Talk:Economy of Mexico

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

older entries[edit]

> The administration of President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon

Huh? This article is at least three years out of date... -- Viajero 19:08, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I agree. Much of the data is old, and it is really due for a spruce-up. Could someone well-versedon the subject take it on?--Bjeversole 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)v[reply]

"about 100,000 of the illegal immigrants entering the U.S. each year claim to be university graduates"[edit]

but as you see not all of them are mexicans theres alot of south americans too I'm taking this claim out until it can be sourced. First of all, its very ability to be proven is suspect. Are illegal immigrants to the US taking surveys as to their education level? How can something like that even be measured? Moncrief 07:38, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I added that claim. It comes from the following source:

  • Richard Boudreaux, "Deadly Journey of Hope," Los Angeles Times, Oct. 13, 2004, at A1.

This was an article that ran in the L.A. Times last year about the death of a Mexican biologist who could not find a job and out of desperation tried to get into the U.S. but died in the desert. The article analyzed the larger economic situation in Mexico and why there were few jobs there for competent biologists (or scientists in general).

The specific sentence which I drew the claim from is as follows:

"According to a survey by the College of the Northern Frontier in Tijuana, more than 120,000 of those migrating illegally each year are university-educated."


Who the heck is that College?? Plus, under the NAFTA Mexicans with degrees can easily ask for a TN Visa with no troubles. And I don't know any Mexican with a degree unable to get a job, even as a teacher as a last resource. That's obviously was biased survey made by a dubious source from a silly university.
I think that college is actually "El Colegio de la frontera norte", a Mexican research center whose purpose is to study the social phenomena of migration from Latin America (specially Mexico) to the USA. While I can't make an opinion about the accuracy of that claim, a lot of inmigrants DO have a college degree, or at least were enrolled on a university. Several of my former classmates from college left for the United States after graduating. At least three of them have worked either as construction workers or in factories. The thing is, in México we have a high availability of college education (we have lots of public universities, which are technically free), so a surprisingly high percentage of the population has access to university. The quality of said education, in the other hand, is wildly variable, but it has a tendency to be on the "poor" side, which make professionally-educated people not specially wanted. Due to that, we have a situation where doctors drive taxis, lawyers sell tacos on the streets, accountants work as secretaries, etc (but this is another whole subject altogether). It's then not a surprise a lot of university-educated people would want to go to the USA, legally or otherwise. Also, I'm not even sure the government of USA would accept a request for legal residency from a Mexican (last time I checked, they didn't, unless I understood the webpage wrong). - A.O. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.6.133 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Coolcaesar 08:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Feel free to re-add it with that source: I think a paraphrase of "According to a survey by the College of the Northern Frontier in Tijuana" is all you need. Moncrief 17:21, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Changes[edit]

I made some changes to the article and added more stuff related to Trade, GDP, the maquiladora sector and Poverty, and restructured the whole article. I also took the "need for improvment in quality" sign. If anybody has any comments related to what I just added, or if you believe the sign shouldn't be taken away, let me know, and we can discuss it. --J.Alonso 03:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J.Alonso, thanks for improving this article!. I only made some minor changes and I created Template:Economy of Mexico table according to the table you had created. Silversink 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Income[edit]

I find the following paragraph misleading and I that is why I had originally eliminated it: Income distribution remains highly unequal, with the top 20% of income earners accounting for 55% of income. If municipalities of Mexico were classified as countries in the HDI World Ranking, Benito Juárez, one of the political districts in D.F., would have a similar development than that of Italy, whereas Metlatonoc, Guerrero, would have an HDI similar to that of Malawi..

First, it is not surprising that 20% of income earners account for 55% of income, especially in capitalist societies. In fact, many developed countries have such disparities, including the United States. If you review the GINI index, only a copule of small social-democratic European countries and a dozen of LDC (least developed countries), feature low levels of inequality; in the latter case, the "equality" means that the majority of the country is poor. To given an example, inequality in the US (as measrued with GINI index) is 46.6, whereas inequality of Côte d'Ivoire, the Phillipines, Ecuador, Uganda, China and Cambodia is less than that of the US.

