|
Post by Josh on Dec 31, 2005 18:04:49 GMT -5
Hey Josh I wouldn't go as far as to say that Mexico City is first world looking,you obviously have never left the downtown/business district if you think so.There is alot of poverty in Mexico City that would make the poverty that you see in New York or L.A look like the Hamptons in comparison. I did see bums and rather sad and poor looking people, but you find that in any city. I spent most of the time around Coyoacan (where my half brother lives) and a little less time in the city center, so that may have influenced my perception. I was also 13 and not as observant about those kinds of things though. I thought that most of the dire poverty existed at the outskirts of the city. But in general, what I saw seemed no worse than Seattle (I use Seattle, as it is the nearest major or semi-major city to me). I'm sure that there was much that I didn't see, as Mexico City is one gigantic city, about 16 times bigger than Seattle in population.
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 31, 2005 19:55:17 GMT -5
First of all, Bonne année 2006. happy new year, 2006. Feliz año, 2006.
Spain used to be one of the poorest countries in the EU, when there were only 15 members, but now, it's one of the richest countries in the EU, especially, when you compare it with the recent members like Poland, or Latvia. Actually, I said "in the pockets of poorer countries", not "in the pocket of the poorest countries", Spain is obviously poorer or less rich than most nordic and west-central european countries, but a lot richer than the eastern european countries.It's also one of the countries with the fastest growing economy in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 31, 2005 19:58:29 GMT -5
Isn't Portugal or one of them East European countries like Romania or Hungary the poorest country in Europe. I am not talking about europe, I am talking about the E.U. Portugal used to be the poorest country in the EU. But now, with 25 members, I think it's Lithuania. But even this country, looks rich in comparison with Romania and Bulgaria.
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 31, 2005 19:59:42 GMT -5
Yes, Spain will stop getting the EU aid in 2007. From that year, they'll start to be contributors instead of recipients.
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 31, 2005 20:02:27 GMT -5
Mexico city a modern city, but it doesn't mean Mexico isn't a third world country. In many third world countries, and even in Africa, you can see modern cities that have a first world aspect. ---->Mexico city --->Cairo (Egypt) --->Abidjan(Ivory coast) ----->Bogota(colombia) ---->Casabanca(Morocco) All these cities look modern, and what?
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Dec 31, 2005 20:42:29 GMT -5
there used to be a term second world, used for the communist countries first world industrialized capitalist nations second world communist countries third world, under developed capitalist countries of course the poverty of ethiopia is not the same as the poverty of mexico, there are different degrees the poverty of black americans looks quite middle class to me The classification of the communist countries (Russia, china, Cuba, Romania, Etc...) is quite difficult, as they are on one hand, industrialized and the population is well educated but on the other hand, people there live in poverty like in most third world countries . Also, when we say the third world, we reunite countries like Brazil, and India, with countries like Somalia and Ethiopia. I think it's better to use the term "develloping countries" and "underdeveloped countries", to make the difference. Here is a map from Wikipedia, of the third world countries (though I don't totally agree with them, since countries like Romania, turkey, bulgaria and others are considered there, as first world countries, something very ridiculous). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Third_world_countries_map_world_2.PNG
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 31, 2005 20:58:11 GMT -5
I don't deny that Mexico is poor, but still, Mexican poverty and Subsaharan African poverty are worlds apart.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 31, 2005 21:09:15 GMT -5
If you look at downtown Sao Paulo and the business districts like Avenida Paulista you would think you were in a first world country but if you go in the outskirts/pereferias it resembles a 3rd world country which is a shame since Sao Paulo is the most industrial city in all of Latin America but they are still plagued with alot of poverty.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 31, 2005 21:32:02 GMT -5
Mexico is an up an coming nation economically. Compare the GDP of Mexico with any nation in Africa and see what you fine. South Africa is the wealthiest nation in Africa but yet their GDP is half of that of Mexico's.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 31, 2005 21:37:56 GMT -5
I don't think anybody was saying that Mexico is comparible to the Sudan when it comes to the amount of poverty that you see but Mexico is certainly no Southern Brazil,Uruguay,or Argentina either.
