Mexico: Conservative Wins Presidency.

[Divinus Arma]

Results are in. No socialist leftist America-hater to our South. I kinda wish the lefty had won. Maybe we would get tougher on illegals.

[Keba]

It's only a 1% lead, it can still change, these are only the preliminary results.

I'm still rooting for the lefty guy, just 'cause he's a lefty.

[Aenlic]

Interestingly, I was watching one pundit talking about the Mexico elections, and he made a very interesting point. If Mexico had simply continued its economic growth rate from before joining NAFTA in 1994, it would now have an economy roughly equivalent to Spain's. But after NAFTA, the economy has stagnated and conditions have actually worsened in many areas. I don't have numbers to back this up, just passing on what some pundit on TV had to say about it.

[Xiahou]

What gives me a kick is how some news stories are trying to cast the election as a struggle of rich vs. poor instead of right vs. left. If a slim majority of Mexicans are considered "rich" things must be alot better off there than we've been led to believe.


As a side note, Id like to point out that conservatives now head all 3 major North American governments. Erm.... well... Im not sure if we can count Bush as "conservative".

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And this conservative's no good either - he's a Fox clone, and that means more illegals, guys. This is nothing to celebrate. If the lefty won, well, who knows what would happen.

[Ice]

And this conservative's no good either - he's a Fox clone, and that means more illegals, guys. This is nothing to celebrate. If the lefty won, well, who knows what would happen.

I'll take the Harvard educated conservative over the "Democratic Revolutionary Party" leftist canidate any day.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It's much more difficult to justify bombing the former.







Kidding!

[Byzantine Prince]

Hahaha, sillies...

A lefty Mexican presidente would create more jobs and therefore solve your illigal immigration problem.

[doc_bean]

Socialism is a terrific way of building up a poor country, since it allows wealth to be spread equal amongst the population, pure capitalism will only lead to the wealth concentrating with the few rich people, who will then more than likely take their wealth abroad. The poor will realise they have a much better shot at life in the US and emigrate.

Also, an America hating president might inspire America hating amongst the common population, which might lead to less Mexicans actually wanting to go to America.

You lose.

[Ice]

Socialism is a terrific way of building up a poor country, since it allows wealth to be spread equal amongst the population, pure capitalism will only lead to the wealth concentrating with the few rich people, who will then more than likely take their wealth abroad. The poor will realise they have a much better shot at life in the US and emigrate.

Also, an America hating president might inspire America hating amongst the common population, which might lead to less Mexicans actually wanting to go to America.

You lose.

I stand by my decision, damnit!

[Csargo]

Go lefty

[Divinus Arma]

Socialism is a terrific way of building up a poor country, since it allows wealth to be spread equal amongst the population, pure capitalism will only lead to the wealth concentrating with the few rich people, who will then more than likely take their wealth abroad. The poor will realise they have a much better shot at life in the US and emigrate.

Also, an America hating president might inspire America hating amongst the common population, which might lead to less Mexicans actually wanting to go to America.

You lose.

Actually, a free market, low tax capitalist system encourages investment and increases jobs. The wealthy invest in additional business, resulting in more labor opportunities.

By heavily taxing the wealthy and the corporations, you discourage business growth and depress jobs. The global market inevitably forces business, even domestic ones, to move elsewhere. Free market always benefits the lower class, allowing them new opportunities.

[Lehesu]

Eclectic....have you studied Russia lately? Reagonomics is filled with so many wholes and guesswork that I won't even begin to comment...

[Samurai Waki]

Some Countries Go Capitalist and are succesful...some Countries go Socialist and are succesful.

Socialism can create a strong short term economy, even Americans can agree *cough* FDR's New Deal *Cough* a better plan for a long term economy is to slowly adjust into a more Capitalist System, if the Country can support major industries, Mexico is fortunate enough to where it can.

Actually, most succesful economies strike a balance somewhere in the Middle Though. the US went from a purely capitalist economy in the 20s, which floundered miserably, switched over to a Socialist Economy in the 30s and 40s, regained some capital and work force, and switched back over to a highly succesful Capitalist Economy. Given the situation in the US, a major economic crash is bound to happen within the next few years, which will have to result in a more socialist system to regain some composure. Failure to do so, well...look at Russia.

