I was born in the USA. Before I was 22, had probably walked or driven into Mexico at least 20 times and once the whole family spent a vacation traveling deep into Mexico - deep as, in within 50 miles of the Guatemalan border. As I compare the USA with Mexico, I think, “What Happened?”
It seems a reasonable question. Why is it that Mexico seems to be in such backward poverty and the USA is not? Oh, I realize that the USA has horrific poverty, too, and there are terrific places in Mexico, but over all …
I am sure there will be some flippant answers, but if there is some geo-politicos or economists out there, I would love to hear your opinions, too. Enlighten me.
Interesting. I just looked at one web site, and Mexico was not listed as a First, Second, OR Third World country. What is up with that?
I was born in Mexico and still have a lot of family there, but I grew up here so my insights into my birth nation are pretty sketchy. My guess is that the Mexican government has always been weak, that the rule of law has always been pretty sketchily applied, and that the wealthy and the rich have always maintained an iron grip on their power and privilege. I think the attitude of the wealthy in Mexico is that the poor can always just sneak into the US if they don’t like it. They live in guarded and gated communities and have little or nothing to do with the poor. There isn’t really a large middle class in Mexico, from what I understand…just really rich and extremely poor, with a smattering of folks in between who’s numbers are pretty much insignificant.
one was, for a long time, mostly inhabited by people characterized by low corruption, limited government, strong local self-government, a drive for technical innovation, business and money making. The other was and still is inhabited by la Raza de Bronce Bronze (racial classification) - Wikipedia ruled over by a small white elite with a preference for government corruption (think Carlos Slim).
The fact that the institution called “Mexican army” fell apart pretty quickly back in 1846 when fighting Americans is not an accident. The fact that in more recent times Latino efforts at self-improvement in America seem to boil down to holding “si se puede” rallies is not an accident either. Theirs was and is a society with lower level of organization and drive than what America used to be (and no longer is).
I agree with this. I also think it’s a factor that Mexico doesn’t have the arable land that America does. (The United States currently has 1,669,302 square kilometers of cultivated land to Mexico’s 268,072.)
Without the same potential for farming, Mexico wasn’t able to develop a large middle class like the United States was. So the American economy was built up on a middle class model that still exists even though agriculture is no longer our primary economic sector. The Mexican economy didn’t have this formative middle class and was built on a top-down model.
Couldnt it be simply explained by the fact that
1)Most of the pop of the US is of European origin, and a few of the basic principles for having an efficient political system were easier to implement in the States than in Mexico?
2)the colonial power that handled Mexico wasnt in the best of shape itself, and it made the country lag for a long time (and didnt leave the country with very solid political or even economical systems?).
For the level of arable lands, wouldnt Australia be in as bad shape as Mexico?
That’s not exactly what I had in mind. Seems to me the Native Americans of Mexico survived in far larger numbers than that of the US. As appalling as it sounds, it it sometimes easier to build from scratch. I would tend to think the US’ NAs didnt contribute much to the building of the country, whereas you had some major political figures in Mexico with NA origins (and probably customs).
BTW, Canada wasnt founded by Brits, and it certainly does better than Mexico, so I dont think it is a British vs Spanish thing rather than a Euro vs Natives thing (think Israel). The derelict state of the Spanish colonial empire certainly didnt improve things.
The government and police all the way down to the local government are corrupt. You can get anything with money and get in real trouble without it. It is corrupt like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Well, politically speaking, Mexico is only 90 years old or so, right?
They didn’t get independence from Spain until 1821, and that was followed by massive wars, loss of huge territories, empires and dictatorships. Hell, a political party other than PRI didn’t win an election until 2000.
I would pin a large portion of Mexico’s ills on that political history.
two major South American nations built out of white people on top of the cultural and legal infrastructure inherited from the Iberian Peninsula are South Brazil and Argentina. They didn’t do great, but they did do decently. Sort of like “South Italy v2.0”. Granted, both of them had excellent natural resources that they put to good use.
But maybe another way of reading Brazil would be “they were messed up for a long time, then they lucked in on Vargas and a few other competent modernizer leaders”.
Whereas Mexico never had any such leaders and was never able to make much out of the revenue flows from oil or remittances.
Mexico is disorganized. My son invited home once a Mexican lady for lunch. She talked about how much she was impressed about my country, Chile, because the infrastructure and order. She was impressed a Latino country could have that lifestyle, and said we were a “small developed country”.
Curiously enough, in GDP per capita, both countries have about the same income.
I think Mexico needs to get organized. The image of the region projected North is very bad, and Mexico has been a bad promoter. It is a shame Americans have the poorest part of Mexico as a neighbour instead of the more developed regions we have down south.
By the way, in “racial” terms -some people see everything in racial terms; that’s why I comment it- Mexico is not much different from my country, Chile. And surprisely, we do better than “white” Argentina. It is the thinking and character which is different.
I wonder sometimes if the relative ease of illegally immigrating to the US is part of what keeps the lid on things in Mexico; if the motivated peasantry decides to bail, then what’s left are the apathetic peasantry and the super-rich, neither of which is going to change the status quo.
These just beg the question. Why did Mexico retain a much larger native population than the United States? Why did Mexico have less stable political institutions than the United States?
(Bolding mine) I’m not sure I understand this, let alone in comparison to Mexico (or Mexico to Japan).
I can see how a corrupt government is a limited government for a couple of reasons:
[ul]
[li]You have to pay them or they won’t do anything.[/li][li]The people with real money pay them not to do things.[/li][/ul]