>>53217457 NAFTA is also one of the main reasons that inequality is that high in this country. It's one of the main reasons more than 50% of the country is below the poverty line despite some of them working more than 14 hours straight winning around 7 dollars a day, hence the immigration problem and the lack of jobs for Americans due to the fact that companies prefer exploiting people from other countries like slaves instead of skilled people.
>>53218501 I'm trying to find reliable sources with statistics, but I honestly can't find any.
But yes, inequality is worse now than what it was 50 years ago. Maybe not what it was 100 years or 200 years ago, because Mexico was even more fucked back then. But the period between 1940 and 1970 was the best in those regards, Mexico has been experiencing bad economic crisis since the 70's, with inequality only getting worse with how NAFTA was handled.
>>53218703 >But yes, inequality is worse now than what it was 50 years ago. Inequality gets worse over time. That's simply how capitalist economy works. As long as you have money that can be reinvested, you will outperform inflation and your wealth will grow.
You have one of those complexes where its always the other guy but never your own retarded, massively corrupt and inefficient government who happens to own several of the state's biggest enterprises. And was governed by the shitty PRI for 75 years nonstop. But yes it's America's fault. Sorry friendo. Stay mad I guess.
>>53218737 >Are you saying NAFTA is to blame for that too? No. You tell me, while I know a lot about my country, I don't know a lot about yours.
>it could be worse Yes, but it could also be way, way better.
>>53218812 It doesn't. That's how neoliberalism works, not how capitalism works. And I'm not talking that everybody should be rich or that rich people shouldn't exists, no. That would be ridiculous to assume and impossible to achieve. Poverty, however, can be eradicated. NAFTA as it is right now it's only making poverty worse. We need to make a new better NAFTA that takes into account the differences between both countries instead of just benefiting multinationals. It's kinda like what happened with Greece and the Euro zone.
I don't know if NAFTA is to blame for that, but I highly doubt it. I don't know much about NAFTA, that's why I was trying to ask OP questions about how Mexico was before NAFTA and he refused to answer any of them because he's a marxista who doesn't know shit and would rather blame America for all of your country's problems.
>>53219094 Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that NAFTA was only disadvantageous. But it has serious drawbacks that could have been avoided by negotiating clearly from the obvious asymmetry of our economies and not just assuming that it was getting a treaty between equals (the world's most powerful economy and the number 14, then an economy with a GDP of 8 trillion to one that had a GDP of 500 billion). The problem is not having a NAFTA, it is having that NAFTA that was negotiated from Salinas immeasurable arrogance. NAFTA in Mexico, USA and Canada injured workers everywhere because Mexico was (and is) economically well below their "partners". Thus, given that wages in Mexico are to laugh at, many companies went to Mexico, taking jobs from well-paid American workers and exploiting for a pittance Mexican workers instead. What saves us for now is our oil. The abandonment of the countryside, the precarious maquiladora employment, the inequality in the trade balance (scoring as "exports" maquiladora products, by the way), the increase of economic migration, the barriers to the small and medium enterprises, the disappearance of agencies supporting poverty (as CONASUPO, despite their corruption), the legislative changes that allowed the sale of strategic sectors... the list is long. The advantages are known, but you can not ignore the disadvantages and, above all, that many -not all- that were foreseeable and avoidable. So predictable that many of us then fought for a "NAFTA but not this NAFTA." We asked, among other things, investment from Canada and the US to equalize Mexico to them, like the EU did when it put money to the poorest countries, to avoid an overly asymmetrical situation.
>>53219043 >It doesn't. That's how neoliberalism works, not how capitalism works If rate of return on capital is higher than inflation, then people with money will only get richer while people who live off labor won't. It's a basic fact. Poverty is not getting worse; the poor today have higher standards of living than before. The income gap is rising because the wealthy are becoming weathier.
>>53219744 You are looking at the facts with the eyes of your country. They don't apply to Mexico, mate. Poverty is getting worse here and the middle class is disappearing only to become poor themselves.
If you want to look to a successful form of capitalism look at some countries in Europe. Inequality is not a problem there.
And while capitalism needs to exists because it is the more successful economic system, but as with everything, it needs to be regulated, not being extent from everything, in order to make inequality not a problem and to make opportunities the same for all as much as possible.
>>53219936 California not so much now, do yourself a favor and prevent californian transferees from going to Texas, and maybe pray for that stupid californian sales tax to be shot down, it makes me so sad.
Thread replies: 63 Thread images: 1
Thread DB ID: 369990
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.