Posted on 04/03/2006 12:16:03 PM PDT by Rockitz
Certainly there are many poor people in Mexico, since perhaps half the country lives in poverty. However, the nation as a whole is quite rich — see the documented facts listed below — and could well finance the sort of improvements in education and infrastructure that would better the living standards of all Mexicans. But the Mexican ultra-rich, like telecommunications magnate Carlos Slim shown here, don't like to tax themselves for investment the country badly needs for infrastructure and education, and it helps them greatly that the American taxpayer has been forced to support Mexicans living in the United States.
Interestingly, the Forbes list of billionaires published in 2006 showed Carlos Slim moving up to the number three spot among the world's richest men.
Every dollar spent in U.S. taxes for social services for illegal aliens frees up additional cash to be sent south as part of the annual remittances which provided $20 billion in 2005. According to the CNN news show Lou Dobbs Tonight (3/21/05), "Remittances, as they're called, are expected to become Mexico's primary source of income this year, surpassing the amount of money that Mexico makes on oil exports for the first time ever."
So when el Presidente Vicente Fox complains that the "dignity" of Mexicans living illegally in America requires that they receive free healthcare on the U.S. taxpayer's dime, he is really talking about increased remittances to keep their whole corrupt system afloat.
Consider these relevent facts:
• Mexico has the second-highest highest Gross Domestic Product in Latin America, after being #1 for several years over second-place Brazil.
• When measured in GDP per capita, Mexico ranks #1 as of 2005, ahead of Chile and Venezuela.
• According to Forbes magazine, a substantial proportion of Latin American billionaires, 10 out of 26, were Mexican as of 2005.
• Mexico raises less revenue through taxation than nearly any other Latin American country, just 12 percent which is one reason why the nation's wealth is not better utilized. By comparison, the United States takes in 25-28 percent of its gross domestic profit in taxes. Even Brazil taxes itself at twice the Mexican rate.
• Economist Gary Hufbauer of the Institute for International Economics has remarked, "It's up to Mexico to solve its problem, and basically the wealthy classes do not want to tax themselves, period. While I'm not usually an advocate for larger government, Mexico is a country where public investment, done wisely, could pay huge dividends."
• Mexico expert Prof. George Grayson of William and Mary College calls Mexico an "immensely wealthy nation."
• Mexico's economy is the world's tenth largest.
• When the ruling party needed a hefty sum for the 1994 election, Presidente Salinas leaned on a group of rich businessmen to write $25 million checks each at an infamous dinner party, where contributions totaled a staggering $750 million by evening's end. Compare that with the measly $150 million campaign chest in spring 2004 that President Bush had accumulated after three years in office.
• Freedom House notes the cost of corruption: "According a recent study by the Mexico chapter of Transparency International, some $2.3 billion-approximately 1 percent-of the country's economic production goes to officials in bribes, with the poorest families paying nearly 14 percent of their income in bribes."
• Ricas y Famosas — Rich and Famous is a book of photos that takes a peek at the hidden world of the Mexican ultra-rich. Photographer Daniela Rossell used her membership in the exclusive club to reveal the decadent lifestyles of blonde women in gold lamé. It is a shocking view of the most extreme ostentatious wealth among great poverty.
• Sure Things in Mexico: Death, Taxes and Evasion According the recent rankings released from the IMD International, the Switzerland-based International Institute for Management Development placed Mexico at 56 out of 60 economies examined, largely because of a dearth of investment in everything from infrastructure to education. Due to its pathetic tax collection, Mexico cannot even buy schoolbooks or pay its police enough to live on, much less invest in its future.
• Lou Dobbs Tonight Transcript (12/16/04) The CNN news show shines a light on Mexican wealth. Particularly noteworthy is Prof. Grayson's remark: "There is a small economic elite who live like maharajas, and there's a political elite that protects them. Our border provides an escape valve which really lets the Mexican political and economic elite off the hook in terms of providing opportunities for their own people."
• While US Focuses on Iraq, Mexico is Collapsing June, 2005, and the symptoms of Mexico's failure as a state are accumulating. The recent takeover of border city Nuevo Laredo by the Mexican army because of the breakdown in law and order was so obvious.
Interestingly, Defense chief Donald Rumsfeld is guided by a secret Pentagon report which identifies Mexico as a potential failed state in the making.
For more, read "Mexico's Rich Don't Like To Pay Taxes — They Think You Should."
You can bet your bottom dollar illegals, when given amnesty and the right to vote, will overwhelmingly pull the dem. lever.
China refused to take back thousands of Chinese illegals caught trying to get into the US. Twenty thousand, as a matter of fact.
Gee...why doesn't that surprise me...
I believe it was more like 69,000 they refused to take back.
