The article I read yesterday got me to thinking about this topic. Mainly I thought around two questions.
1. What would cause Mexico to collapse?
2. How would Mexico collapsing affect the United States?
I guess now is time for my thoughts on these two questions.
1. What would cause Mexico to collapse. I don't think Narco Guerrillas and the Cartel's are going to do it. They don't seem to have any interest in running the government and seem more or less content to use a slightly watered down version of Pablo Escobar's Plata O Plomo. They seem content to function in and contribute to a generally unstable situation.
I will offer an alternate theory for the potential collapse of Mexico. I think the prices of basic commodities (mainly corn which is their staple) rising is what will do it. Mexico started controlling the prices of basic foodstuffs pretty recently after a rapid increase in their prices. They were able to do that in part because of oil revenues that directly correlate with high oil prices. Oil is way down right now and though it will rise it is quite possibly going to stay relatively low for awhile. Corn on the other hand (at least in part to our great Ethanol plans) could potentially rise dramatically in price.
Commodities tend to move somewhat together but it isn't unthinkable for the price of one to rise and the price of another to drop simultaneously. I believe a rise in corn prices coupled with low oil would force Mexico to stop subsidising (when a government fixes the price of a commodity that must be imported they in effect agree to pay the difference between the "fixed" price and the free market price) corn. Mexico's large population of very poor people rely on low food prices to survive. They went to the streets once (I believe it is somewhere in my archived posts. Search the BBC if you are really interested) because if a big rise on Corn prices which forced the government to fix the prices of a dozen (or so) basic commodities.
I believe the chaos which would result from exploding Corn prices would result in absolute chaos in Mexico. Said chaos would almost surely result in the government being toppled. In lots of nations a few hundred guys seizing the seat of power and a few tv and radio stations is enough to do it if a strong response doesn't follow rapidly. The Army playing a significant role in this series of events is quite likely. Some kind of an opposition (probably socialist/ populist [seeking support from the lowest levels of the country] group would probably form rapidly. Maybe the Zapatistas would get going again. On the bright side then Rage Against The Machine might do some concerts to buy them guns. I don't really like their politics a ton but that band fucking rocks hard.
Now with a "government" probably composed of some kind of a council filled mostly with high ranking Army officers and a socialist rebel movement there is a full on civil war. This civil war would be quite bloody with all manner of atrocities on both sides. Since running south would more or less be hopping out of the kettle and into the pot people would flee north.
This leads us to question #2
2. How would Mexico collapsing affect the United States?
Lets just say that I am glad I don't live near the border. I see a civil war in Mexico leading to a bunch of refugees fleeing to America. Our current administration is somewhat inclined to be more permissive of illegal immigrants then lots of people would like. Also there is something of a president for giving residency to people who flee bad circumstances somewhere else to seek the American Dream. Expect people to flee from Mexico and be allowed to stay in the US. Think about anchor babies and throw in some more ridiculous stuff. It would probably lead to a massive influx of Mexicans to America. Also the question of amnesty for the illegals already here would probably be revisited with results I would not like.
Guess those are my thoughts on Mexico's potential collapse.
Posts
26 comments:
Mine the border. Cheap. Easy.
Mexico has a long history of violent upheaval and periodic collapse. They still have a system with the very, very rich running the show and everybody else comprising the very,very poor. A lot like we are developing here. Your analysis seems accurate to me. They're ripe for an another session of revolution, and the incredibly wealthy and violent drug cartels are a sort of wild card.
Catman, We do not have the will to do that.
Hermit, That it does. The huge split between the rich and poor is a recipe for trouble. They are ripe for a revolution if anyone is. The drug cartels are a wicked wild card. I think they would loosely (financially) ally with the socialists against the Army.
Catman, why the hell would you want to kill people trying to get away from government killers? People trying to get somewhere where they and their children can have food? What the hell is wrong with you?
When did your ancestors come over? Did they kill off the indians, or were they among the impoverished teeming masses that came between 1850 and 1915, who were fleeing from famine and persecution?
