How much of the liberal AMLO vote from the 2006 election will be up for grabs and who will get it?

So far, AMLO has not won back very much of his flock, resulting in a very lopsided race that threatens the PRD and PRI dominance.

Vazquez Mota seems to have drawn a few new voters that considered the other candidates, but has received even more attention and attacks than poll-leading PRI.   Most early polls found sizable double-digit lead between 10 and 20 points in favor of Pena Nieto.  This has not prevented the other candidates from attacking Vazquez Mota based on a trend in which her gains appear to make the other candidates look like they’re standing still.

Yet the fact that AMLO’s vote is not rising is the dominant issue.  Pena Nieto has a  dangerous 40% of the vote in many polls.  The problem is not Pena Nieto himself, however, it is the dominance of his parties and many elements within it.  The DEA has already clearly pointed a finger at some ex-governors that the PRI again refuses to back away from, blaming the PAN rather than the former governors’ past and the DEA itself.  It is hard to imagine how Pena Nieto can protect them when a law-enforcing governmental source in the US (one completely separate from the PAN) has already called out these governors.   Even with these elements of his party’s past dragging down the PRI’s image, Pena Nieto has not lost much support to the PRD.  Perhaps it is because the PRD is busy attacking Vazquez Mota for wearing earings as women have done since pre-historic times.  Perhaps it is because when he targeted Pena Nieto for reasons of class-conflict, yet the PRI supporters have barely batted an eye.  Yet class conflict issues have slowly taken a toll on Pena Nieto and maybe even have affected Vazquez Mota.  Yet AMLO barely gains if at all.  He attacks earings instead of Pena Nieto and gains as little as he did attacking knowledge of the price of tortillas.  AMLO appears to have been the first to attack Vazquez Mota directly, and to bring the issues of women’s style and socio-economic lifestyle to the fore indirectly.  Or was it also the PRI?   Certainly the PRI has taken the step of attacking Calderon’s sister who ran a fair campaign in Michoacan under some questionable circumstances.   It is difficult to tell the source, but it seems that the “earings” strategies may have opened a pandora’s box that has yet to show up in his favor in most cited polls.  His history of loud protest and the image of his party and their continually extreme social positions outside of the mainstream small-to-medium sized Mexican city seems to be one reason.

Then there’s the question of eroding support for the PAN through the reporting of homicides despite that homicide risk is still below PRI levels.  Homicide numbers are well below those of Brazil and other comparable countries, yet the nation’s image has been hurt with those attacks, not just the PAN.  With rates well below recent PRI sexenios, what justifies this destruction of the nation’s image?  Freedom has allowed a voice for victims now, that is different.  How are silent murders better than attended-to murders?  How are years of missing homicide statistics during the PRI years better than openly acknowledging murders?  How does the PAN suffer and the PRI benefit from this state of affairs for so long?

Also PANAL’s candidate seems to be sticking it to AMLO for some reason on tweeter, as if he needed to be made fun of.  Even the PRI does not seem to need more of AMLO’s votes at this point.  The PRI seems to be the one coming up roses every time.

Will AMLO ever regain his previous support?

What will help him position himself once more to regain the more independent left?

Is his first attempt at re-making his image working?   Does his image need additional tweaking?   What has been more effective?  Peace and love may not be gaining traction with voters without directly addressing his prior faults.

Has he changed more than the PRI?  That may be a question that the PRI-leaning liberal independents may want to see addressed.  AMLO really turned off a lot of voters, with the help of the media, perhaps.

One must wonder about how little AMLO seems to have done to regain the trust of people that turned away from him.  If the PRI can do it, as can formerly radical leftists like Humala and Lula, then why can’t AMLO?  It does seem that he’s moved slightly more to the center, but who has heard him?  He should probably not talk of nationalizations of any kind, but does need to do something to regain more working-class, poverty-minded, class-conflicted, anti-neoliberalism voters.   Has that sector of the population changed its mind?  If so that might not in and of itself be so bad for Mexico’s future economic direction, but AMLO must do something to regain some of that support.

Perhaps it is the extremity of the social issue and how it plays outside the capital.  The PRD must certainly seek to maintain the capital as its base.  It is good for more than for AMLO and for the PRD.

The PRD has always been a source of support for democracy and for the PAN’s effort to negotiate with the PRI’s traditional reactionary forces.

The PRD seems to be going so far into social liberalism territory that it may also be losing some of its old supporters for those reasons as well.

It is hard to diagnose the exact problem, but a problem indeed is what they seem to have.

It would be easy to say that they deserve it on the far left, after blocking streets and coming up with so many weak excuses to contest the vote in 2006 (such as that not everyone who voted for one party for president voted for the same party in congress, a statistical variation that makes sense).  Yet that was another political lifetime ago.  Voters surely are capable of getting over it, and AMLO is a politician so he’s expected to modify some of his politics for the times as well…

What would be more difficult for those outside his base supporters that have stood by him would be to admit that he has democratic and pluralistic value, that he attracts to his cause dissatisfied and disgruntled forces that might in the past have resorted to greater violence such as during the Mexican revolution a century ago.  He represents not only the economic left and the social left, but also the maturing of democracy and nonviolence.  He represents a voice for the poorest and the marginalized.  His errors show that even to the center-left he is no Messiah.  His populist voice may be no less powerful and fearsome, but it is less omnipotent and dominant.  That omnipotence and dominance seems to have been taken over by the PRI.  They will be used to representing the powerful, old forces of Mexico, along with some of its reformer wings.