Yup, and how long before China decides to really dump the unwanted on America's shores? Never mind this smuggled out of China stuff, they'll go first class.
You just said, "You're using a bad argument, so here's an ad hominem." I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
Garbage truck drivers as part of waste desposal systems can make good money. So that argument is false.
The argument is that a wealthy class requires many menial laborers to support them. I expressed it in the vernacular, citing garbage men, but that doesn't mean that the wages of garbage men in particular have any relevance at all. Hopefully, you really did comprehend the point, and you do at least realize that you're offering a red herring.
You don't need to have massive poverty just so you can have people run the waste collecting.
Straw man; nobody is arguing that Mexico needs "massive poverty."
You have offered no proof whatsoever that a significant proportion of Mexico's population is so retarded as to imagine that there's an economic benefit to be had by expelling the least wealthy N% of the population. On what basis do you suppose that Mexico's wealthy are rich and successful, but at the same time so mentally handicapped as to believe such an absurd thing?
Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you imagine that "exporting" the poorest N% of America's residents would accrue benefits to the (100-N)% that remain? Of couse not. If you're not that stupid, why do you suppose that these hypothetical Mexicans are?
...but at least Canada takes care of its poor...
You just said that socialism is a good thing for Canada. Do you also believe it would be a good thing for the US? If not, what magical test distinguishes the countries that benefit from socialism from the countries that don't?
Well, over there it is ONE family--SAUD (Abdul Aziz?)and they ALL wear a distinctive head decoration/gown to show their tribe.....Not to mention attending a church dedicated to our extinction!!
Even better, 69,000 Chinese refused the right of 'return'!(trying to type with interference from Sophie, a minidachshund.)
I'm not going to argue with you. I was trying to support your point.
Corruption at all levels of society keeps a few wealthy and the rest poor. Mexico, by any measure, is among the most corrupt nations.
Their law is 'generally upheld' but known for it's corruption. They're foreign investment laws are keeping it from advancing. And speaking as someone that doesn't like big-government, they do have to fairly tax everyone enough to get a descent infrastructure...I mean they have little or no major roads in Mexico.
Just let us govern your country for ten years and we'll change it around. ; )
LOOK at this
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Mexico
It depends on how you define "Democrat". Most of them are culturally Catholic and a surprising number of them are evangelical Protestants or Latter Day Saints.
How are they going to vote on abortion, gay rights & school choice?
No, I don't want Amnesty either. But didn't 40% of Hispanics or something like that vote in favor of Prop 200 in Arizona?
The poor are as much to blame for this as the rich, though: given the chance, the average Mexican would gladly trade places with the corrupt officials.
There is no reason, other than corruption, for that nation to have so many poor. It's all so unnecessary.
I'm with you 100%.
30 states? Screw that. I'll be generous and offer them to be a protectorate if they want to join the US so badly. But there's no way in hell we're hooking up with a people for whom those truths are not self-evident.
Bookmark
Your arguments do ring shallow.
There is a very big advantage for Mexico getting rid of it's most impoverished. The prospect of massive political unrest is something that Mexico's elite want to avoid at all costs. Either you find a way to deal with them or suffer the consequences. You still don't get it.
You are a like most libertarians, which tend to be little more than inverted Marxists.
You don't need to have massive poverty just so you can have people run the waste collecting. Straw man; nobody is arguing that Mexico needs "massive poverty." You have offered no proof whatsoever that a significant proportion of Mexico's population is so retarded as to imagine that there's an economic benefit to be had by expelling the least wealthy N% of the population. On what basis do you suppose that Mexico's wealthy are rich and successful, but at the same time so mentally handicapped as to believe such an absurd thing? Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you imagine that "exporting" the poorest N% of America's residents would accrue benefits to the (100-N)% that remain? Of couse not. If you're not that stupid, why do you suppose that these hypothetical Mexicans are?
More crap. Again, you have this absolutely myopic understanding of modern economics. A greater and greater volume of people will translate into greater and greater economic output. False.
I've stated before (on previous threads) that even the Libertarians' favorite immigration authority, the late Dr. Julian Simon understood the dubious nature of the open borders argument. This of course put him odds with the Libertarian Party and the WSJ editorial board. Simon grasped that you could not really have kind of open borders policy advocted by the WSJ & L.P. Simon at least understood (unlike you) the fallacy of "...greater aggragate number of individuals translating into greater (or more productive) economic output". He called this principle the "negative human capital externalities". Massive poverty itself one of the underlying causes of the NHCE's. It is a major liability for any economy in the modern age. A economy is on the whole much better off with a lower number of individuals than with twice the population but with half of those living in poverty.Period.
BTW, even Von Mises himself do not agree with the open borders philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.