Damnable hypocrisy.
Anonymous 9:02, what are the odds that illegal Mexican immigrants are going to pay me and mine any kind of aid or restitution? Will they offer us tax-free privileges, reserve land or free college? I think not.
Not only is Mexico's oil revenue
down due to decreasing prices, but
their major oil field is rapidly
depleting. Some estimate that
Mexico may not have any oil
available for export within a
year or two. Then their cash
cow dies. Leaving us with a
very unstable neighbor, plus
requiring us to go shopping to
replace the Mexican oil imports.
Wouldn't a collapsed Mexico be
a great excuse to finally kickstart
the North American Union?
Anonymous
The teeming masses of poor that the Mexican wealthy SHOULD be taking care of ARE NOT our responsibility.
In our current economic condition adding an underclass that DEMANDS our wealth, subsidies and creates a net drain on our economy - we cannot handle.
Of course they will be handed everything our socialist government can give with the intent to buy votes...
Civil War may split into large blocks of ethnic groups making the causalities, and acts of atrocities much higher, particularly when several groups feel entitled and have no intention of integrating.
Use logic not emotion - this will get very bad quickly.
Omaha Prepper, whose fault is the wealth-redistributing socialism in this country? Not mine, and not theirs. If you have a problem with everyone who receives socialist services, I might be able to better accept see your point. But you may, and many others only have a problem with some beneficiaries of socialist programs. Ones that were "born here." As though being born in a certain geographic area somehow entitles you to other people's money. Or that the language you speak or the tint of your skin makes it OK to take other people's money.
The problem, then, to many people, is not that anyone receives money taken from taxpayers for socialist programs, but the problem is that "those people" receive money taken from taxpayers. I have no problem with immigrants. I have a problem with the socialist tax leeches that you voted into office. They're the ones tht take the money to begin with.
Nobody has a right to other people's money. Private charity is just that: charity. It's not "owed" anyone, it's not an "entitlement," it's a gift. And as such, it instills respect for the giver. When you get money that was collected at gunpoint, do you really feel grateful to the people who gave up their money to men with guns?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with anyone crossing a political border. Are you one of those people who thinks anything that is illegal is also immoral?
Radio blogger,
Ibid.
Anonymous
"If you have a problem with everyone who receives socialist services, I might be able to better accept see your point"
It seems we agree... to a point.
"When you get money that was collected at gunpoint, do you really feel grateful to the people who gave up their money to men with guns?"
But it would make them parasites actively aiding and benefiting from a crime...
The main difference from the past to now is the refusal to integrate and the demand for entitlements. The willingness to accept a new culture and the intent to change or demand change to your demands for the host to placate to your cultural changes.
"Are you one of those people who thinks anything that is illegal is also immoral?"
No, but to break the law to deliberately participate in what is no less than parasitism IS immoral.
I think you may have been working off an invalid assumption. The United States does not believe they will have a revolution they believe they will collapse.
Aka we are not projecting a change in government via violent means we are projecting NO GOVT AT ALL. Kinda like Somalia.
The Drug Cartels are the big problem in that regard. But then again so is the corn (commodity prices). You probably don't know this but they have been subsidizing gas as well off their cantrel oil fields. Well that field is running dry. It will surely eliminate American imports soon but will have a hard time sustaining price fixing at the pump after that.
"The main difference from the past to now is the refusal to integrate..."
Nonsense. This is the same nonsense that was being written 120 years ago. When Irishmen were depicted as baboons clutching a bottle in one hand and a rosary in the other. And even the blacks hated the immigrants because "They took our jorrrrbs!"
"The willingness to accept a new culture and the intent to change or demand change to your demands for the host to placate to your cultural changes."
Again, your problem here is the existence of socialist, tax-leech wealth confiscators and redistributors you vote into office. Immigrants can't make anyone do anything. Politicians cave in to get votes and to be seen as "compassionate." Do you? Do I?
"No, but to break the law to deliberately participate in what is no less than parasitism IS immoral."