The PAN will put in its fair fight for democracia.  The PRD must do the same to keep a presence in the country insdie and outside the capital (and even that has occasionally been in peril of being lost for the PRD).  Good luck AMLO, I would not support you ahead of Josefina based on the economic issue, but I hope you do at least what you do best:  represent the powerless and give them a political voice.

This does not seem like a strong card for the PRI to play.

While the PRI governors are being denounced by the DEA for their actions, the PRI goes after Calderon’s sister’s words in revenge.

I actually like the contrast.

The PRI governors, according to the PRI, can do corrupt things.

The PAN first family cannot talk about becoming a little more like the PRI… showing that even the PRI does not expect the other parties to act like them.

This is the new PRI, afraid of being matched in spending?  The PAN and its money are still a step above.

According to the UNCTAD FDI data and flows charts on Mexico 1994-2002 (since NAFTA to when they last presented this data), Mexico’s FDI inflows have often been dominated by the US.

“In the year 2000 ‘by country, the United States alone account for 60.4% of FDI in the country through 11,630 subsidiary companies established in Mexico’ (Ministry of Finance).”

2001 and 2002  (averaged together) showed even greater dependence on the US for FDI as a percentage share.

Total world FDI from 1994 to 2002 averaged between 13 and 14 billion USD. In 2001 US-based Citibank bought a Mexican bank Banamex, raising the 2001 total to $25.334 billion, higher than any previous year.  In 2002 (a year in which the lead up to the war in Iraq slowed US growth), the total dropped to just above 1995 (Mexican Peso crisis) levels of FDI to Mexico, to $9.696 billion.

The highest total FDI to Mexico (averaging $24.2 billion USD between 2004 to 2008) reflected higher US growth and after the end of the Iraq War and before the 2009 Great Recession.   In 2011 Spain and Netherlands helped make up for slowdowns in US growth to keep Mexico near those record years yet another year and to diversify its FDI sources.  Mexico has also been growing at faster growth rates than the US.

Top sources now include manufacturing, finance/insurance, and commerce.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-20/mexico-2011-foreign-direct-investment-totals-19-4-billion.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/foreign-investment-in-mexico-rises-97-percent-in-2011-to-1944-billion/2012/02/20/gIQAPZpmPR_story.html

http://www.inforefuge.com/mexico-economy-fdi-trade

http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Search.asp?intItemID=1584&lang=1&frmSearchStr=Mexico+FDI&frmCategory=doc&section=whole

Vazquez Mota is from humble origins now higher up in the middle class, she may sometime get her earings in the manner, locations, and pricing that other people from all classes do, and probably so do the ex-girlfriends of Pena Nieto and his wife.

Really the only humble vote should not go to the PRI.

The PRD is not doing its work to take support form the PRI on the left.

Where does the PRD expect to get its support from by its attack on a more conservative, religious, pro-economic-reform candidate?

They should be seeking to steal more of the support from Pena Nieto. Pena Nieto and Rivera have been seen in nice SUV’s with nice clothes and jewelry, haven’t they?

The class conflict arguments of the PRD are aimed at the wrong target.  They lost their support to the PRI first and foremost.

If they can’t get their supporters back from the PRI, then the PAN should get those votes for itself to safeguard Democracy, but it will likely be a much easier sell for the PRD.  The PAN’s supporters seem to be focussed on middle class values voters, often involved in business and civic groups, including religions.  The PRI and PRD have fought for the near-socialist corporatist beneficiaries of old and new, believing in big government for the PRD and in an old ruling hierarchy voting for the PRI.  However, there is a great difference as the PRI sometimes purports to favor “neo-liberal” economics and sometimes favors the protcction of workers unions, leaving much room for the PRD to draw contrasts from the PRI.  Their class-conflicts attacks on Pena Nieto seem to have had some effect.

There’s no need to reform everything now, not at once for sure. So far, the PRD and the PRI have stood by more unions and by Carlos Slim’s huge monopolies that hold a significant share of Mexico’s GDP in uncompetitive environments.  The PAN can easily focus on certain unions, such as private unions or on public unions or on unions in certain strategic sectors of the economy to start the reform push.  No need to take on all unions.  No need to take on all monopolies at once.  Certainly the television monopoly is not as threatening to the economy as the telecommunications monopolies.

Calderon’s strong positions on his policy have been helpful, as have the strong positions of Ernesto Cordero.  Should Calderon seek greater budgeting now for more federal police and military?

At the same time, Vazquez Mota benefits from her relative independence and steps towards taking the batton and moving on to the next stage. That is admirable.  She is an independent woman and should find some careful photo ops with similar politicians like the PAN’s independent candidate in Mexico City. A gradual move towards greater use of the federal police perhaps?

Corruption remains a major difference, as the PAN has legalized gambling bringing the corruption that was hidden to light and begin to regulate such activities, the PRI treated gambling like it was outlawed but yet it widely existed in Mexico.  The PRI has many more corruptive ties than the PAN.  The SNTE at least reformed for the PAN.  The governorships of the PRI, the money from Veracruz to Toluca, and other such examples demonstrate that the PRI has a long way to go before they are handed the keys to the castle.

It is good and admirable to seek independence from one-party governments of the past, as many other states have managed to break away from them.  These include the former right-wing dictatorships of Chile and Brazil, but also the former left-wing dictatorships of Mexico and Nicaragua.  A dictatorship is not a good thing whether it comes from the left or from the right.  Much of the right is only familiar with dictatorships from the right, ignoring that some countries have had dirty wars coming from the socialist left such as from the PRI under Lopez Portillo.

In Mexico an open society is bringing about an age of new freedoms and responsibilities, with much progress to be made above the homicide rates that are proven to have been higher under recent PRI dictatorships.  There is also much progress to be made in the economy, as despite the US recession the Mexican economy is now growing at much higher multiples above the US economy by reforming and meeting up to its challenges.