The second part of the paragraph is comparing apples and oranges. First HDI is not a measure of inequality per se, as the GINI index would be, and HDI includes other characteristics besides income. Secondly, a reader cannot determine how bad inequality is if you compare Metlatonoc with Malawi given the following reasons:

  • one is a small municipality with only 30,000 residents, and the other a country with a population of 13 million, the municipality is integrated into a larger economy, Malawi is the "large economy" by itself
  • one is an open municipality; that is residents can access public services offered at nearby municipalities for free; in fact, even in developed countries, several municipalities may "share" public services (i.e. hospitals and schools), and in which these services are located at the biggest municipality. In Malawi, on the other hand if these services are not offered within the country, there are no options, but to leave the country.

Moreover, a reader cannot determine how bad the disparity is among municipalities in Mexico if there are no similar figures for other countries (i.e. how would you compare the HDI of the poorest municipality in Argentina, Brazil, or Spain and the United States to the HDI of Malawi? Or, how different is HDI from the poorest municipality in the aforementioned countries with the riches municipality?) Such comparisons would be more "apple-to-apple" comparisons. We may be surprised if we find that inequality between Metlatonoc and DF is not as big as the disparity between say a municipality in rural Poland and Warsaw.

Given the fact that this paragraph was re-inserted in the text, I propose that we open a discussion to review its relevancy. --J.Alonso 20:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison was made by the UN itself. I don't see how you Einsteins talk as knowledgeable economists in order to delete something... Silly comparisons exist, but they are useful. Plus this is not a silly comparison, the GINI index in some parts of Mexico is as high as the highest around the world, period. While the GINI in other places is as low as the lowest, period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.162.221.85 (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contradiction?[edit]

Overview: "Trade with the US and Canada has nearly doubled since NAFTA was implemented in 1994." vs. 'Trade' section: "Trade with the United States and Canada has tripled since NAFTA was ratified in 1994."

???

doingbusiness.org[edit]

This link: (in English) & (in Spanish) Doing Business in Mexico latest World Bank Group study

Was added by an IP address registered to the World Bank Group (doingbusiness.org is a World Bank project). In keeping with our conflict of interest and external links guidelines I've moved it here for consideration by regular editors of this article who are unaffiliated with the site. -- Siobhan Hansa 20:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of this article[edit]

I found that almost eveything in this article is wrong: It has little to no sources and/or verifiable claims, no logical order, and one too many grammar mistakes. Here is my proposal for making the article better:

"The Economy" is a very hard thing to define. But, in my opinion, this article should focus on the following: - Economic Cycle (production - distribution - consumption). Who does what and who pays for what? - Factors of production (being 4: labor, capital, land/resources, entrepreneurship/knowledge) (In the case of Mexico, labor is done mostly by Mexicans and is determined by a buyers market -i.e. low wages, high unemployment-, capital is concentrated in certain rich families, and/or is brought from abroad, either by highly liquid risk portfolios or Foreign Direct Investment -the proportions of which would be useful for the article-, land/resources are owned by the State and need to be licensed for exploitation, and entrepreneurship/knowledge is dependant on foreignly trained Mexicans, or foreign entrepreneurs bringing it to Mexico). - Ownership of factors of production. Who takes the initiative? Is it the government? Is it private capitalists? Is it large international firms? To what degree? - Factors (externalities) that influence economic activity, other than profit-maximizing, efficient economic actors (i.e., the government) And then came the money side of the economy: - Who controls money supply? (Talk about Banco de Mexico and International Reserves, including its relation to PEMEX, remittances, and tourism... keeping the peso strong) - Interest rates, the banking system, Fobaproa and IPAB, and the way banks make money in Mexico (not by lending, btw)... - A country of contrasts and different levels of technical environments: liquidity in the rural areas vs. credit cards in the urban sites. And then, the Mexican economy vs the World: - NAFTA and the over 40 Trade agreements - How much of Mexico is exports vs. how much is imports, and how is it that this imbalance can prevail and still have International Reserves surplus? - Mexico vs. BRIC countries, and how despite having higher wages and more costly taxes than them, Mexico continues to grow - The Mexican-American interdependency:

  • The United States as depending on Mexican-made goods (including, electronics, food stuffs, energy stuffs, medicine, consumer products, and clothing).
  • Mexico depending on the US financial system, and on US-generated remittances
  • NAFTA and how it has propelled this interdependency, and the role Canada plays in this intricate system

I think the above pretty much summarizes Mexico's economy.

Added to the above, the introduction should menction the generalities of Mexico's economy: it is free market, it is rated as such and such in the index of economic freedom, and it is the nth economy in the world, and the zth economy per capita, and has yth global HDI. An overview (after the introduction) should also menction, in general, some social challenges, like income inequality and concentration of wealth and production. A brief (one or two paragraph) history of the reforms taken since the 1980s, and the cause of them (the 1970's and Marxist experimentation in the Mexican economy) should also be added.

Perhaps, for NPOV purposes, some menction of common criticism by left-wing politicians on Mexico's economic policies? However, I am not sure about this, because this article is not about politics, but about the economy and how it works in Mexico, regardless of wheather it is judged to be positive or negative.

Hari Seldon 08:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are indeed right, having studied economics, I can assure you, the "economy" of any country is hard to describe. Many of the concepts you proposed can be incorporated into a structured outline. Say:
  • Overview
  • History (why is the Mexican economy the way it is right now?)
  • Economic and welfare indicators (unemployment, underemployment, poverty rates, GDP, GDP per capita, GDP growth, HDI, Gini coefficient of inequality at the national level and per state including charts and maps)
    • At the federal level (and cross-country comparisons with BRIC countries, LA countries, NAFTA countires, OCED countries)
    • At the state level
  • Economy by sector (including labor force by occupation):
    • Agriculture
    • Industry
    • Services
  • Regional economic structure (internal market, which states do what, and internal trade across states)
  • External trade
    • Structure of external trade (what is traded and with whom)) and current account (a little more complicated that what it seems; National reserves are not used to pay for a deficit in trade; it is usually paid in the form of debt or public debt... the question here is if remittances are actually taken into account by the gov't when measuring the balance of payments).
    • Trade agreements and liberalization
    • NAFTA (it deserves a special section in that it is, by far, the most important agreement Mexico has signed, including the [inter]dependence of some members of the trade bloc... (can it really be said there is a two-way dependence when 85.7% of Mexican exports represent only 10% of American imports, and 53.4% of Mexican imports represent only 13.3% of American exports? Arguably.)
  • Public policy (the role of government in the economy, as in any mixed economy, like the US), regulation and control (economic assistance and welfare programs, social regulations, direct services provided by the federal/state gov'ts, including agricultural subsidies through Procampo and income transfers to corn growers) and the financial system (taxation, federal budget, state budgets, public debt, balance of payments and currenct account, interest rates, currency, and the role of Banco de México as an autonomous institution).
  • Infrastructure (roads, ports, airpots, telecommunications, education and R&D)
  • Immigration (that is, the role of the immigration phenomenon in the Economy of Mexico, given that Mexico is the largest receiver of remittances in the world (or so I've heard). Who leaves the country and why? What is the effect of emigration on local economies in rural areas? How has immigration evolved over time?
Many of the concepts you proposed are included in these points (say, the 4 factors or production are implied in the economy by sector [all sectors use all factors of production in different proportion], the economic cycle seems to be a theoretical concept, but the details are included almost in all sections [economy by sector: who produces and who pays, public policy: who pays and gov't intervention setting the rules of the game, internal and external trade: who buys])
For the most part, I suggest we keep the article full of positive statements (e.g. "trade has grown x% since NAFTA, poverty has decreased y%, whereas income inequality has increased z%"), instead of having normative statements (e.g. "NAFTA has been good for the economy", "Government intervention in this particular sector is undesirable"). Normative statements could lead to POV. Nonetheless, arguably, normative statements are the criticism of the right to left-wing policies and the criticism of the left to right-wing policies, which can be included in all pertinent sections, as long as we clearly identify and separate positive from normative statements within the text.
Let me review a couple of dusted books I have of LA and Mexican economies, and let me see if I can get hold of the most recent publications. And of course, INEGI and CONAPO are by far the best sources we can use for statistics. Other publications worth considering are the World Bank's report on Mexico's poverty and NAFTA analysis (Lessons for LA and the Caribbean). I can give you the links to the .pdf files of both. I just hope this outline is not too ambitious.
I suggest we continue this debate on our talk pages (by creating a sandbox with proposals) and then just leave links or general stuff here, otherwise this talk page will be way to long and the discussion will be impossible to follow.
--the Dúnadan 06:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please pass the links. I don't know if it is ambitious, but it certainly is exciting. I agree with you on the positive vs. normative thing. I'll look for sources around here too. Hari Seldon 02:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Income vs. Foreign Income[edit]