Yes, if it is in fact, intended, it is evil. But it is not the breaking of the "law" that makes it immoral. It's the intent to leech off others. That's wrong whether done by people who live here or not. I don't hear anyone talking about planting landmines in the inner cities, or shooting "underprivileged" people. But following their twisted logic to its conclusions, logically, they should.
Which is enabled by politicians. They, I say again, are the problem. They are the ultimate leeches. They bite us to suck the blood, and other people benefit from it. I don't blame anyone for collecting eggs from an overturned tractor trailer that are going to be wasted one way or another, otherwise. I blame the guy who broadsided the tractor trailer and made the driver lose his property so people WOULD get the eggs "for free." The politicians.
If a high-schooler went around an elementary school playground, taking money by force or threat of force, and started giving it to certain people, would you really concern yourself with punching the people who flowed from the school to get some of the money, or would you be rational, and simply put an end to the actions of the punk who is taking of money by violence in the first place?
See, Radio, you want to put a band-aid on gangrene, not treat the source of the infection.
Now, if you're all about pre-empting what people might do, I think there's a problem. You might as well confiscate all guns in the inner cities because people might shoot each other in a crime. Because that's what your logic leads to.
I think that people who wax eloquent about illegal immigrants and how they have a right to be here, aren't living in a place that's overrun with them. It's perfectly alright to have a philosophy where we all hold hands and sing kumbyah. It's another to have to live with the effects of unrestrained illegal immigration. I live in Georgia, and have done since 1986. I can remember the "pre Hispanic Georgia" and I know what we are living with now. I can't write a massive epistle on the negative effects of illegal immigration in a comment block. But let me just list a few. Rampant crime, huge drains on the social safety net, massive increases in property tax, demoralization of the law enforcement agencies to the point that some have to hire felons as police officers, the complete "latinization" of some towns to include language and the eradication of the preceding culture. A form of ethnic cleansing where whites and blacks are literally driven out of neighborhoods by Latinos. The existence of violent gangs, who are pervasive across the state where they were once limited to the major urban areas. A huge increase in the production and distribution of meth. I could go on but you see my point. I agree with Catman. The government has an obligation to protect the citizens against this kind of thing, and has failed utterly to do so.
Anonymous
""The main difference from the past to now is the refusal to integrate..."
Nonsense. This is the same nonsense that was being written 120 years ago. When Irishmen were depicted as baboons clutching a bottle in one hand and a rosary in the other. And even the blacks hated the immigrants because "They took our jorrrrbs!" "
You have an axe to grind on this subject for whatever reason, I agree with The Hermit on this issue. In essence I call BS!
I made great sacrifices to escape an area overrun by this the particular NEVER SEEN BEFORE deliberate invasion... and yes the intent IS DIFFERENT and if you cannot see it you are ignoring it or deliberately covering it up.
You can talk about how horrible we all are for being intolerant and bigoted for a "poor innocent" people
but I know and have seen the truth.
And don't even try to say that "they contribute taxes" or enrich the culture stupidity because the simple fact is that even with the small contribution they are a net drain of billions of dollars.
Your egg truck example is ridiculous the real situation is more like a corrupt police who go from house to house demanding "protection" and contributions to the "widows and orphans fund" then give some of that to pay for the housing for the local gang members...
Is our government evil - yes, but I cannot see how pointing out the corrupt cop on the corner takes away the problem of the gang member on the next corner.
The use of "racist", "bigot", "xenophobe", or any of the other worthless descriptives used by the "protect the downtrodden" crowd - NO LONGER effects my ability to observe or point out the problems. I am not unfairly pointing out a problem just because the group can be identified as a particular "protected" ethnic category - because I have no intent to point out the facts because of or to the defamation of an ethic group. I refuse to accept any guilt based on the old overused canards.