The problem with open information is that people are not used to seeing PRI-leaning newspapers reporting on crime so openly and many disgruntled sectors of society openly challenging the state.  Nevertheless, there are always new solutions that keep making things better, as the higher-value auto, aeronatics, and sattelite communications sectors show, and as recent reductions in violence in ciudad juarez and tijuana show.  New problems of open information about violence rather than censorship calls for new solutions, not old solutions of hiding information.

To this date, the El Paso Times reports that there are missing statistics on several years of homicides during PRI rule (around the time of the dirty wars).  Rather than hiding the homicides behind censorship, it is better to have a government that allows protests and critical press even though violence was frequently higher under many PRI years.  Now the government and civil society work towards solutions rather than work towards hiding the problems.

If we Mexican voters have become strong enough to demand both more peace and more democracy at the same time, and realize they are both possible, then PRI and the PRD will be forced to start having primaries, to break ties with old corrupt forces in power, and to seek honest reductions in crime rather than changing the statistics as Pena Nieto did as governor of Mexico.  How exactly did Pena Nieto and AMLO really get to run for President anyway?  Others innocently stepped aside after polls?  They seem to be hiding their dirty laundry.  The PAN on the otherhand had a vote.  The PAN may not be perfect either, but two steps better is way better than a giant leap back.

The PAN needs more organized internet-based operatives like the PRD has.  The PRI has a finely oil top-down corporatist machine and excellent image to draw from.

Recent frequent attacks on Vazquez Mota will likely need to be addressed at some point cautiously and effectively, such as mirroring some of the attacks (such as the earings attacks).

The PAN and PRD will likely need to attack more of some sector or other of the PRI’s old machinery, maybe even some PRI governors if possible.

Though there is PRI independence, the competition for sectors of the PRI is the interests involved, the power of the parties, the draw for continued or additional financial and independence (power) in each state or sector of society.

El gobierno del PRI producio mas riesgo del homicidio!

http://www.somosfrontera.com/ci_19820633?IADID=Search-www.somosfrontera.com-www.somosfrontera.com

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_19824147

El periodico El Paso Times estado unidense revela su descubrimiento y estudios que muestran que aunque la poblacion de Mexico era mucho mas pequena, los homicidios ocurian con mayor frequencia (aunque con la poblacion mas pequena es facil esconder que el riesgo era peor porque los totales de todos los numeros eran mas pequenos).

Cuidado, a muchos partidistas no les van a gustar la verdad.

Calderon a hecho mucho para escuchar a los ciudadanos, respondiendo a las demandas y huelgas que ocurrian ANTES de su gobierno, prometiendo una mano firma contra el crimen y ganando con los votos de los ciudadanos.  Escucho, enfoco mas atencion al problema, uso mas dinero, y uso mas fuerza del estado. Respondio a las victimas y empezo un cambio de Mexico, pero eso nunca a sido suficiente para varios sectores politicos.

Reaccionaron los politicos organizados para presentar la violencia en Mexico como algo nuevo, haci danando a sus enemigos politicos (y a las emociones de los mexicanos y al turismo) con la nueva imag del pais que crearon.  Pero las estadisticas muestran las mentiras.

En el sexenio de Calderon el riesgo del homicidio es mas bajo que el riesgo durante recientes sexenios priistas.

Durante los ultimos 3 anos PRI’istas, el riesgo de homicidio fue mas alta y tambien era evidente cuando mataron a Colosio, a unos de los hermanos Salinas, a Massieu, al agente del DEA Camarena, etc.

Mexico bajo el sexenio de Calderon sigue siendo mas seguro que Brazil durante el periodo (y mas seguro que Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Jamaica. Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, St. Kitts & Nevis, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, and many other nations with poor institutions and some with poorer statistical records).

Hoy dia, pocos paises en America Latina se comparan a nivel nacional a Mexico en temas de seguridad.

En anos de decadas anteriores, el riesgo hacia la violencia frequentemente fue tambien mas alta que en los anos de Calderon.  Sin embargo, durante algunos de esos anos con peores riesgos que los anos de Calderon, algunos no fueron peores que los anos de Salinas o De La Madrid.

The Economist de Europa (Reino Unido de Gran Britana) tambien muestra el problema con creer los enganos del PRI:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/09/crime-mexico

Pena Nieto goberno y proclamo que reducio los homicidios en el estado, no menciono que en realidad cambiaron el metodo de calcular los homicidios de manera que reportaron la mitad de los homicidios.  Despues del descubrimiento, Pena Nieto admitio que cometio un error y cambio sus proclamaciones de haber reducido la violencia a haber contenido la violencia.  Ayi tambien hay error, porque los homicidios en el estado de Mexico si crecieron tambien durante su tiempo como gobernador del estado.

Additional Comments, in English

The El Paso Times reported on the game-changing statistics showing that the risk of homicides was higher under recent PRI administrations than under recent PAN administrations.  They note that due to population growth, all absolute numbers grew, but the risk as reflected by the homicides per thousand shows a very different tale of Mexico than that pushed by various sectors of Mexico’s formerly coorporative society (from various unions to UNAM administrators who have sometimes become Mexican Presidents).

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_19824147

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2011/09/crime-mexico

Pena Nieto and his team also began to rely on INEGI rather than on SNSP for their figures.  The change in sources does not look great for Pena Nieto either, but his retraction was probably for the best, as it is hard to claim a reduction that did not actually exist.  Yet it does happen.

