Mexico

[whichphilosophy]

Capitalism for dummies.
An economic system that features private ownership of the means of production (such as factories, offices, and shipping enterprises) and in which market forces determine the way in which goods are produced and the means by which income and profit are distributed is called capitalism.

The problem here is of course the 'Free Market concept' which is built into the Capitalist structure(s) where prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses. In extreme cases, a giant corporation can put competitors out of business as it can afford to sell goods well below the price of production. (After all this corporation would own other enterprises).
This results in cut price labour, where as we also see work is transferred to cheaper countries abroad. When people are paid less, less money circulates in the economy thus creating less jobs in shops, leisure, holidays, consumer spending etc. Free trade in its true state means higher paid workers in developed countries losing out to sweatshops in undeveloped nations.

I would say the West has tried using mixed economies to try to use both enterprising techniques in marketing but ensuring some means of fair payment to its workers. Perhaps the fact that money circulates more within the lower paid parts of the economy is one of the recipes for national/international prosperity.

 

[angelo]

In Mexico as in most parts of Latin America, the main problem is corruption and incompetent government, not the fault of capatalism, or other forms of governance.

 

[SimpleDon]

Mexico is a plutocracy. They have income inequality slightly worse than the US's. They are mired in corruption, where money speaks and the government is for sale to the highest bidder. These are conditions that tend to spiral out of control, that oppress the vast majority of its citizens, that suppress economic growth, and that destabilizes the economy, producing a never ending string of financial crises.

They are the model of how to run an economy, a government and a society for the Republicans in the US.

You are just restating the obvious fact from the OP. Yes, Mexico is a stable plutocracy. The question is why?

Because the government is controlled by the wealthy, obviously just stating the definition of "plutocracy."

Are you asking why the plutocracy is stable?

Are you asking why the wealthy would want to control the government?

Are you asking how the wealthy came to control the government?

And I assume that whatever your question is it wasn't answered by the fact that Mexico has income inequality greater than the US, that Mexico is very corrupt and it is the model of the Republicans in the US want our country to look like, a stable plutocracy with high income inequality and a government that is for sale to the highest bidder, that is corrupt.

 

[angelo]

What do you think would happen if only the poor were the government?

 

[Perspicuo]

Mexico has been an independent country for over 200 years now. Historically speaking, why can't it ever get itself together? Also, why does it seem it has always had a history of grave and serious corruption?

Some have noted that Spanish colonies generally do not have the same respect for individual rights, private property and the rule of law that English and Dutch colonies have as these concepts were not prevalent in the Spanish Empire.

Yes they did.
I don't think you understand the whole idea of a an empire is, more specifically and empire with strong feudal characteristics.

Listen, folks, the problem is manifold, and it's not limited to Mexico. Underdeveloped countries have a big corruption problem. Some of them don't respect human rights, but even those who have good respect for them (example, Costa Rica) are still dragged down by a culture permeated by corruption, understood as "I am cool if I live breaking all the rules". Machismo is related, all to show your huevos are grandotes by being your own law.

 

[untermensche]

In Mexico as in most parts of Latin America, the main problem is corruption and incompetent government, not the fault of capatalism, or other forms of governance.

Capitalism that is not massively funded by the government ends up like Mexico.

It is not a self-sustaining system.

It is a destructive system always prey to massive corruption, that can only thrive if the government props it up and keeps it clean.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I can think of a way that might make Mexico support paying for Trump's wall - it all depends on where they build it.

 

[angelo]

In Mexico as in most parts of Latin America, the main problem is corruption and incompetent government, not the fault of capatalism, or other forms of governance.

Capitalism that is not massively funded by the government ends up like Mexico.

It is not a self-sustaining system.

It is a destructive system always prey to massive corruption, that can only thrive if the government props it up and keeps it clean.

Yea right. And Mexico and other Latin American countries can't do that because......................!

 

[jonatha]

"Now, the cross is Mexico. Mexico is the walnut. The hazelnut. The acorn. Mexico is the rainbow. The rainbow is wooden. Mexico is wooden."

When did The Donald make that speech?

 

[bilby]

"Now, the cross is Mexico. Mexico is the walnut. The hazelnut. The acorn. Mexico is the rainbow. The rainbow is wooden. Mexico is wooden."

When did The Donald make that speech?

Every. Single. Time.

 

[George S]

"I don't care what The Donald thinks about <insert issue here>, just build that damn wall so the anchor-baby thing stops and all Mexicans here are legal immigrants who want to be American and not Mexican." -- Similar to what was on a blog post touting this as the best Republican strategy.