Gringo in Mexico again. There is no collapse except by design. The problems are mainly in Mexico City and the northern border. The war on drugs is bogus, and like prohibition, corrupts everyone. Had Bush wanted to, he could have closed the border up tighter than a frogs ass, hence, it's by design, to merge the US and Mexico. As I said, in Dec. they announced on radio, the Mex. Gov. invited the US military down for 2009, joint operations. Lest anyone cheer, that means, you will be having Mexicans in the US "helping out". It's far bigger than the US vs. Mexico, it's the International Banking Cartel(banking mafia) pulling the strings. Every day hundreds of cars filled with wheat and corn come directly from KC to the inland port where I live, and that's just one of ten ports. The US is selling grain cheaper than the farmers here can grow it. It's breaking the farmers, dig. All by design. Mexico I dare say has more resources than the US. yet the few wealthy families control everything, and are tied into the banks. What you see in Mexico, is what you will shortly see in the US, sadly.
So atlas is about to shrugg in Mexico, so what? What do they have besides oil that we can use? Nothing. Mine the Border YES!! Shoot them on sight if they are in the US. Send the ones we have back NOW, so they can be kiiled by thier fellow wet back spics,,,,
Anonymous, now you're talking! It's good you have seen the light. The bible says
"Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. "
The Hermit, Radio,
In case you're curious, I do live in an area that is inundated with Hispanics. While I know many Hispanics, I don't particularly like the "Latin culture." At all. Neither do some of them. Their culture is quite frequently crude and materialistic. But then, so is "African-American culture," as Bill Cosby will point out, and so is the "white" culture, as I will point out. I recognize the FBI Uniform Crime Report and how it points out that Hispanics are more likely to be criminals than whites. Far more likely.
These facts, however, do not justify killing everyone who tries to come here. You want to kill real criminals? Do it. You want to eliminate 60% of violent crime across all races? Legalize drugs. Legalization stopped the crime wave that was caused by alcohol prohibition.
Do you want to destroy all socialist benefits for everyone? So do I. Not one person, white, black or hispanic, has a right to State welfare. It doesn't matter where he was born. It has nothing to do with it. Taxes? Taxes are wrong, period. I don't care if anyone doesn't want to pay taxes. White, black, or hispanic.
Now, for the rest of the things, the white culture being destroyed, etc? Politicians are helping that along, with mandatory Spanish-language classes offered in State schools.
Seems to me that a culture that refuses to have children doesn't really deserve to survive, now does it? I speak here of the born-here white American culture. Americans want to sleep around and never have any kids. Nature abhors a vacuum. So the Hispanics are filling it. If you really believe your culture is worth anything, pass it on.
If you have to defend your culture (a set of ideas, lived out,) with violence, your culture is absolutely pathetic and cannot stand the heat of the day.
Anonymous
Some interesting points...
First mine the border or shooting was not my point or idea, I will let someone else work on that issue.
Not anywhere did I mention "white culture", while we could have a conversation about that it never got to that point - I just have no intention of having it used against me when I am NOT even "going there"!
Interesting also that you would mention "nature" and filling a vacuum and then...
"If you have to defend your culture (a set of ideas, lived out,) with violence, your culture is absolutely pathetic and cannot stand the heat of the day."
Strange because nature is always violence - inward and outward, and the act of pushing competition out to prevent the loss of resources so the meanest and baddest with the largest teeth wins...
So if using that as justification the results change and the thoughts can be quite disturbing.
Simply I want the Mexican government (and ours for that matter) to lay off their people and take responsibility for themselves rather than encourage their underclass to become parasites here.
Taxes, well I can agree with that, open borders no thanks.
Radio wrote:
"Strange because nature is always violence - inward and outward, and the act of pushing competition out to prevent the loss of resources so the meanest and baddest with the largest teeth wins..."
Are you saying that A) we need to fight for resources, or B) it is justified to kill over resources, or both?