Today, political operatives and various activists seeking attention to their cause seek to claim that the Calderon years represent an increase in violence from the PRI years, which is clearly not the case. Meanwhile, Calderon continues to visit Juarez and to listen to victims of violence and activists and to push for change.  This is right, as is the Judicial Reform that he pushed for, and the police reforms he has sought.

Hopefully the numbers help frame the debate in a way that does not bow to extremists political opposition.

Nor should numbers be ignored that reflect the fact that most murders in Mexico are committed in PRI-governed states, most notably states bordering Texas such as Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas.

To leave violence behind, one should not head towards a party that experienced greater violence and weaker rule of law.

The PAN has been doing just fine pushing reform, reducing violence in many border cities successfully this year, and expanding the reforms that offers stronger institutions that has led so many nations in the world towards increasing peace and prosperity.

One politically questionable view in a statement should not have been quoted or should have been left out of the artcie by the El Paso Times: “For example, the government said that between 2007 and 2010, 30,858 out of a total of 64,759 homicides were linked to drug violence. Calderón’s staff was hoping that publishing statistics in this manner will take some of the pressure off the president to control the violence.” The last statement guesses at motivations for providing additional data, which is in and of itself helpful, as many citizens seek to discern the truth of what share of the violence is drug-related.  One particularly good comment from the article:

“The Mexican government did not publish any homicide rates for the last two years of Luis Echeverria’s presidency and the first two years of his successor, José Lopez Portillo. They ruled with an iron fist during one of Mexico’s most notorious crackdowns against dissidents. The years of missing data coincide with the Mexican government’s notorious “dirty war” against guerrillas and dissidents. Six years ago, the government under Fox sought to prosecute high-level officials implicated in the forced disappearances and alleged genocide that lasted from the 1960s to the 1980s.”

The US economy in the 80′s and 90′s was generally growing strongly, between 1983 and 2000 it grew at rates that averaged 3.7%.  The Mexican economy between 1983 and 2000 tracked it as can be expected, but only grew at rates averaging 2.6% a year, meaning the average of its rate of growth was 70% that of the US, but still lifted by its ties to the US economy.  Though there were up and down years affected by bank nationalizations, world interest rates, oil prices, and NAFTA, the average of its rates generally correctly reflects that Mexican growth lagged US growth and pointed to a widening divergence as the US became more developed faster than did Mexico, leaving Mexico farther behind.  One good example was the year 1999 in which the US economy grew 4.9% and the Mexican economy grew 3.9% (80% as fast as the US, with Mexico still benefiting from a bounce back from the ’94 peso crisis and from NAFTA at the time).

After the .com bust in the US at the end of 2000 and beginning of 2001, the US economy slowed considerably, during 2001-2006 (the Fox sexenio years in Mexico) the US economic growth rates averaged a mere 2.5% which was lower than during any other recent Mexican Sexenio’s.  The US dragged due to such difficulties as the terrorist attacks as well as the build up to the War in Iraq.  However, rather than grow much slower, Mexican growth rates averaged 2.4% during the period to nearly match US rates.

During the most recent Mexican sexenio, the US economy continued to decelerate as the mortgage crisis deepened and the Great Recession began as credit dried up and the crisis deepened in Europe, leading US annual growth rates to come down to an average of 0.62% during the Calderon years.  While Mexico was affected as remittances, oil prices, and exports markets all crashed in 2009, the other years more than made up for that deficit, as the Mexican economy grew faster than the US economy in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011 (and like to repeat in 2012).  The net effect was that during the Calderon years the Mexican economy, rather than growing less than a percent a year like the US economy, experienced growth rates that averaged 1.5% a year and was therefore experiencing growth rates that were on average 2.5 times faster than the US economy during the period.

There is no mystery as to what happened.  Whereas the Mexican economy still tracks the US economy, it is now catching up to the US (converging) because it has transitioned into a new economic model.

The old model under the PRI relied on a return to the steady state under Pofirio Diaz after the disruption of the Mexican Revolution, the Great Depression, and World War 2, relied on oil prices and US growth rates that would drag up the regions that it eventually opened to trade, then relied on dramatic reforms to begin a slow and painful transformation forced upon it by its previous failures peaking with bank nationalization on top of other nationalizations.

The PRI economy for the most part during its economic management could be characterized as:

Closed & unfree, uncompetitive(tarrifs), controlled, inflexible, dependent on oil/emigration/ cheap goods, failed nationalization “peaked” with bank nationalization failures, inflationary, unstable currency, political instability, no private credit, limited investment

The PAN economy for the most part during its economic management could be characterized as:

Open & free, competitive(trade welcomed), market-utilizing, flexible, credit to small medium and large exporters of diversified autos/manufacturing/electronics/medical, invests & draws investment etc Stable prices, stable currency, stable politics, private credit, significant investments

Whereas the PRI found it had to desperately sacrifice its economic model through drastic measures using its centralized executive powers, the PAN found that it had to continue more moderate reforms to improve an imperfect economy through political coalitions.

For example, the PRI once nationalized and then later re-privatized its banks, and the PRI also intially put up trade barriers and then later lowered them again in certain zones, and then eliminated many barriers nationally through NAFTA. The PAN took a steady approach consistently on the correct economic path to encourage and strengthen the financial sector and spur efficient credit market lending, and it had to encourage trade beyond NAFTA to lessen some of its over-dependence from the US economy.

The results are that Mexico is now exporting to the world and its companies have adequate financing. In 2007, 2010, and 2011, Mexico has produced and exported record numbers of automobiles that other sexenios could only promise but not deliver.  It is also garnering more investments in aerospace manufacturing than any place on the planet.  While the world slowly recuperates from a severe meltdown of confidence in their over-indebted markets, Mexico continues converging rapidly towards high levels of development as if it were somehow stronger than before. This despite not relying as heavily on China or commodities to foster its growth as Brazil, for example.  One reason for this is that Mexico has learned not rely on shipping commodities to one nation, as a faster path towards convergence and development is through economic and political freedom, diversification, openness, and financial deepening.

