Cheaper food for Mexicans?

[Konflictraps]

how is it that mexicans can grow produce in the usa but in mexico they are starving

[UnoRaza]

Mexico, us, every country needs to feed themselves or you'll have a m0nsant0 like company triggering a shortage to pump prices worldwide.

Food Hero Percy: /watch?v=RzqLZSCsRLs

[jnkojnko]

Somebody needs to blow the Mexican Presidents brains out out so somebody can work on fixing Mexico as opposed to pawning off their peasants onto the US and our Welfare. Which by the way is readily available to any illegal immigrant, what a fucking joke.

[UnoRaza]

Violence is the best way to a police state and many dead innocents.

Ghandi/King had the right ideas.

[miguel92996]

@jnkojnko u do know ur country support Calderon lol

[bluecrossrifles]

Time will tell. But its interesting that we are seeing all of our natural resources being taken from us and then we are charged outrageous amounts by these organized deviants. It happened with oil and now it will happen with food. The war of oil has now become the war of food because these deviants don't care about people that make them rich...we are just fools to them. Not only that but we have become uninformed and uninvolved. The problem has always existed...will we rise to the occation?

[rafael55]

Stupid solution.

[Renegen1]

You need to have citizen and government who is always suspicious of government, and patriotic and smart enough to set up right policies. Do you think the majority working for the FDA for example are crooks? No, you have scientists using their talents to help the common man. I went through all the phases, even the Ron Paul phase. And today I believe in select regulations. But I urge you to read about how the asian economies prospered, you need empirical evidence, not ideologies.

[Renegen1]

Because as individuals and corporations grow richer, they will grow in influence and use their power to keep new entrants out. I agree that you must always keep government and business apart, that's like allowing the murder suspect to write criminal law. But this belief in unrestricted free markets means that there won't be educated opposition, the market will sort things out right?

[Renegen1]

Also last, I think you're sensible, but please don't mention Ron Paul. I used to believe in him, but today I see him for how insane his ideas are. The founding fathers? That was over 200 years ago! The world isn't that simple. Also look at the EU and hell even here in Canada, or some of the asian economies, regulations is the holy grail. Smart regulation. Corporatism as you call it is inevitable from a free market, because we believe we shouldn't stop the natural forces.

[Renegen1]

Ok last I understand that, I was waiting for you to say something like this.. but why say that China is capitalist? Almost every major chinese company is majority owned by the chinese government and regulations and growth policies are key to any of the industries.

[jsammy007]

The solution is for the government of mexico to invest more money into mexico's local agriculture rather so that the quality of mexico's product can improve. Mexico's agricultural industry is very large and there is no need to import products from other countries. Lifting the import taxes will only increase this problem, especially when importing maiz which is mexicos main and most important product.

[pongman]

Looks like Conagra and Archer Daniels is paying off the president of Mexico like they did to Haiti. Yeah the food is cheap now but when Conagra and Archer Daniels owns all the food then the prices will sky rocket! The local farmers will sell their land and that will be the end of local farming. The world's food sources will come from the multinationals. Expect to pay top dollar for corn, rice, wheat and sugar.

[kaylasergioliz]

something like ours!!

[uchoob00]

I wonder who the president of Mexico is working for. What an incompetent leader

[everdayzac]

pobre mexico... tan lejos de dios y tan a cerca a los estados unidos...

[lastnymleft]

Blame Ben Bernanke and the Fed Bank, for the rising price of commodities around the world. Commodities are generally traded around the world in USD, the world's defacto "reserve currency". But Bernanke has been flooding the world with USD, to prop up the unsustainable US economy. Each dollar becomes devalued, meaning you need more to buy the same amount of goods. Hence, rising prices of oil, wheat, rice, etc. Supply and demand are factors, too, but not the main ones at present. End the Fed!

[teemuruskeepaa]

I hope you American individualists manage to return to the unregulated days of the Frontier, but you can't do it without a political revolution. Not everybody use $ as a reserve currency. Cuba uses € and the rest of Latin America are moving away too. EU also I think does not count things in $ anymore, does it?

