"Infrastructure" is, at least in this thread, a euphemism for "socialism." Socialism is always bad. What in hell does it mean to say that Mexico can "afford" socialism?
In real life, they don't take enough money from their economy to keep services up to a reasonable standard.
OK, as near as I can tell you're an out-and-out socialist. That helps clarify things; I usually assume I'm dealing with a capitalist when I post on FR.
Hear me well.
I hear and obey, for you speak the words of truth. Shine your light on this ignorant and most humble servant.
Thou hast spoken. The street upon which you walked today is "socialism." Water, sewer, power, and light are "socialism." Socialist countries and capitalistic countries both have "infrastructure." Infrastructure is an ideologically neutral term, since it can be provided by the government, or by private means. Either way, it has to be paid for; by taxes, or by user fees. A free people voting to tax themselves to build infrastructure, which then all can use, hardly qualifies as "socialism." Or they may vote to use that most capitalist of all funding mechanisms: a bond issue by which capitalists lend money to governmental entities in exchange for a fair return.
OK, as near as I can tell you're an out-and-out socialist....Shine your light on this ignorant and most humble servant
For me to shine a light upon you, for free, would indeed make me closer to a socialist. You have my leave to remain in humble circumstances and as ignorant as you please.