…some stories have lately been declaring a slowdown in the 4th quarter

Reuters:  “Mexican Growth Sluggish As Far As The Eye Can See” – 2/15/12

Businessweek:  “Mexico Economic Growth Eased In Fourth Quarter On US Sales” – 2/17/12 by Nacha Cattan

Financial Times: “Mexico’s 4th Quarter GDP Disappoints” (Blog) -2/16/12 by Ron Buchanan

FXstreet:  “Mexican Economy Slows Down But Remains Robust” -2/17/12 by Eugenio Aleman

Though technically factual, these articles do not point the reader in the right direction, as Mexico’s GDP is currently growing beyond expectations and firing on all cylinders.  How can this be if GDP slowed dramatically?  You have to think by several months ago, as the European debt crisis was scaring investors every other day.  Greece in particular seemed to give the markets nightmares.  Since that time, Greece has passed additional budgetary measures and the G20 has taken a proactive stance towards preventing further contagion in Europe.  The more important influence of the re-energized US economy has further calmed markets on Mexico.  Mexico meanwhile grew slowly through a quarter that could well have marked a decline if not for its solid financial markets, manufacturing exports, and investment climate.

Investments now reflect the incredible turnaround in the Mexican economy’s direction from just a decade ago.  Mexico in February 2012 has already received $2.3 billion in investments from the Japanese auto-industry ($2 billion from Nissan) and another $1 billion from Coca Cola (part of a $5 billion investment over 5 years) to start the year.  Those $3.3 billion in announced investments after a month are a rapid start to another high-investment year for Mexico.  Mexico has averaged under $2 billion a month with some notable exceptions such as the multi-billion dollar investment by Heineken valued about $5 billion (with the Netherlands total that year including an additional $2 billion on top of that of its well-known company).  At Davos President Calderon announced that, in the last five years, Mexico has received over $100 billion dollars in Foreign Direct Investment (http://www.plasticsnews.com/headlines2.html?id=24354&channel=362).

Part of what is happening is basically that the strong sectors in Mexico have gotten larger, and so a bump in the road is smoothed out by generalized, widespread growth elsewhere in the economy.  It’s like China being less concerned about it’s neighboring economies, though less dramatic, as China averages 10% growth a year.  Mexico’s growth rates may well be at higher multiples of the US economy than in the past, but it’s still taking further steps.  Its rising investments in infrastructure is one example, such as the Baluarte bridge (the world’s highest cable-stayed-type bridge).  New investments from places as diverse as Spain and China have been announced in that region.  Japan has also taken notice, as not only are its auto companies recording record investments, but its total trade with Mexico has also broken new records.  Mexico’s share of exports to Japan also reached an all-time record at $4billion.

For 2011, Mexico grew by 3.9%, much faster than most of the developed world including the US despite its close ties to the US economy.  Mexico picked up even stronger at the start of 2012, yet the story carried by many sources was that one quarter of Mexico’s economic growth showed weakness.  Is it bias?  Does it gather more attention to tell a negative story than a positive story?  Is there an election year influence?  It may well be reporters reporting the facts, but in my opinion, the facts as presented did not lead to the truth.  The truth is that the Mexican economy is still doing great overall, and for those who don’t follow the Mexican economy as closely as I do, I direct you to foreign investment, export-led growth, and manufacturing.  I also direct you to the 4th quarter of 2011 as well as the quarter before it and the quarter after it.  The headlines describe a slowdown, the context describes growth.

]]> http://mexicanpoliticsandeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-world-caught-a-cold-and-mexico-flexed-its-muscles/feed/ 0 jesseblogs http://mexicanpoliticsandeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/stories-of-mexicos-success-but-portrayed-as-failure/ http://mexicanpoliticsandeconomics.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/stories-of-mexicos-success-but-portrayed-as-failure/#comments Thu, 16 Feb 2012 13:32:10 +0000 jesseblogs http://mexicanpoliticsandeconomics.wordpress.com/?p=466 ]]> Mexico’s successful improvements in its economy have made it a stronger economy than that of the US during the Great Recession, with the banking system more sound and many industries at or near all time highs in employment, productions, and investments.

Yet you wouldn’t know it by hearing such stories as the LA times ran claiming that Mexico’s large informal economy is a sign of weakness.   From the article, they state that:    “The street vendors belong to an army of off-the-book workers who now make up a record 14 million Mexicans pumping money into the informal economy, the national statistics institute reported last  week.  The number of informal workers in Mexico has increased by 1.6 million since 2010, the statistics agency reported. Overall, informal laborers make up nearly a third of all those employed in Mexico.  Although the informal market, drug money-laundering and remittances from Mexican workers in the United States all help keep the economy afloat, Mexico lost an average of $50 billion in the last decade to what are called illicit financial outflows — money circulating through Mexico but not going toward infrastructure, healthcare or education, according to a January report by Global Financial Integrity.”

Latin America has a large informal economy, but its growth in recent years is almost certainly necessary as Mexico’s surprisingly resilient economy has lured back many workers that had left to the US.  The Mexican census showed an unexpectedly quicker rise in Mexico’s population, attributed to the return of migrants.  The Mexican economy is growing faster than the US economy and the US has historically attracted migrants due to the employment “pull-factor.”  Due to the great recession and its effects on the US economy, this is no longer the case.  So if in recent years US job growth has diminished, and many jobs disappear from such sectors as construction and day-labor, where will the immigrants communities go? Many have returned to the Mexican economy, which has been growing at much higher rates than the US economy during the Calderon administration, but the Mexican economy does not magically create the same number of jobs (in the millions) in the formal economy that returning migrants immediately seek, thereby forcing them to rely on the “magic” of the informal economy and its lower barriers to entry and higher efficiency than the formal economy.