[lastnymleft]

I'm not sure about the EU. But what I do know is that the US doesn't take too kindly to people moving off the dollar! Saddam Hussein did it for Iraq's oil...until he was invaded. Iran is just now doing it...

They are debasing the USD so much, countries with large reserves, like China, are having hundreds of billions of dollars effectively STOLEN off them each year, but they can't just sell them onto the market, so they are putting them into sovereign wealth funds, and buying up physical assets.

[teemuruskeepaa]

What if China is doing that, because the good ol' communists are in fact trade antagonists?

[lastnymleft]

Trade antagonists? I don't see it. They're being more capitalistic than the US now. The US has moved into corporatism (a.k.a fascism, albeit of the "soft" variety...for now)

What they are doing with the sovereign wealth funds, in terms of buying up as much physical assets as they can is just plain good sense. The USD is on its last legs, and will soon catastrophically collapse. Why wouldn't you want to be out of that, and into sound assets, and currencies, like property, businesses, and metals?

[Renegen1]

What's the difference between capitalism and corporatism? It's very interesting you used those terms.

[shegax03]

Corporatism = consolidated wealth, and anti small business. Capitalism = the way The usa was in the 1950's where every head of the house hold could easily start a family business and compete fairly. Diversity in ownership, Currency based on gold, a true fair and balanced form of capitalism. Now corporations dabble in our politics, where our leaders also double as heads of certain companies. Our founding fathers warned us against such a move. politics should be separate from Heads of Corporations

[lastnymleft]

Basically:

Communism is socialized profits, socialized losses.

Socialism is socialized profits, privatized losses.

Capitalism is privatized profits, privatized losses.

Corporatism is privatized profits, socialized losses.

Corporatism is the merger between Big Business and Big Government. In corporatism, you get "corporate welfare": subsidies to corporations (eg Big farm groups), bailouts (eg Bear Sterns), and "free" trade agreements like NAFTA that are actually non-free MANAGED trade agreements

[TheCZMan]

"Corporatism is privatized profits, socialized losses."

Well, capitalism includes as a principle optimization of profits. So with this reminded, it would be great to read how corporatism is not a natural capitalistic developpment. Because the best way of optimizing a profit is to increase the income and lower the expenditure and getting others to support the expenditure bill is the best way of optimizing the profit.

[TheCZMan]

"Corporatism is privatized profits, socialized losses."

Well, capitalism includes as a principle optimization of profits. So with this reminded, it would be great to read how corporatism is not a natural capitalistic developpment. Because the best way of optimizing a profit is to increase the income and lower the expenditure and getting others to support the expenditure bill is the best way of optimizing the profit.

[lastnymleft]

CZ:1of2: Capitalism and corporatism may each have "privatized profits" in their DNA, but corporatism's "socialized losses" makes it a very different beast from capitalism.

Corporatism's bailouts (eg Bear Sterns), subsidies (eg Big Farm's ethanol), biased regulations (eg NAFTA, a *managed* trade agreement), revolving door interchange (eg Carlyle Group), and the public picking up indirect and "social" costs, like pollution, and other injustices, all require an additional factor: the State,...

[lastnymleft]

CZ:2of2: ..., and its enabling-accomplice, Partisanship.

Being a merger between Big Business and Big Government/the State, corporatism is a form of top-down oligarchical collectivism - as are socialism, and communism. That is *opposite* to the core of capitalism: bottom-up, grassroots individualism, based upon individual and economic liberty. So corporatism actually has more in common with socialism and communism than capitalism, and is not a natural extension, despite its common heritage.

[TheCZMan]

Sorry but you did not address the point.

One key feature of capitalism is optimatization of profits. This is the point.The best way of achieving this is to maximize the income and minimize the expenditure.

Corporatism is simply the most achieved support of this capitalistic feature.

Corporatism is part of capitalism and probably its most succesful form.

[lastnymleft]

You are focusing only on the similarities, which is only HALF the equation:

Capitalism PLUS STATE = Corporatism

Socialism has the optimize profit mandate AND the State, so is more like corporatism than capitalism is.

It is top-down rule by an "Elite" that is the problem, and that comes from corporatism, socialism, and communism.

