note that it (Constitutional Republic) would only work for "a moral and Religious people".

---

The problematic issue is the natures of govt and individuals. The nature of govt is to suppress freedom to achieve order and control. The nature of the individual human is to be free. That's why people don't like being in jail.

quote:

---

quote:
Some can work hard/smart and make it, but that is few and far between and generally those folks have lighter skin.

There are some people here in America that claim there is systematic racism.

To those people, I tell them they ain't seen shite. Mexico has real racism.

---

And Colombia makes both of them look like child's play. If there is a country in the world where the color of your skin matters more than Colombia, I'd like to know who it is. Spanish colonial racial systems were well and truly fricked up, and that legacy is deeply entrenched in those countries. Pablo Escobar does not exist without that system.

Because Mexico is 82% Catholic compared to 22% in America.

quote:

---

Because Mexico is 82% Catholic compared to 22% in America.

---

Oh my.