Bolivia seizes natural gas fields

[John Dibble]

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

If Mexico is doing so well, why are people so eager to risk their lives in the desert to cross the border into the US?

[John Dibble]

You consider Mexico to have a bad economy?  It is doing reasonably well considering its position vis-a-vis its colonial masters.  Anyway, it wouldn't be doing any different if those little oil profits were flowing up to Houston instead - they simply aren't a significant amount of money in an economy (and population) as large as Mexico's.

If Mexico is doing so well, why are people so eager to risk their lives in the desert to cross the border into the US?

Please re-read my post, and this time do not ignore the part that I have now bolded for your attentive convenience.

Uhm, I fail to see how that has anything to do with it. Mexico does not have a great economy - if it did people wouldn't want to leave because there would be sufficient jobs.

[John Dibble]

Dibble, there are miserable lower classes in all sorts of countries, including the US - I suggest you go drive around in the ghetto right now.

Believe it or not I went through a hispanic ghetto a few weeks ago - we were house hunting and one house for sale turned out to be in there(we promptly left). I could tell the neighborhood was kind of poor, but it was a vast improvement over the type of poor neighborhood  you'd  see  in Mexico.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it still has a bad economy. People don't tend to leave nations that have good economies, so while you can claim that it's doing reasonably it doesn't change that the conditions there suck. When a good deal less people want to leave, then your claims might be valid.

[John Dibble]

But it still has a bad economy. People don't tend to leave nations that have good economies, so while you can claim that it's doing reasonably it doesn't change that the conditions there suck. When a good deal less people want to leave, then your claims might be valid.

It is all relative, Dibble.  The US economy is great for the top few percent, but quite atrocious for the vast majority.  I'm sure a US poor would flee to Denmark if he could, but the Danes, Swedes, etc. are quite careful not to allow such people to participate in their welfare states.

Uh huh, yes yes, tell us we're all miserable and that only 1% enjoy a good life. You're a spoiled little brat, and you have no idea what our lives are like, so just shut up already. You should really stop being so arrogant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So South Korea is 'filled' with such people? And what percentage of the population are they? Maybe you just run into a lot of them due to your job, not because there's actually that many of them. A large majority of Mexicans would like to move to the US, but I doubt you'd find even 10% of Americans who'd want to move to South Korea for the bulk of their lives.

Those are only the poorest of Mexico. Most of the people who live in Mexico and stay there live relatively comfortably. In fact, Mexico has an illegal immigration issue too, with people from Central America.

Mexico's Human Development Index is 0.814, which puts in the high category. This also puts it above several European countries. Here's a map to put things into perspective: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/HDImap_current.png

I never said Mexico was the worst, but it's obviously not doing that well if people desire to leave in such numbers. As I said - people don't generally leave good economies.

[John Dibble]

It's all relative. If you had an area similar to Detroit or Appalachia right next to certain parts of Mexico, people would be fleeing to those parts of Mexico. Obviously the poorest people of one country would want to flee to a more affluent one. That doesn't make the entire country like that.

AGAIN, I never said otherwise. Mexico City and the tourist areas do well enough for themselves. Of course, there's not enough room in those places for the poor of Mexico to all move into them, which is why they come here.

[John Dibble]

It's all relative. If you had an area similar to Detroit or Appalachia right next to certain parts of Mexico, people would be fleeing to those parts of Mexico. Obviously the poorest people of one country would want to flee to a more affluent one. That doesn't make the entire country like that.

AGAIN, I never said otherwise. Mexico City and the tourist areas do well enough for themselves. Of course, there's not enough room in those places for the poor of Mexico to all move into them, which is why they come here.

OK, but let's compare Mexico to Bolivia. As stated above, Mexico has an HDI of 0.814. The US has 0.944. That's a difference of 0.13. Now Bolivia has 0.687. That is 0.127 lower than Mexico, almost identicaly to Mexico's difference with the US. Therefore, Bolivia is to Mexico what Mexico is to the US. That's rather telling, isn't it?

Not really, considering I have very little idea on what basis the rating is made. And when did I compare Mexico and Bolivia? I didn't - all I'm disputing is opebo's assertion that the Mexican economy is going that well. It probably is doing better than Bolivia, but it's still got a LONG way to go. When the number crossing the border starts decreasing greatly, then we'll know that Mexico is doing really well. As I said, people don't tend to leave countries with good economies.

[John Dibble]

And so the backfiring begins:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-05/04/content_4508401.htm

Brazil's Petrobras to halt new investments in Bolivia

    RIO DE JANEIRO, May 3 (Xinhua) -- Brazilian state-owned energy company Petroleo Brasileiro (Petrobras) will make no new investments in Bolivia and will not accept any change in the price of natural gas imports, the head of the company said on Wednesday.

    "We have decided to suspend any possible investment in Bolivia," except some basic maintenance, said Jose Sergio Gabrielli, president of Petrobras, adding that this was not a reprisal for Bolivia's Monday decision to nationalize its oil fields.

    He also said the company would not take part in the proposed Brazil-Bolivia gas pipeline project.

    Sergio said it was a response to the new economic conditions in the country.

    He added that if Bolivia decided to charge more for natural gassupplies to Brazil, "we will not accept. We have to work with the principle that there are legitimate contracts that will be respected."

    The presidents of Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Bolivia will meet on Thursday in the Argentine city Puertoi Iguazu to discuss the fallout stemming from Bolivia's move to nationalize its energy industry.