I don’t know if you are anti-capitalism but that’s really not the point. American capitalism is successful for several reasons, one of the main reasons is that America has developed from within. It has gone from an agricultural to an industrial economy through market forces. Mexico is trying to become an industrial nation with influence from outside forces that are only there for the cheap labor. The products they produce go outside, the money the company makes goes mostly to the outside. There is no development of a middle class. As opposed to lets say, china. Who’s overall transformation has also included Chinese companies. So these Chinese companies not only pay for manual labor, they pay for middle managers who are Chinese, corporate employment who is Chinese. These people are becoming a middle class that further developments the Chinese economy by putting their dollars back into other Chinese companies. What’s going on in Mexico is capitalism. It isn’t Mexican companies being started by Mexican citizens and benefiting the Mexican economy.
Apparently you missed the part where I said democracy is the best solution we have come up with to this point, which is odd since you quoted it. I am not stupid enough to believe that democracy is perfect, but I do think it is better than living under a dictator who massacres his own people.
Yeah, that's the time period I first became aware of him. I was doing foreign policy research specific to Mexico - that was around the time of the Chiapas rebellion, IIRC. Does this criticism equally apply to tigermission, who also advocates an alternative to democracy?
wow, i didn't read your post before my last but this is exactly the point I was trying to make. the problem with mexico's economy is that its gov't has pimped its citizens to u.s. companies.
what's happening in mexico is basically the same thing that destroyed africa. colinization, expcept for government colinization by another government, its corporate colinization.
I said it might not be ideal for every nation in the world, and I never claimed the democracy was always a good option.
Nonetheless glynch is criticising someone for taking a position against democracy - which you do unless I'm misunderstanding you. And I'm curious - you still haven't given us an example of another system you think would be more appropriate or advantageous or however you want to phrase it. Please do. You never can tell....
Yeah, there's a pressing need for regulation, that borderlines state-owned control. This includes guarantees to an increase of health/worker benefits, an inflated wage level, and training for middle management. We've seen resource caps in state-owned industries before. Third world nations should reserve their right to demand conditions upon human resources. I doubt the drop of multinational companies would be that significant given the boost from NAFTA and its geographical location. However, they would need transparency and uncorrupted officials to enforce this... Which brings me to the theory that local officials are more responsible for continuing the squalor of their people. Eventually under globalization, their labor force should demand entitlements comprable to our own. It seems that local officials are skimming off far more than their given share and thus keeping a uniform and depressed wage rate.
He is criticizing what he sees as hypocrisy on my part. Since I support bringing democracy to Iraq, he feels that I am required to say democracy is the best possible system of government or I am guilty of being a hypocrite. That and calling me an "unsophisticated" conservative.
I think he did. wnes posted that Singapore might be a good model for Mexico (an oligarchy). I disagree, but that would be the example he was thinking about. He'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure. One has to admit that the rampant corruption so closely tied to Mexico's democratic system almost makes the term, democratic, meaningless. What is needed is true democratic reform, however, and a massive cleanup of corruption there, not a system like Singapore, which might provide a better standard of living for the Mexican people, but hardly true freedom. I'll take freedom everyday of the week, and twice on Sundays. And, as has been pointed out, Mexico had one party rule for decades, rule that favored business. It didn't work, economically, like Singapore's did. If someone cares to point out the reasons why it didn't work, and the differences between the two systems, it might make for interesting reading. Keep D&D Civil.
Mexico needs to stop stop exporting it's poor, stop leeching off the U.S, and improve itself from within. Mexico has all the resources necessary to be a prosperous nation. except an educated and motivated populace.
it sounds like the problem you are describing is educational and not actually a flaw of democracy if I am reading you correctly.
In a way you are right, but it is impossible to have a system where all adults are eligible to vote and to have a system where only those best qualified to determine how a country should be run are making the decisions, because not all adults are best qualified to determine how a country should be run. Like I said, there is probably some system of government that is better than democracy, but it isn't one of the ones that have been tried in the past. Churchill made many of these arguments. I do not delude myself into thinking that I can come up with a practical system of government that is better than democracy, but I do believe that one probably exists.
Although I am generally opposed to death penalty, I can't help thinking it, along with tougher sentence, may be the only effective first step to restore law and order in Mexico, which had long abolished the capital punishment. From the article, one can see there simply exists no deterrence against violent crimes in Mexico.
I think some nations might benefit (at least short term) from a strong-handed leader who is not necessarily democratic but does make the nation's well-being his top priority. Moreover, there are certain countries in the world I would not want to see a democracy in, where I fear the alternative is worse than the present leadership. Limited democracy (i.e. something similar to the U.S.) is a good, noble form of government, but I don't believe that it would be beneficial to every nation in the world today.
