I asked my niece that question in reference to SA countries, but Mexico
is similar enough. She was the resident expert on certain political and
economic matters in a certain SA country for A Government Agency, so was
probably as knowledgeable about such things as anyone could be. She has
a degree from Georgetown in International Relations, and a fair amount
of training. She has briefed presidents directly/personally on these
matters.
She thought about it a bit and attributed it to the effects of
colonialism, in that the ruling classes of most LA countries are the
descendants of the yurpeens, the Spanish specifically, and mostly
white/mestizo not native and their attitudes towards the indigenos is
not wildly different from colonial times 500 years ago. That sorta made
sense -- they have their status and wealth and really don't care that
much about the rest. In places where indigenos do get elected (I think
Hugo in Venezuela and the guy in Bolivia?) they tend to go overboard the
other way with the predictable results -- it gets even worse.
Interestingly, we were just in Peru and the electioneering was going big
time for the election yesterday. They started out with something like
30 candidates, it got winnowed down to 2, Fujimori and Kuczinski (sp?),
both right-center candidates and obviously neither has an indigeno name,
not even a Spanish name. I'm still not sure which got elected as last I
heard it was 50.5-49.5 for K. In any case, Peru has been fairly right
of center, and their economy has been going pretty well, and from what I
saw it did not have the really bad poverty you see in Mexico and some
other countries, though most people would not be wealthy by any means.
The Fujimori candidate is the daughter of a former president, now in
prison, who went a bit too far after eradicating the communist Shining
Path uprising, which people are still grateful for though a few remain
back in the mountains and in the forests causing trouble.
Some countries are starting to get their acts organized though Argentina
keeps regressing every 10-15yr or so. Chile is doing well, as I think
is Colombia, mostly, after the bad times with the drug trade. Brazil is
starting to slow down after some good growth. Costa Rica and Panama are
doing pretty well. Ecuador could but their idiot presidente keeps
trying to screw things up with socialismo to appeal to the lower
classes. It seems that the ones doing well adopt some US-style reforms
and the leaders take some interest in the general welfare and actually
try to improve things. Not so much in Mexico.
--JC
On 6/6/16 5:32 PM, Scott Ritchey via Mercedes wrote:
It has long seemed to me that there is no fundamental reason for Mexico to
be less prosperous than the US. Mexicans are educated, at least to the
point they are literate. They are hard-working. They have a strong family
identity. They have great natural resources. They have a large country
with a mild climate. And they have access to both Atlantic and Pacific
ports.
So why is Mexico so poor and crime ridden that folks flock to the US for
jobs and safety?
This is more than an idle question if we don't want the US to become Mexico.
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
--
--BB
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