Los “New York Times” de Carlos Slim salio atacando a Creel, quien habia luchado contra los monopolios en sus precampanas. Ahora se enfoca el New York Times en el y su familia y seleccionar individuos para enfocarse en ellos.

Como hacen esto algunas companias y porque?

Bueno en primero, hay companias en los estados unidos y europa que permiten tacticas sucias y no paran contra gente que cren que pueden seguir empujando sin paran, puede ser por temer problemas legales.  Por ejemplo, si Carlos Slim teme que las instituciones no lo permitan usar estrategas ilegales con sus poderes de monopolio, podra tratar de silenciar a los que les puedan ayudar a investigadores o a otra gente que cre que son “enemigos” politicos como Santiago Creel.

El Carlos Slim hasta uso las palabras “uno de mis enemigos” cuando menciono que alguien pidio el estudio sobre sus companias de telecomunicaciones.  Despues de eso salio el ataque contra Creel desde su periodico. Este mismo periodico tambien a perdido aveces la estema con ataques contra instituciones educales que lo escriben gente que graduo de escuelas de sus rivales.

Carlos Slim no es el unico.

Hay otras companias que tiene varias locales y no paran de usar tecnicas de ataques contra gente que cren que son enemigos de ellos.  No se como una compania como esa puede continuar en paises como Mexico mientras que no paran de usar esos tipos de ataques contra la gente. Algunas companias tienen varias companias con quien trabajan y que compran en todas parte del mundo, y alli llevan sus tecnicas sucias.  Lo increible es que a veces es obvio que no es necesario hacer estos ataques pero lo siguen haciendo y no paran de atacar con rumores or otras estrategas.  Porque sera que Carlos Slim no los investigio a ellos y en vez investigio a Santiago Creel?  Sera que se entienden estas companias, y que se cren los que merecen influyir a los gobiernos y a los individuos porque son los ricos?  Hasta no permiten a otros ricos como Creel pensar diferente, y so lo hacen, podran empezar a acuzarlo de no pensar bien. Zurich, por ejemplo, tiene programas que puede usar para mandar empleados a sus propios doctores.  Eso ya es una cosa que temer, porque haci usan otro ataque.  Se cren tan poderosos que si pactan parar estos ataques con estos poderes y tecnicas, solo simplemente tratan de hacer la misma cosa en nuevo modos y tratar de voltear un debate sobre sus practicas al tema de hablar en contra de sus “enemigos.”  Haci piensan.  Haci no deben de seguir sin parar.  Yo les culpo a algunas pocas personas. Simepre hay un Carlos Slim a quien lo convencen muy facil que tiene que ver a todos como “enemigos.”

Yo e trabajado con gente de algunas companias que no me caeron bien.  Y no me caeran bien hasta que paren el dano que comenzaron.  Hablo desde algunos supervisores hasta un executivo.  Cuando basten podran cambiar las cosas, pero hasta hora, espero que desde los NewYorkTimes de Carlos Slim hasta lompania del extranjero en Mexico se afrente a fuerzas que puedan mostrar que no son todo-poderosos y que es mejor seguir las reglas que solo hacerse como si las siguiera (pero no las siguen).  Uno puede sonar de ese mundo en que la justicia puede usar un poco de fuerza en favor de la gente que se sigue aguantando demasiado de esta misma gente.  Por lo menos hasta que paren.

Una fuerza como Slim yo creo que puede uno usar la razon, pero quien sabe tambien a que influencias se enfrenta o si prefiere no usar la razon.  Ni se puede saber uno si hay connecion o no, pero no seria sorpresa que occurren mas coincidencias con “The New York Times” ya que sigio invirtiendo mas Carlos Slim en la compania.

Slim:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/world/americas/inquiry-into-outsourcing-firm-stirs-mexican-political-circles.html

Hay otros que yo se usan ataques.  Espero que cambien pero quien sabe si cambiaran o no, yo lo dudo pero me gustaria ver.

Hay que ver como se portan las companias en Mexico porque haci como tratan a otros es como se deberian de tratar.  Me gustaria verlas companias que simplemente se porten bien.  El sector financiero es muy importante para el crecimiento economico, desde los bancos, hasta las deudas estatales, hasta el credito para companias y los seguros de las companias de seguros.  Me gustaria verlos extender la mano para emplear y no extender palabras para danar, acusar, o defamar.  No los veo extender la mano ni para aclara sus injusticias pasadas.  En vez de verlos mejorar, es mas comun descubrir mas enganos…  Como diria Obama de los Republicanos, yo extiendo la mano y recibo un pun~o.  Si prometen algo, o acusan, me gustaria verlo por escrito.

El progreso es posible y es necesario.  Pero aver como progresa la financia en Mexico, cuanto, y con quien.

Some of the biggest achievements by Calderon’s administration, with some helpful negotiations with the PRI, has been the pushing of much-needed reforms.

Pensions could have bankrupt Mexico, and now they won’t.  Brazil at the time did not achieve the same level of reform of its pensions, showing what a tough political move it was.

Businesses were more expensive to run in Mexico, dampening formal employment prospects as less businesses were started or profitable enough to allow expansion and hiring.  Unusually high costs of doing business in Mexico have included high telecommunications costs, high electricity costs, and barriers making it time-consuming and costly to perform many basic business functions from starting a business to closing one.