Income is the accounting product of revenue minus cost of revenues, operating expenses, investing activities, financing service, and taxes. In short, Income has to do with profit. The most profitable industries in Mexico are not necessarily touristic in nature. For example, CEMEX creates wealth worth over $9bn USD a year, compared to roughly $12bn USD generated by tourism (source: Sectur). We can, therefore, reasonably assume that the construction industry is more profitable than the touristic industry, and therefore is a better source of Income for Mexico.

However, "Foreign Income" referes to the balance of payments and the international reserves. Customers of the touristic industry trade their foreign currency into Mexican Pesos to spend in Mexico. Banco de Mexico gets the foreign exchange and prints and mints pesos in exchange. Through this process, Banco de Mexico increases the nation's International Reserves, which strenghten the Mexican Peso, and enable Mexicans to buy products from abroad.

This distinction is important, because there are industries, and even companies, that are more profitable than PEMEX, or the Touristic industry, or remmitances. However, what matters about these three is not their profit, but their impact in the balance of payments and how it affects the Mexican Peso. These three activities keep the peso stable, and thus their relevance. This should be made clear to the reader.

By the way, Dunadan, great job!

Hari Seldon 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hari good to have you participate. Just a couple of points
  • You are confusing the terms "income" and "profit". In fact, the definition that you just gave of income is precisely that of accounting profit. Income is simply the money received for performing a service or selling a good; profit is income minus operating costs. However, I understand your confusion, because in colloquial US-accounting jargon [not in economics] income is sometimes treated as a synonym of profits, whereas in economics it is a synonym of revenues. Whether tourism is profitable or not (it arguably is) is not in question, but the fact that is the second largest source of income (i.e. rent) for the country.
  • Speaking of income, PEMEX sales (income) amount to more than 86 billion USD. But, being taxed almost 62% of its income, its profit is drastically reduced; because of its reduced profit, PEMEX cannot invest in the [urgent and] expensive research to find new sources for exploitation. Still, I don't know how much profit of those 86 billion USD PEMEX is still making in order to compare it to other industries.
  • Remittances are, of course, income, not profit. They can [and are] compared as sources of income (being the third largest after tourism, and I have heard that they have surpassed tourism, but I haven't confirmed it), but not as sources of profit. Now you point out a good thing: how are remittances impacting the balance of payments? I do not know how Banxico or INEGI take into account remittances, but they are usually taking account simply as income transfers, and, true, to a certain point, they help finance the trade deficit (or the current account deficit). I have always wondered about that, but I haven't found an official source about it (and we must not engage in OR).
By the way, do you have pictures of Monterrey's industries? I think a couple of pics would be useful.
--theDúnadan 02:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, forgive me, after all, I am in a business school, and yes, we use "income" as synonimous to accounting profit. However, I have my doubts that touris is the largest source of rent for the country. I can buy that it is the third largest source of foreign exchange, but of income? Surely exports have larger revenues! In any case, it would be best to double-check Sectur. On PEMEX, I urge you to forgive me. PEMEX is Mexico's largest company. Technically speaking, PEMEX has a "negative" profit. I don't understand why the government doesn't substitute this ridiculous tax with a dividend, and let the company prosper. However, PEMEX is also subsidizied (i.e., some that tax collected in PEMEX, goes back to PEMEX), so, in fact, I think that the reason this happenes is so the government can mask PEMEX's actual performance. In any case, oil commodity trading in external markets are both an important source of income for PEMEX, and an important source of Foreign Exchange. (Banxico's website on International Reserves explicitly states that sales revenue from PEMEX's sales