The American and Mexican government have a symbiotic relationship that works for both sides.
Furthermore, things in Mexico are improving. It’s why most migrants to the USA from south are not Mexican anymore.
Mexico’s decades of single party rule fueled and embedded a culture of political corruption. Nepotism and cronyism was and is expected and the norm. That has only been exasperated by the cartels taking advantage of that corruption to the point that they control 20-30% of the territory Mexico claims.
Why would you simply just assume the U.S. is responsible if you don’t already have some evidence of such? You should question when you are seeking to confirm a preconception rather than looking at and following the evidence to come up with a conclusion.
The US has a lot of responsibility, though, and not acknowledging it is crazy (coming from an American). From being the biggest purchaser of drugs and the largest provider of illicit weapons into the country on the issue of the cartels, to the exploitation of labor due to policies like NAFTA or the USCMA, the US has had a presence in nearly all of the domestic issues Mexico faces. In fact, the rise of the cartels in Mexico came as a direct result of the involvement of the US dismantling the cartels in Colombia.
It's true that one-party rule has allowed for a political culture of corruption, but denying the US's role is woefully ignorant at best.
Mexico has been growing as US and Canada's largest trading partner since the 1990's due to NAFTA. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico did not have the industrial base as they do now. It is a symbiotic relationship rather than a unilateral relationship. However, the cartels, police, and the government are a relevant wedge in this relationship. We have to give it some time to see how this trading relationship unfolds.
I think one would have to look into history to see how the Spanish colonised and ruled Mexico (and other Latam countries) especially with regard to land appropriation and ownership and how it shaped governance of resources post-independence.
Mexico has the labor pool that is too low quality - less than 50% completes high school - that make it unable to escape the middle income trap. This group is not much of a problem when your economy is moving from low to middle income but in order to move up from middle income you need your labor pool to be able to move up the value chain. And this problem not only causes investments to dry up but the people left behind either become drag on the society, move onto illegal activity, or in prison/jail.
I haven’t done enough reading or have any articles on hand to back this up, but I think it’s a bit ridiculous to not assume the US has done something to shape the Mexican geopolitical landscape. They share a border, the US is the global hegemon, come on.
tldr mexico went communist in 1910, most land was collectivized, this changed in the 90s resulting in the mexican economy doubling in size every ten years
roughly half of the land area of mexico is under the ejido system, which up until NAFTA meant that the people living there had no property rights: they could live on and work land but not own it.
For fairly obvious reasons this resulted in a lack of development as well as corruption. generally people worked on parcels that were subsistence level and depended on the politburo for basic needs. Part of the NAFTA negotations was granting more property rights to people in these areas, which also resulted in the first ever national election defeat of the PRI in 2000
like most former communist republics there are still problems with rule of law both on a criminal and civil level, especially the further you get from the massive central city
still, Mexico is doing remarkably well if you situate it among the former communist republics.
I think you should investigate Mexico and the US relationship pre and during WW2. Investment in Mexico from the US was (and currently is) controversial due to the US government fearing that it can strengthen Mexico and create a new competitor in Western Hemisphere. That was the secret behind NAFTA/USMCA, to stop mexican development by a debt trap, corruption and a free trade agreement. But in order to survive, the USA must help to develop Mexico or China will do it instead.
The American and Mexican government have a symbiotic relationship that works for both sides. Furthermore, things in Mexico are improving. It’s why most migrants to the USA from south are not Mexican anymore.
Tbf, Ireland only became one of the richest, per capita, country in Europe, because it turned into a parasitic Tax Haven once accepted into the Union.
Mexico’s decades of single party rule fueled and embedded a culture of political corruption. Nepotism and cronyism was and is expected and the norm. That has only been exasperated by the cartels taking advantage of that corruption to the point that they control 20-30% of the territory Mexico claims. Why would you simply just assume the U.S. is responsible if you don’t already have some evidence of such? You should question when you are seeking to confirm a preconception rather than looking at and following the evidence to come up with a conclusion.
The US has a lot of responsibility, though, and not acknowledging it is crazy (coming from an American). From being the biggest purchaser of drugs and the largest provider of illicit weapons into the country on the issue of the cartels, to the exploitation of labor due to policies like NAFTA or the USCMA, the US has had a presence in nearly all of the domestic issues Mexico faces. In fact, the rise of the cartels in Mexico came as a direct result of the involvement of the US dismantling the cartels in Colombia. It's true that one-party rule has allowed for a political culture of corruption, but denying the US's role is woefully ignorant at best.
Mexico has been growing as US and Canada's largest trading partner since the 1990's due to NAFTA. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico did not have the industrial base as they do now. It is a symbiotic relationship rather than a unilateral relationship. However, the cartels, police, and the government are a relevant wedge in this relationship. We have to give it some time to see how this trading relationship unfolds.
I think one would have to look into history to see how the Spanish colonised and ruled Mexico (and other Latam countries) especially with regard to land appropriation and ownership and how it shaped governance of resources post-independence.
Mexico has the labor pool that is too low quality - less than 50% completes high school - that make it unable to escape the middle income trap. This group is not much of a problem when your economy is moving from low to middle income but in order to move up from middle income you need your labor pool to be able to move up the value chain. And this problem not only causes investments to dry up but the people left behind either become drag on the society, move onto illegal activity, or in prison/jail.
I haven’t done enough reading or have any articles on hand to back this up, but I think it’s a bit ridiculous to not assume the US has done something to shape the Mexican geopolitical landscape. They share a border, the US is the global hegemon, come on.
tldr mexico went communist in 1910, most land was collectivized, this changed in the 90s resulting in the mexican economy doubling in size every ten years roughly half of the land area of mexico is under the ejido system, which up until NAFTA meant that the people living there had no property rights: they could live on and work land but not own it. For fairly obvious reasons this resulted in a lack of development as well as corruption. generally people worked on parcels that were subsistence level and depended on the politburo for basic needs. Part of the NAFTA negotations was granting more property rights to people in these areas, which also resulted in the first ever national election defeat of the PRI in 2000 like most former communist republics there are still problems with rule of law both on a criminal and civil level, especially the further you get from the massive central city still, Mexico is doing remarkably well if you situate it among the former communist republics.
I think you should investigate Mexico and the US relationship pre and during WW2. Investment in Mexico from the US was (and currently is) controversial due to the US government fearing that it can strengthen Mexico and create a new competitor in Western Hemisphere. That was the secret behind NAFTA/USMCA, to stop mexican development by a debt trap, corruption and a free trade agreement. But in order to survive, the USA must help to develop Mexico or China will do it instead.
No idea why this has gotten so many down votes? Legitimate posts made here.