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Dec 31, 2005 21:46:14 GMT -5
Mexico is an up an coming nation economically. Compare the GDP of Mexico with any nation in Africa and see what you fine. South Africa is the wealthiest nation in Africa but yet their GDP is half of that of Mexico's. Mexico may not be doing as bad as African countries, but for a country's whose GDP per capita is comparable to Saudi Arabia's the average Mexican's standard of living is way below the average Saudi Arabian's. This is mainly because of the ridicilous disparity between rich and poor in that country
|
|
|
Post by psychosemitic on Jan 1, 2006 0:43:30 GMT -5
Not according to Ralph Nader. www.ratical.org/co-globalize/RalphNader/030100.htmlNo that's not by beef. You're not understanding the point. It's not as simple as boycotting this and that. It's far too comprehensive and built in fundamentally to even equate "boycott" or the like, as a means of change. In the context of Wal-mart??!!!?? You're not getting it. It Isn't a matter of choice. You're trying to simplify something that can't be simplified. It's not as if there are rules being broken. It's the rules themselves, or the lack thereof, that is the issue, it's the entire system, for which people come to accept on account of feeling as if there's nothing that can be done, regardless of misconduct they see in it. Ralph nader is a towel head liberal comunist hippy
|
|
|
Post by DeLacroix on Jan 1, 2006 1:09:47 GMT -5
Mexico is an up an coming nation economically. Compare the GDP of Mexico with any nation in Africa and see what you fine. South Africa is the wealthiest nation in Africa but yet their GDP is half of that of Mexico's. The GDP of South Africa is 1/3 of that of Mexico. But the population of South Africa is also about 1/3 of that of Mexico, so what? The GDP of China is twice of that of Canada, so, does it mean people in China live like or better than those in Canada? ridiculous. Also forget about the GDP per capita, because it doesn't reflect the reality of a country. Mexico has the 4th largest number of millionaires in the world, but the bottom 40% of the population, share only 11% of the wealth. In 2002 50% of the population lived below the poverty line, and 20% in extreme poverty. In Mexico there is little or no welfare state and no unemployment benefit. non-governmental sources say 40% of the population is unemployed (the government claims that unemployement is only 2%, 3%). Forget about Mexico city and what you see in mexican TV soaps, here is the real Mexico oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~paxton/312/econ312_files/image001.jpgLet's stop this hypocrisy, mexicans risk their lives to reach the US, not because they seek higher wages and welfare benefits, but because they're POOR and hopeless. If there was work and acceptable living conditions for them in their homeland , they wouldn't play with death in the desert of Arizona, and live in the shame, working as slaves in plantations and houses for their american masters. But of course, it's not an excuse to open the doors to all the poverty of the world. The US government should economically help their southern neighbors, and urge the mexican government to put an end to the corruptness and work for an equitable wealth distribution. The US also should protect their borders, to discourage illegal immigrants, and avoid terrorist infiltration.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Jan 1, 2006 8:35:18 GMT -5
No, it's not ridiculus because poor South Africans aren't immigrating like crazy to Europe, or anywhere else. If you take into account population size and GDP Mexico and South Africa are about even. Mexico's population is around 2.5 times greater than that of South Africa's with a GDP about 2.5 greater. But are South Africans the one ones immigrating? Is south Africa not much better off than its neighbors economically even with its troubles? So your comparison was out of place since the poor in South Africa are not immigrating. With regards to Mexicans being poor there is no doubt that they are. No one has said otherwise. Stating that they are hopeless is a different matter as we will see. Unemployment is not 40%. It's more like 25%. If you want to look at wealth by individual look at their purchasing power which is $9,600 (2004 est.). It in no way is a sign of great wealth but it clearly isn't a third world nation. www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html#EconI'd be willing to bet that a large number of those that make up the unemployed are Amerindians. They happen to be outside the mainstream. How many illegal immigrants die in the arizona desert every year? Not many. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4206914.stm229 died between september of '04 and OCtober of '05, while 1.1 million crossed over. <<<Arizona serves as the main crossing point for some 1.1 million immigrants who make the journey into the US from Mexico each year.>>> Slaves don't send money home to their families in the billions so you cna't call them slaves. Around 10.5 billion dollars was sent back home to Mexico by illegals. www.iadb.org/mif/V2/files/MIFPagerfeb2003eng.pdfAlso, 1/4 of Mexican illegal immigrants have some college education! 1/4 is a significant number of people. If you're a Mexcian citizen who has been to college I doubt your background is of dire poverty. usinfo.state.gov/eap/east_asia_pacific/chinese_human_smuggling/smuggling_in_the_press/familyeducation.htmlThat shouldn't take away from the 75% (49% of whom never finished high school) but it certainly is something that we should consider when we discuss how "hopeless" the average illegal may be. No one is denying that poverty is a factor as well as geography. Most Mexican illegals in the past have been from the northern part of Mexico. Given the choice between working in the US for a higher wage (in comparison to wages Mexico for low skill work) or migrating south, which is a further distance, and working for a typical low wage the choice isn't hard to make. With regards to welfare in Mexico take a look at this article and take note of the date: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/412802.stmand Encyclopedia Britannica: www.britannica.com/eb/article-27404
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Jan 1, 2006 10:41:15 GMT -5
Anodyne, Et tu? You also magically ignore the crime and cost of illegals? They're all honest, hard-working law-breakers*, coming here to "do jobs that Americans just won't do???" Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha There are no drug-runners, no white-slavers, no rapists or murderers crossing that border! No--according to you--they're a bunch of college-educated geniuses who are coming in order to pick tomatoes. Uh-huh. Sure.
* It's always amusing to me at how people want us to look at people in the country illegally--people who broke laws--to be otherwise "honest". That paradox of the "honest law-breaker" is the most insulting to the observer's intelligence. In fact, the dishonesty of these law-breakers extends itself beyond breaking the law to enter the country. Once inside, they obtain false social-security cards, go on welfare and take billions in tax money--though they themselves don't pay taxes. They indulge in forgery, fraud and theft. --And these are the "good ones," the ones not drug-running and into gangs. These "good ones" who are bankrupting local and state governments.
|
|