There are more than enough resources on the earth for a few billion more people. Resources change, again and again. Who would have thought sand would be used to make insulation so we wouldn't waste as much fuel? Who would've thought coal would not be the end-all of fuels? (Not Malthus, that's for sure.) Do you want to make the same mistake as the coal alarmists and say that after the oil runs out, we're all going to die? We won't. Different resources are already being brought to bear. If as many people today lived as we did 200 years ago, cutting down trees for firewood and ships, etc., then yes, there would be resource problems. As it is, we don't live as we did 200 years ago.
I am sick and tired of the population alarmists saying, "We're running out of everything! Wars! Famine! Pestilence!" People have been saying that since the beginning of time, and politicians have always been using them to line their pockets. If you take a look back, 200 years ago, just about everyone was poor as hell except the extremely rich. Today, more food can be grown on one acre than ever before. The amount has risen exponentially. Do you think the hunger problem in Africa is caused by a lack of resources? Too many people? Try warlords. They'd be able to grow food if it didn't get stolen from them by warlords, or if they had some private property rights recognized. That's not a problem of too many people, it's a problem of what stupid things people believe in and do.
More people, their ideas, and their ingenuity have made it possible for the average man to live like a king. Unless we start squawking about how our resources are being "used up" by "undesirables." Then all that technological progress is for nothing, and violence unnecessarily becomes commonplace.
In addition, Radio,
Radio wrote: "Strange because nature is always violence - inward and outward, and the act of pushing competition out to prevent the loss of resources so the meanest and baddest with the largest teeth wins..."
I spoke of using violence in defense of culture. Ideas. If someone is actually encroaching on your property and your life, of course you may defend yourself. But your ideas cannot come under physical attack, and hence, you cannot use physical violence to defend them.
Anonymous you wrote
"Are you saying that A) we need to fight for resources, or B) it is justified to kill over resources, or both? "
What I am saying is that violence is part of human nature - we can only live with that reality.
Human invented morality does not trump the "immorally" of nature competition and death is natural killing over resources is natural I don't have to defend or even "like" the facts they just are.
Violence for simple resources is natural and historical, violence for ideas (including religion) has become one of the largest reasons for excessive violence, it is natural but does not have to be rational - humans are NOT rational naturally, we are an evolved group/family ape just as prone to emotional/primitive responses.
I am not a population alarmist but I think there are far too many humans, this problem becomes worse when you look at statistics and understand that the lowest intelligence breeds the most and of course the lowest intelligence members of this primate family are also the most crime prone and most prone to emotional violence.
Ingenuity comes disproportionately higher from the highest levels of mental abilities and sadly the more intelligent the more likely to not breed at the levels needed to expand matching the lower levels.
Reality is that humans tend to breed themselves into high levels of population and low mental abilities and become a pestilence and move out or die out or be killed out by their neighbors.
The higher the population and lower the mental abilities the more pollution, crime, destruction of environment, religion, "immoral behavior", and internal and external violence.
Our southern border invasion is a result of the Mexican government attempting to push their lower class lower mental ability population into the US to "take care of" so that the higher classes in Mexico can continue to keep control of the recourses and by population expansion to extend territory of control.
Breeding soldiers rather than armed are invading into a host population unable to overcome their own parasitic control to understand and prevent or stop this invasion.
You write... " But your ideas cannot come under physical attack, and hence, you cannot use physical violence to defend them."
But religious wars are always extended by use of physical violence, regardless of morality the easiest to manipulate are always guided with the use of religion and "patriotism" or both.
I break with Libertarians on open borders and with Objectivism on the nature of the "human right" to "whatever it wants" including becoming a pestilence.
Radio wrote:
"What I am saying is that violence is part of human nature - we can only live with that reality.
Human invented morality does not trump the "immorally" of nature competition and death is natural killing over resources is natural I don't have to defend or even "like" the facts they just are."
Yes, we can live with the fact that some people initiate violence. We live with that fact like we live with diseases, poverty and addictions. Can we justly embrace any of them? Can we morally initiate violence?
Adultery, murder and theft are "natural," by your definition. I don't think they are natural. They are contrary to our nature, that is why they are considered bad. Breathing air is natural. Eating is natural. Working is natural. Peace is natural.
