... and Mexico will pay for the wall.

[Velocity]

I haven’t had time or energy to dig into that data, but it might be a matter of how exports are counted - i.e., dollar value of exports vs. number of items sold.

But whatever the figure may be, the point is that trade with the United States accounts for a significant chunk of Mexico’s economy; that’s indisputable no matter how the numbers are sliced. And if Trump decides to take punitive measures against Mexico, that will hurt the Mexican economy significantly; that is also indisputable. Sure, America will suffer as well, but that’s beside the issue.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Velocity

I haven’t had time or energy to dig into that data, but it might be a matter of how exports are counted - i.e., dollar value of exports vs. number of items sold.

But whatever the figure may be, the point is that trade with the United States accounts for a significant chunk of Mexico’s economy; that’s indisputable no matter how the numbers are sliced. And if Trump decides to take punitive measures against Mexico, that will hurt the Mexican economy significantly; that is also indisputable. Sure, America will suffer as well, but that’s beside the issue.

Right now MY issue is trying to get any kind of accurate information about how much of Mexico’s exports are to the US. A claim was made and I’d like to verify or debunk that claim. Any claims based on the first claim are gonna be ignored by me until this one claim can be confirmed or denied.

[Velocity]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Right now MY issue is trying to get any kind of accurate information about how much of Mexico’s exports are to the US. A claim was made and I’d like to verify or debunk that claim. Any claims based on the first claim are gonna be ignored by me until this one claim can be confirmed or denied.

As of the year 2016, Mexico’s exports to the United States were 81.03% of it’s total export share.

This information was on Google. You could have fought your ignorance with a mouse click.

[Slash1972]

@Snowboarder_Bo

Maybe someone else can come up with a better cite, but that’s the best I found. /shrug

ETA: My point is that the arguments being presented by Silver lining (and Velocity, in his attempt to provide a cite) seem kind of janky to me. If the figures presented are not accurate, why should I give any import to the rest of the argument? If the figures back up the assertion, then I’ll gladly take the new information into account, of course, but I would like to see those numbers.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to disparage the site itself or your choice of it. I just meant something was not working right or whatever with those particular numbers. Otherwise, seems like a pretty good site.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Velocity

As of the year 2016, Mexico’s exports to the United States were 81.03% of it’s total export share.

So the 85% was incorrect; it is not 85% of their exports that are sent to the US. Was this incorrect statement made deliberately or was it made out of ignorance?

If the information was presented to be deliberately misleading, I see little or no reason to trust any of the other arguments being made.

If the information was presented out of ignorance, I see little or no reason to trust any of the other arguments being made since they also may be based on faulty “facts”.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Slash1972

Sorry, I didn’t mean to disparage the site itself or your choice of it. I just meant something was not working right or whatever with those particular numbers. Otherwise, seems like a pretty good site.

No apology necessary; I didn’t think you were disparaging anyone or anything. It was just the best site I found.

Incidentally, since you bring it up, Velocity, I forgot to mention that you could have fought ignorance with a google before you posted your cite, but you didn’t did you? And you could have fought ignorance, instead of promulgating it, by not posting non-factual information as though it were fact, but you didn’t, did you? Oh, and I noticed that your new cite show that the % is increasing over time, not decreasing. So it never was 85%.

[DrDeth]

@Snowboarder_Bo

So the 85% was incorrect; it is not 85% of their exports that are sent to the US. Was this incorrect statement made deliberately or was it made out of ignorance?

If the information was presented to be deliberately misleading, I see little or no reason to trust any of the other arguments being made.

If the information was presented out of ignorance, I see little or no reason to trust any of the other arguments being made since they also may be based on faulty “facts”.

81 vs 85? What difference does it make?

Estimates vary and often you get different figures as they as based on different years.

In any case, Mexico sends a LOT of it’s goods to the USA.

[elucidator]

“Pity poor Mexico - so far from God, so close to the USA.”

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@DrDeth

81 vs 85? What difference does it make?

You quoted my post where I laid out what difference it made.

[smithsb]

@DrDeth

81 vs 85? What difference does it make?

Estimates vary and often you get different figures as they as based on different years.

In any case, Mexico sends a LOT of it’s goods to the USA.

What percentage of these exports is automotive? Many multinational auto companies have set up shop there for labor cost reasons and NAFTA. Not just complete cars but assemblies and spare parts. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/made-in-mexico

A number of these smaller cars are victims of the USA’s appetite for tall SUV/CUVs. Ford Fusion and Fiesta are to be discontinued for US markets. Some of the GM production for Cruz and Sonic is being curtailed as well. This will impact exports to a greater extent than Trump tariffs.

[Horatius]

@Velocity

I haven’t had time or energy to dig into that data, but it might be a matter of how exports are counted - i.e., dollar value of exports vs. number of items sold.

I think that site just has a straight-up wrong number for Mexico’s total exports that year. If you look at the Trade Balance chart, they go from about $400 billion in 2015 to almost $900 billion in 2016. I’m sure that an annual growth rate of over 100% would have attracted a lot of attention.

[tomndebb]

EVERYONE,
back off on the pointless snark. I am sure that those of you engaging in little snide personal attacks consider them to have a point. However, I do not, and I will be handing out the Warnings to those who continue.

[ /Moderating ]