However sticking to one regiment will in the long run, does cause stagnation in an economy. If China was still a hardcore communist state, they would have stagnated by now. If Russia continues to stick with it's hardcore Capitalist State, it will stagnate to the point of collapse.

So for the time being, my hopes for Mexico is that the left will win.

[doc_bean]

Actually, a free market, low tax capitalist system encourages investment and increases jobs. The wealthy invest in additional business, resulting in more labor opportunities.

The problem with rampant capitalism in developping countries is that a few people tend to get super rich. They want luxury goods which often can't be produced by the developping country itself and thus waste their money on foreign products. Not good for the local economy.

The effect of additional job creation seems marginal at best, since it will take a long time for wages to rise. Which country has know rapid growth by just allowing pure capitalism ? The fast reconstruction of Europe after WWII was partly due to the socialist measures. Japan developped amazingly fast, while I don't know much about thow they did it, I don't think I've ever heard of a super rich Japanese, which seems to indicate that they had a 'fair' distribution of the created wealth.

By heavily taxing the wealthy and the corporations, you discourage business growth and depress jobs.

1. I don't expect Mexico to take over the Belgian tax system, they're not suddenly going to double taxes, it would be a slight shift in direction.
2. This theory mostly applies to 'developped' countries, they have low wages anyway so business growth due to foregin investment will still be there. Socialism (a little anyway) would benefit the average Mexican and support their local economy.

The global market inevitably forces business, even domestic ones, to move elsewhere. Free market always benefits the lower class, allowing them new opportunities.

This is seeing the world through some pink glasses

I think Wakizashi's post is probably the best in this thread. A country needs to use the right tools at the right time and not get caught up in an 'ideology' like capitalism has become in the US or socialism in Europe.

[Aenlic]

As of late last night, 96% of the recount has been completed. But now the totals give the leftist Obrador a slight lead over the conservative Calderon - 35.8% to 35.4%. 9CNN.com article)

Add to that the claim a few days ago, prior to the recount, by Obrador's party that in over 18,000 polling places, the total votes recorded as being cast in each of those polling places outnumbered the total number of ballots distributed in each of those polling places. (Echoes of Ohio in 2004, but without the untraceable electronic voting. 3500 votes for Bush in one precinct, which is odd considering the precinct only had 360 or so registered voters.) Democracy in action, folks. Stalin would have gottten a chuckle out of seeing the votes cast not equal the numbers of voters.

Things are getting interesting.

It's almost as if the PRI were back in power, isn't it?

[Ice]

With 99.59 percent of the vote counted, Felipe Calderon would win even if all the remaining votes went to Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the Democratic Revolution Party. He had 35.83 percent of the vote, compared with 35.36 percent for Lopez Obrador.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

Of course he isn't going down that easy.

Lopez Obrador supporters wept in the streets, saying they wouldn't let him be robbed of victory. At a news conference, Lopez Obrador urged his supporters to gather this weekend in downtown Mexico City, stirring fears he would mobilize massive protests that could lead to violence.

[lars573]

Well they had the democracy part now it's time for the revolution part. :D

[Al Khalifah]

As long as the President doesn't decide to exclude all foreigners for the next three months, I don't care. Cheap exchange rate please!

[Divinus Arma]

Conservative Wins. Leftist SOB vows court fight.


Sounds familiar.

[Lehesu]

The last time this happened, I believe that the leftist actually had won. Maybe that was the one before last.

[Don Corleone]

And this conservative's no good either - he's a Fox clone, and that means more illegals, guys. This is nothing to celebrate. If the lefty won, well, who knows what would happen.

Al Queda being welcomed with open arms to our South, and Hugo Chavez's troops deployed would be my guess.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yeah, DC. I guess we might as well go with the righty, then.

And mean conservative discusses Mexico's voting practices, which seem better than ours. An interesting read.