Telecommunications regulations have forced down interconnection rates by carriers rival to the huge market leader, helping to reduce some costs.

Then there was Luz y Fuerza, which was a much more popular move because a small group in a union was running its electricity production very inefficiently and unreliably while giving themselves very generous wages and benefits.  A lot of customers did not support their electricians because they did not apparently prove to the public that they were providing a worthwhile level of benefit and efficiency for their customers and gave them nothing in return.

Many regulations were consolidation, reduced, or eliminated, further strengthening the business climate and business confidence in Mexico.

Mexico raised taxes when it had to and kept its debt at a low and sustainable level.  It was even able to expand spending during the recession in a counter-cyclical move that has been rare to see in the region prior to this international debt crisis.

The way the money has been spent has been more heavily geared towards infrastructure than in recent years, rising to around 20% with a goal of 30% still in mind.  The first and only Bascule Bridge was one result of this better use of funds than soccer stadiums, as was the highest cable stayed bridge in Latin America known as the Baluarte Bridge and which is part of a massive project to connect Mexico’s East and West coasts and cut down travel time to the ports and major cities.  A huge project was also completed to prevent the same level of flooding that has hit Mexico in recent years.

A new economy can afford massive and helpful infrastructure project such as these as well as more new roads than two other recent administrations combined.

Inflation has been under control and banks have been well regulated, well capitalized, and encouraged to lend and profit from this growing economy.

Mexico’s productivity levels can now benefit from greater access to credit for companies that have expansion plans.

The financial markets in Mexico have been strengthened and deepened through such measures as participation with MILA (regional exchange that includes Chile, Colombia, and Peru), through foreign participation, and through trade.

Even the PRI seeks strengthening of financial markets with potential break up of the banks, though at this time the banks seem to be lending at healthy levels again.

The PAN and PRI also agree on oil sector reforms, and one such reform has allowed foreign companies greater participation through a new form of contact and oil production declines have decelerated.

To prevent the currency from over-appreciating, the central bank also has a mechanism to use oil profits to help fund central bank reserves at the same time that it doubles as a currency stabilizing mechanism.  Central bank reserves may also help Mexico reduce some of its dependence on US exports and oil, by keeping the currency from over-appreciating and leading to de-industrialization.  Instead, Mexico is industrializing at a rapid pace.

In the government, the PAN administration has had the help of Ernesto Cordero as Finance Minister and Augustin Carsten as head of Mexico’s Central Bank to help strengthen the economy.  Augustin Carstens secured an IMF credit line for Mexico, has supported the IMF during the need to raise its reserves for the European Crisis, and has pushed for reforms to the selection process.  Incidentally, though the current succession system has been stuck as a European-only affair, perhaps the method of succession could involve a minor reform as being a European selection with a caveat that every other term Europe should have to select a a candidate outside of its own continent.  The same could be a good compromise for the World Bank.  This maintains the developed nations’ influence while opening the door to greater participation by less developed nations taht are deeped responsible and not at the time a source of particular concern.  Regardless of what is done with the IMF, Augustin Carsten has been a positive influence on that institution as he was when he also previously served as Finance Minister in Mexico and as he is now at the Central Bank where inflation is well-contained within targets.

Mexico has been attracting technology companies and expanding internet use (now the country with the most Spanish-speaking users in the world, ahead of Spain, Argentina, and Chile, though still behind other Romance-language speakers such as Brazil with its enormous population).

International trade remains open and in the process of continued diversification.  Unlike other nations tied to China and commodities, Mexico remains tied to the US and has been industrializing a little more.

Green energy has also helped to transform Mexico, and Oaxaca’s windmills are but one example.  The amount of electricity generated by windmills has multiplied, now adding additional percentage points of GDP – worth of electricity.  At the same time, it has raised the value of the land of many indigenous communities.  If the communities can work on their contract negotiations to expand gains to more, decrease conflict, and protect property rights and values based on such land sales to energy companies, they may entice further companies to arrive and add further to their lands’ value.

Although no canal in Oaxaca/Veracruz is yet known to be in the works, it would be another great example of a new dawn of Mexico engineering and infrastructure projects and how it has benefited more remote regions of Mexico (like the mountainous regions reached by the Baluarte Bridge and its interconnected roads, tunnels, and other bridges).

This new economy retains vulnerabilities and weaknesses, but also many strengths that continue to grow.

The financial sector’s growth and prosperity is crucial, as are industrialization, internal savings and investment (Private and Public), technological transfers, financial inter-mediation (gowth with financial sector strengthening), business friendliness, transferability of labor, productive educations, network effects from clustering, openness, flexibility, freedom, stability, and diversification.  All of these really aim to raise Mexican productivity continually, if not overnight.  Much has been done that has not been recognized.  Mexico’s economy has benefited in the most recent administration profoundly.  Recent administrations have been a part of these improvements, but diversification and inflation/credit have been some of the most stubborn problems as has poverty.  Let us not forget the attempts made to expand the VAT in a way that avoids hurting the poorest while at the same time allowing new funding for OPORTUNIDADES.  Such, however, were also the failures to break some inter-party-bickering and opportunism.

At least Mexico poverty by most measures is lower than in most of Latin America, especially when you apply the exact same standard to all countries in Latin America (Chile and Uruguay have also instituted deep financial reforms in their pasts and have similarly low numbers).  Mexico similarly has one of the largest middle classes if not the largest when you apply the same standard to all Latin American nations.  Brazil’s huge population may have more numbers, but lower rates, and Uruguay may again compete well in this department.