abroad are deposited directly into Banxico's accounts: no intermediary. I would assume that Banxico converts the foreign exchange into Mexican pesos and they directly transfer the money, saving on intermediaries. Meaning, PEMEX's sales abroad -literally DIRECTLY- service the Balance of Payments). Finally, on remittances, Fox's quote is that remittances are the largest source of foreign exchange, and then comes oil, and then comes tourism. Help finance the Current Account deficit? I bet they finance it completely and even create a surplus! Perhaps thats the reason why International Reserves are rising, and have been rising for 7 years now! Go ahead and check Banxico's website and WTO or World Bank and check it out! We don't need to engage in OR for this. All of this is publicly available information (Secretaría de Economía, Banxico, etc...) We can even see how foreign companies benefit on remittances (i.e., financial statements of Orlandi Valuta, etc...) It could be done, but unfortunately, I just don't have the time. Maybe after exams? Hari Seldon 06:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tourism being [not the largest but] the second largest source of income is sourced. But you can double check it if you want. But, if you indulge me, let me explain. Tourism does bring income to thousands of hotels, taxi drivers, restaurants, airports, even bell-boys, even if a currency-exchange transaction was done beforehand. It does have an effect on exchange rate, but most importantly, it brought income to Mexico. And I do believe that they are reporting precisely that. Now, if you want to compare overall exports to tourism, you might be comparing oranges with apples. Tourism is an industry in itself. Even more, tourism can be [and is] accounted as an "export of services" to current account balance calculation (much like international students are "importing" knowledge from the host country). The "service" sector is harder to understand in terms of trade than merchandise. But the fact that it exists and that it is increasingly profitable has made many governments start negotiations about "trading services". GATS was the first step to recognize this by WTO.
Now, of PEMEX, I didn't really get your point. You are putting to much emphasis on exchanging money, but exchanging money by itself does not bring income to the country. Remember that under a floating change regime [not pegged to gold or to dollars], it is not precisely the amount of dollars [or gold] in the Reserves that give the peso its value.
Now, as for the current account balance and remittances. If Banxico accounts remittances as it is commonly done in other countries, they are already included in the current account, and Mexico still has a deficit, a deficit that is most likely financed by other means [like debt, for example monthly Cetes]. If they are not included in the current account, then Mexico has a deficit with the current account anyways, and remittances are then calculated in the balance of payments, which by definition amounts to zero. I will try to find in INEGI whether remittances are calculated within the current account (by definition EXP minus IMP) or in the Balance of Payments (balance of payments = current account + financial account + capital account = 0).
It's too late, but I guess we can talk about these concepts over the email or even messenger if you wish some other time. --theDúnadan 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it was too late last night to accurately discuss this matter, so I did a little research this morning, as promised. As far as I can tell, from here, and here remittances are indeed already calculated in the current account, and Mexico, nonetheless, has a current account deficit, which means this deficit is most likely financed by debt instruments (Mexico is constantly issuing debt in the form of treasury bonds like cetes).
Now, I also found, that remittances are the second source of "external finance" (foreign exchange) after oil. Remittances are larger than FDI and larger that tourism expenditures.[1]. I guess the phrase "foreign exchange" is being used interchangeably here with "external finance" and "foreign income", so I don't object its usage. I guess I was getting confused, thinking that you attributed the value of the peso directly to the Central Bank reserves amount of dollars, and not the "strength" of the peso or the "cushion" of the economy by the Central Bank Reserves. --theDúnadan 17:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Economy[edit]