I don't particularly like much of what Trump says about policy. Strangely, I think that's a positive. I know where he stands on <insert issue here>. With traditional politicians like Clinton campaign promises are made to be broken. All's fair in Love, War and Political Campaigns including outright lying.
I don't particularly like much of what Sanders says about policy. Strangely, I think that's a positive. I know where he stands on <insert issue here>. With traditional politicians like Clinton campaign promises are made to be broken. All's fair in Love, War and Political Campaigns including outright lying.
Either is better than Hillary. (in my opinion)

Or am I naive to think that there might be such a thing as two "politicians" who do not always lie? Sanders is not a Democrat, but he couldn't afford an independent presidential run. I am sure he was surprised that the people were so fed up with the establishment they voted for him, an avowed socialist. Trump is not a Republican, and although he could afford a self-financed campaign, running as an independent was out of the question. . I am sure he is surprised that the people were so fed up with the establishment that they voted for him, a non-Bible-thumping New Yorker with many libertarian/liberal views.

Both realized we are in a two-party nation made so by, um, two parties who set it up. (It is so much more convenient to have a binary choice of Left or Right than to have that pesky Electoral College. An Electoral College composed of un-pledged citizens who represent the people who voted for them. These citizens were elected by people who know them, knew their character and trusted their judgment to represent their interests. And, oh, yes, no parties. No platforms. A non-partisan election.)
So each has run as they have.

 

[angelo]

Agree. Many people are sick and tired of politicians. Enter a non politico, non political correct candidate and he captures the imagination of many people.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Agree. Many people are sick and tired of politicians. Enter a non politico, non political correct candidate and he captures the imagination of many people.

True, but the argument of "I don't like the wallpaper, so I'll burn down my house because that would be something different" is still a stupid fucking argument. Different doesn't mean better. It can also mean much fucking worse.

 

[untermensche]

Capitalism that is not massively funded by the government ends up like Mexico.

It is not a self-sustaining system.

It is a destructive system always prey to massive corruption, that can only thrive if the government props it up and keeps it clean.

Yea right. And Mexico and other Latin American countries can't do that because......................!

Since you know absolutely nothing about the politics and economics of these nations, beyond "somebody told me they are corrupt" you will never guess.

You spew complete ignorance as if it were gold and don't have the sense to know you are doing it.

 

[George S]

A Mexican-American here in Austin just called in to KLBJ's Todd and Don show. He supports ... Trump.

 

[angelo]

Okay, answer the question.

Yea right. And Mexico and other Latin American countries can't do that because......................!

Since you know absolutely nothing about the politics and economics of these nations, beyond "somebody told me they are corrupt" you will never guess.

You spew complete ignorance as if it were gold and don't have the sense to know you are doing it.

You haven't given an answer!

 

[untermensche]

Since you know absolutely nothing about the politics and economics of these nations, beyond "somebody told me they are corrupt" you will never guess.

You spew complete ignorance as if it were gold and don't have the sense to know you are doing it.

You haven't given an answer!

You can have somewhat regulated capitalism, as exists in the US, with massive government support in the form of overseas protection of investment, and in research and development.

It will be good for some and bad for many.

Or you can have capitalism that is less regulated and with less government support, as exists in Mexico.

But you can't have capitalism without massive corruption and need of massive government support.

 

[angelo]

You haven't given an answer!

You can have somewhat regulated capitalism, as exists in the US, with massive government support in the form of overseas protection of investment, and in research and development.

It will be good for some and bad for many.

Or you can have capitalism that is less regulated and with less government support, as exists in Mexico.

But you can't have capitalism without massive corruption and need of massive government support.

Are you implying that successful capitalist countries are only that way because of corruption? Isn't that what Latin American nations thrive on?

 

[untermensche]

You can have somewhat regulated capitalism, as exists in the US, with massive government support in the form of overseas protection of investment, and in research and development.

It will be good for some and bad for many.

Or you can have capitalism that is less regulated and with less government support, as exists in Mexico.

But you can't have capitalism without massive corruption and need of massive government support.

Are you implying that successful capitalist countries are only that way because of corruption? Isn't that what Latin American nations thrive on?

If you call an intermingling of government with business corruption, then corruption is necessary for a capitalist system to be somewhat successful, most are highly successful for a few and less successful for most.

And the US so-called war on drugs is responsible for a lot of crime in Mexico.

 

[angelo]

Are you implying that successful capitalist countries are only that way because of corruption? Isn't that what Latin American nations thrive on?

If you call an intermingling of government with business corruption, then corruption is necessary for a capitalist system to be somewhat successful, most are highly successful for a few and less successful for most.

And the US so-called war on drugs is responsible for a lot of crime in Mexico.

True to form I see. America is to blame for Mexico's , and Venezuela ills now!