Without a State, you have only capitalism, still with the optimization of profits mandate, but without the problems of corporatism, or top-down rule. Viva anarchism!

[lastnymleft]

CZ:2of2: That is not to say that capitalism is perfect. Far from it. In fact, the optimization of profit mandate (fiduciary duty) may actually be mutually exclusive with peace (or, at least, supportive of conflict). That's a pretty black mark against it to be sure. But it's still a better scenario than the top-down rule by an Elite offered by the collectivist branches, corporatism, socialism, and communism, each of which are also conflicted with peace, because that is the nature of top-down rule

[TheCZMan]

Well, I see what you mean. As many, the biggest issue is that you are not part of the elite and you want a way to the top.

What else? That story of keeping out a state is even more dubious than the story that corporations are not natural to capitalism. Nothing so far can show a sign that they would not be a state like structure rebuild to serve the exact purpose as today.

That is all.

[lastnymleft]

Renegen1: 2 of 3 - The sum effect of the aforementioned corporate welfare and regulatory hurdles is to make it workable for an elite few mega-corporations, and more difficult for ordinary businesses.

Mussolini is on record as saying that fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, as it was the merger between state and business. America is now in "soft" fascism, and will likely change to "hard" fascism during the next major crisis, likely a breakdown of the financial system.

[lastnymleft]

R1:3of3: The "left" react to corporatism by calling for regulation but because Big Business and Big Government are one, increasing the power of one increases the power of the other. Regulations feed the beast. The only solution is economic and individual freedom, the sort enshrined in our Constitution, and espoused by Ron Paul. Many believe that we have two opposing political parties but we don't. They are two sides of the same coin: collectivism - parent of corporatism, socialism, and communism

[lastnymleft]

R1:4of3: Just to clarify a bit... When I talk of "socialized losses" for corporatism, that's a generalization that includes socialization of business COSTS, to PREVENT losses, or to ENHANCE profits. So regulations that allow socialization of costs, such as allowing certain pollution, and 'fiduciary duty' that results in general degrading of the community, are all parts of corporatism. Top-down, oligarchical collectivism needs to be fought with bottom-up, grassroots INDIVIDUALISM. Ergo, Ron Paul.

[shegax03]

I would like to add that communism is a foreign concept to Chinese. The lifestyle they have now is a more controlled communist/capitalist society. The capitalism is steered like sheep might be herded. The difference between us, is that if the USA were ever to crumble, the standard of living would rise in china like no one has ever seen. If the world banks collapse, the Chinese would keep their economy inward, and use their own population as consumers. They have been ready for this for years.

[teemuruskeepaa]

Yes, well to me, that sounds like a planned strategy to weaken the $ Maybe the quasi-communists will rejoice their trade supremacy and the triumph of the quasi-communist party. It never was and it never will be for equality anyway. Why is dollar going to collapse? If that happens, you had it coming.

[shegax03]

not arguing at all, I've done my research and agree with a planned Nuking of the dollar sometime in the future. Taking china out of the picture,, I believe this has to do with lowering everyone's standard of living to the point where people would want a solution....any solution. North American union is coming, the South American union treaty was signed may 23rd of this week, and the African union has picked out its flag and crest. Stage for WW3? East vs west? What do you think?

[Renegen1]

Some of the things you say make no sense as all shegax. The collapse of the USA will increase china's standard of living dramatically? What? If trading with the US is detrimental, then by all means stop. And not to mention a lot of foreign technology poured into China these decades and that also helped increase the standard of living. Unfortunately very stupid statements such as these diminish your credibility.

[shegax03]

The new Chinese empire By ross marshall, outlines an existing fail safe plan if the US economy were to crumble. The Chinese Manufacture almost everything we use. To be short instead of the consumers being you and I in Usa, The plan is to turn the economy inward, using it's own population as consumers, eliminating the need for foreign buyers. I'm not saying its decremental for china to trade with us. It's more than just trade, it's replacing our workforce here. How does this not make sense?

[teemuruskeepaa]

I would love to see the Chinese confiscating the industry like traditional communists. That would leave the western capitalists mouth wide open.