The economy of Mexico didnt grow 4.5 %, it was 4.8%... comments? Mexxxicano 00:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It really is immaterial, and it depends on weather we are looking at it from a Nominal, Real, or PPP perspective. Real (Growth minus inflation) would be closer to 0%, or even negative growth (assuming the 4.8% figure is nominal). Mexxxicano, if you have sources, please provide them. Hari Seldon 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All GDP annual growth reports are in real terms, whether measured in market exchange rate parity or purchasing power parity (PPP). GDP growth is rarely reported in nominal terms. The 4.5% is that reported by CIA Factbook, which was an estimate they made. If INEGI or Banxico reported an annual growth of 4.8% (and if it can be properly referenced), then we can surely change that figure. --theDúnadan 05:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Hseldon. Here's a link to the 4.8% figure, which is real. According to Hacienda...El PIB mexicano tuvo una caída del 0,3 por ciento en el 2001, se recuperó ligeramente en el 2002, con un 0,9 por ciento; subió en un 1,3 en el 2003, en un 4,4 por ciento en el 2004 y en un 3 por ciento en el 2005. EFECOM. Here's the source. [2]

By the way, why is the Mexico page still protected. I would like to update the Economics section, to show real GDP/Capita growth for different periods, as well as cite some migration figures, but can't do so b/c it's still protected. Productivity growth should also be addressed. Thanks. [[[User:69.211.13.253|69.211.13.253]] 22:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)]


Sources, but there are even more sources, i will try to post them later

http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/605077.html http://www.milenio.com/index.php/2007/02/16/41904/ http://www.aca-novenet.com.mx/nacional/170207/16PA3.html http://www.oem.com.mx/elsoldemexico/notas/n173863.htmhttp://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/nacional/260531.crece-4-8x-economia-en-2006.siglo Mexxxicano 12:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mexxxicano. Thanks for the sources. Since most of them are from news agencies and not governmental agencies, I will try to confirm it directly at www.banxico.org.mx or www.inegi.gob.mx. I would actually recommend that you do not expand the Economy section in Mexico but rather expand this article. See for example United States, brief summaries are included in the main article, while detailed information is written in relevant subarticles. But it's up to you. All contributions are useful, and we can somehow arrange the proper space to include all information. As for migration, yes we should definitely add something on the main article. Ohh, and Mexico is only blocked to unregistered users. If you have an account, simply log in and you will be able to edit the article. Cheers! --theDúnadan 05:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crop observation[edit]

Several of the replacement crops proposed for rural income as a substitute for income from corn are perennial crops which take a few years to bear and longer to turn a profit. Before NAFTA the larger corn farmers produced more yellow corn while industrial mills making flour and tortillas bought from CONASUPO. When American farmers entered the market the larger farms moved over to white corn and sold directly into the industrial market. Sourcing small quantities of surplus corn for centralized end users under the old system is an uneconomic or marginal activity. The government crop finance system that served the small farmers was cut back well before the smaller farmers could switch over from dependence on selling surpluses from CONASUPO. As well as farmers producing alternative crops they could have used their corn surplus locally to produce poultry and other small stock. While the cost of production might be lower elsewhere the cost to a consumer is cost of production plus shipment. Local farmers have a comparative advantage on sales to their immediate community especially since the cost of interstate shipment in Mexico is higher particularly off the highway system. There needs to be longer term investment from outside the rural communities to put either alternative crop production or small stock production on a firm economic footing. RichardBond (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A break[edit]