Perhaps the greatest hope and risk now likes in oil, though banks’ financial inter-mediation remains a dominant issue  (hopefully Mexico will become known as a Switzerland of Latin America, as Uruguay has already branded itself).  As for oil, even Lopez Obrador of the PRD seeks to improve PEMEX using the Norwegian model which retains state control but also considers such issues as using foreign capital and having a sovereign wealth fund.  Pena Nieto and his PRI have considered dramatic reforms, as has the PAN, with talk of floating PEMEX as a stock one possibility as well as expanding foreign participation.  Clearly barriers to vulnerability to market swings and over-dependence on oil will remain crucial though sovereign wealth-funds, a budget surplus, etc.

There is a great future ahead of Mexico, as great as Brazil’s recent performance has been, though it can easily be just as vulnerable as Brazil’s.  One-time savings and moderate sovereign wealth funds are not enough, too much oil at once is too much of a good thing, like too much sugar or anything else, thus the need to keep balancing great booms with great use of tools like sovereign wealth funds and avoiding too much spending.  Never do a Lopez Portillo and seek to “manage prosperity” by spending all the nation’s wealth in a few years (or nationalizing the banks).

For now, Mexico and the US are on healthy growth paths, and the NAFTA region may continue to prosper as a trading zone, as a geo-political force that strengthens the region, and as an example to others for regional cooperation and mutual strengthening like the European Union has usually been seen (though it does also suffer vulnerabilities to a Greek-style debt-binge).  PaCiFiCa, also known as the Pacific Alliance, is another such example, as is UNASUR (which should include Mexico rather than exclude Mexico, and someone should tell Chavez to be a uniter like Bolivar in Latin America rather than a divider).  The Trans-Pacific partnership, if it doesn’t replace or worsen NAFTA’s benefits necessarily, is another good example.  So is APEC.   Let’s not forget the Goldman alphabet soups like BRIC and MIST (Mexico, Indonesia, South Korea, and Turkey) which largely coincides with the strategy of Pacific orientation.  Pacifica/the Pacific Alliance is a source of focus that has already started to pay off, but if there is time for the officials involved, certainly the member nations could start to host their alphabet soup groupings in their home countries for photo-oportunities and to draw investor interest like BRIC did for Brazil, and to draw the attention of the region to the Pacifica nations’ general quality such as Colombia in CIVETS, Colombia and Peru in EAGLES, Mexico in Next-11 and its top 4 MIST, Chile and its multiple trade agreements… there are a lot of possibilities to work with.  Perhaps the MIST countries will be interested in hosting the N-11 in a conference to draw attention to the N-11 and to MIST, through practical applications may be hard to work with in large groups to make major deals.  The point is there is much room for growth, and Mexico has a lot of catching up to do compared to its NAFTA partners, compared to international darlings like China and India with their huge markets and huge growth, compared to most of the developed world…  MIST and PACIFICA may help Mexico do what BRIC helped Brazil do, which is grow beyond previous estimates.  One final note, people rarely mention one thing PaCiFiCa nations have in common, and that is a rare striving towards higher credit ratings and concrete steps and sacrifices to earn these higher credit ratings.  Also helps explain why Ecuador and Argentina are not ounding members and why they’re not necessarily excluded from future membership.  They may eventually reform their economies to grow faster.

The cold war is over.  There a new economy not just in Mexico, but in the world.  Latin America has just been a little isolated and late to the party.  If it makes the Communist-sympathizing nations out there feel any better, things could be worse, they could be even more isolated and even slower to adapt to the new world.  Mexico, fortunately, is ready.

The PAN primary is decided, and in a rushed respond, the aftermath saw a burst of activity.

PANAL, for example, declared they would run on their own, likely a necessity due to Cordero’s prior show of possible support for a coaltion having been replaced by Josefina’s triumph and strong stance against cooperating.  Now PANAL may well place themselves to become a potential kingmaker themselves should the race prove close like in the 2006 race.  Either way it will be an interesting situation.

Also, the PRD ran an unlikely candidate in a sex-changed candidate, a very odd choice that may damage the PRD brand in much of the country, and may be calculated to take some of the shine away from the nomination of Vazquez-Mota as it may confuse the issue of the PAN’s first woman President being an important step towards inclusion and not a more dramatic revolutionary change that will make many people’s values feel threatened.  Whoever the PRD person involved in that decision, I would recommend to the PRD to keep an eye on the degree to which that person is looking toward the PRD’s interests or making good ones, as it’s probably a losing issue in the overall territory for the PRD national aspirations.

Also in the PRD Amlo has already accused Vazquez-Mota of having been involved in electoral “Fraude” in the 2006 race from which he is still not distancing himself enough.  Is he still running last year’s race?  He must be seeking to keep supporters from gravitating towards her and seeking to shape her public issue amongst his base.

EPN sent a nice tweet to Vazquez-Mota, then the party machinery brought the criticism (as had PRD’s AMLO directly).  Luis Videgaray said her campaign leaves much to be desired and cited Cordero’s criticisms about her voting record.

The Guardian criticized her religious ties to the Catholic church, citing past conflicts like the Cristiada as bad, but not citing religious persecution by the PRI as having been a cause.

It’s gonna be exciting, Vazquez Mota has to present herself well, the team has to make good impressions early, and fortunately the international media has lent a hand in getting her known early, a more credible source than opposing parties’ public statements and usually favorable.

Still, the battle of images has started, and Pena Nieto has a gigantic lead with time ticking towards the election.  AMLO has begun to chip away at that lead with some culture war issues.  Vazquez Mota and her team will need to slice a portion of the electoral pie early while there still some left.

Many of us will enjoy rooting for our gallo… which for the first time for me is a gallina.  Buena suerte Josefina.