You do need to defend what you believe with words. But what do you really believe? Your mind does not seem made up, or if it is, you're not coming clean. Do you think it is natural for anyone to take your possessions while you are away? If it is natural, what's wrong with it? How could anyone find fault with people acting according to "nature?"
"Violence for simple resources is natural and historical, violence for ideas (including religion) has become one of the largest reasons for excessive violence, it is natural but does not have to be rational -"
Doing violence because of ideas... I think the only idea that results in violence is the irrational idea that one man (or a group of men) has the right to force another man comply with his own will. This insane idea is prevalent in every State, while not prevalent in every religion.
"humans are NOT rational naturally, we are an evolved group/family ape just as prone to emotional/primitive responses."
I think humans are rational by nature. If we weren't, reason would be the exception, and war would be the rule, rather than the exception. Wars only come about when people are irrational. We are, indeed, rational animals. But reason is what distinguishes us from the animal. And the use of reason has more than a biological basis.
"Ingenuity comes disproportionately higher from the highest levels of mental abilities and sadly the more intelligent the more likely to not breed at the levels needed to expand matching the lower levels."
Even the most uneducated person can be ingenious. Some of the most mechanically-minded who have made amazing contributions to society have been people have no college degree whatsoever, and little education.
It is true that an educated populace naturally reproduces less. But higher population does not mean biologically reduced mental capability. The fact is that the mental capabilities are not utilized.
"But religious wars are always extended by use of physical violence, regardless of morality the easiest to manipulate are always guided with the use of religion and "patriotism" or both."
Wars may be based on ideas. But no one may morally attempt to force anyone to believe anything. Forcing someone to believe anything is a contradiction in terms, as belief is the free acceptance of a truth as perceived by the intellect. As free will is a key aspect of what it is to be human, any attempt to force anyone to believe anything is a contradiction of human nature.
Religion is the belief in God, and living according to his will as perceived. True religion is not forcing other people to do your will. That's Statism. I think more "wars of religion" than you know are thinly-veiled political power grabs. In other words, all of them.
I never denied that people do use violence in attempts to propagate ideas. I stated one "cannot," speaking from an ontological and moral standpoint.
Anonymous
It is clear that you are an intelligent individual and I am going to have to request that if you wish to continue feel free to post a board location you wish to continue on, this one is hard to follow at best.
Feel free to post on my blog a location if you wish but I will not have the ability to check this comment page much longer, I will have to bow out from this location.
"Your mind does not seem made up, or if it is, you're not coming clean."
My mind is never "made up" I am always searching for the facts and always open to change my views based on non-emotional facts. Come clean? I guess I don't understand but I guess it comes down to this - stupid people are emotional, dangerous, and prone to destructive behavior, to encourage them to breed more by giving them the fruits of the productive is immoral. That is what the US government is doing now, taking from the most productive to increase the population of the least productive and easiest to manipulate.
The stupid make the easiest to control slaves.
I suggest the mental militia boards, lots of objectivists, anarchists, and libertarians even a few agrarians such as myself.
I have had exchanges with proponents of objectivism before, and you will have to forgive me if that is not the case. I generally agree with many of the concepts just not some of the key issues.
I disagree that humans are basically moral, humans are opportunists our morals spring from our evolutionary path those actions that increased our ability to survive and breed became hard wired.
I also independently study religion, and religion is all an attempt at control - few even have a thin veneer to cover that fact, religion by it's nature is designed to force or coerce but it is still an idea.
Also education and intelligence are not always, and in this country is often not as closely related as one would think, but it is true that ingenuity is related to higher intelligence.
I guess this means you don't really see the light, eh?
Oh,well. This too shall pass.
I'm a Mexican economist, and reading your, um, "analysis" of the future economic collapse of my country brings a smile to my face, like when I see children playing pretend. If you are going to comment on such a difficult topic such as economics, specially the economics of a foreign county of which you have no clue about, at least read a couple of economics books first, children :)
Post a Comment