I got rid of the "in construction" template, however, there is a section that is still missing that I will add in the future: Government (with information about Banco de México, International Reserves, public debt, taxes, regulations, Fobaproa). Some sections still need to be pruned or enhanced and extended, especially that of regional economies (add a little about specialization and internal trade) and the service sector (which should be expanded by adding stuff about the banking sectors, the impressive growth of credit as a way to finance household consumption, and ironically the slow [or null] growth of credit to entrepreneurs and small industries, and of course, about BMV). But, I have to take a small break. So far, this page has not been vandalized. But, given my experience in the article about Mexico, I don't have high hopes, and it is exhausting to deal with uncollaborative users who shred the work of others to pieces. If this happens to be the last article I work with, I want to do my best. --theDúnadan

You've done great, and though I regret not being able to help more, for time-related reasons, I will strive for this article to continue improving, as you most certainly improved it! Hari Seldon 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oldest surviving financial institution in Mexico[edit]

Banamex traces its origins to the Banco Nacional Mexicano and the Banco Mercantil Mexicano, I am not sure but as far as I can remember the older of the two was founded in 1881. Banco Serfin now integrated into Banco Santander Mexicano traces back to Banco de Londres y Mexico (Sometimes refered as Londres, Mexico y Sudamerica) which was founded in 1864.

Well, this is a minor issue. I think that independent sources should settle it. In any case, the current version is acceptable to me while it is being researched. Finally, please sign your comments. Hari Seldon 02:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, the anonymous is right in that Banamex was formed by the merger of two older financial institutions. The sentence, however, speaks of the oldest surviving institution (or name). We can either say "the older surviving financial institution was...", or keep the sentence considering that even with the merger Mexican capital was retained along with the name of the institution. In Citigroup's webpage, Banamex is considered to have "joined hands" with them (probably just an euphemism, since it was practically bought). --theDúnadan 14:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for no signing, I was in a bit of a hurry when I last wrote and I was sloppy. I do agree it is a minor issue, I just thought it would be better to refer to Banamex as one of the older, but I will not be in any way disappointed if the contribution is ignored. --LS1010 15:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest then? Like I said, it is still the oldest surviving institution (per name). We could elaborate on the previous institutions during the nineteenth century, but I don't think it is advisable. --theDúnadan 16:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my interpretation, if Banco Serfin can be traced back to Banco de Londres, México y Sudamerica, then whatever bank Serfin is today still survives. Even in a merger, the original institution doesn't die, it "joins hands"... If we don't assume that the merging institutions preserve their assets and history in the merged product, then the oldest surviving financial institution in Mexico is Banxico... (we would be assuming that Banco Nacional de México no longer exists, because it was acquired by citigroup and transformed into the current trademark).
If we, however, take the other approach, then part of the history and book assets of the Banco de Londres, México y Sudamerica would still survive in part in the Banco Santander-Serfin. If this can be sourced, then I think it would be relevant to add to this article. If it cannot be sourced, then the current version must be restored to the original "Banamex is the oldest surviving banking institution"...
I say we give a deadline to finding this reference, and then take a decision about its wording. Till then, current wording should suffice. What do you think?
Hari Seldon 18:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the mergers of the nineteenth century which created new institutions, contemporary mergers retain Mexican capital. That is, they are not "acquisitions" but "mergers" or "parternships". That is why Banamex retained its name, and the rest of the banks created double names: Bancomer BBVA, Santander Serfín, et al. I heard recently that BBVA wanted to take over the remaining small percentage of Bancomer's stock assets in order to completely make it BBVA, however, as far as I know, Mexican laws prohibit full acquisitions. Well, I have to check on that, since HSBC did took over Bital, so I wonder if Mexican capital was retained in that merger... Anyway, the point is, Banamex (still) survivies, whereas Banco Mercantil Mexicano, Banco de Londres and the rest don't. Banxico, on the other hand is a Central Bank, not a private financial institution, and is the lender of last resort (to which banks go). So, I don't know man, it all depends on interpretation. For me, saying that Banamex is the oldest surviving banking institution is fine. In fact, Banamex celebrated its 100 birthday [even after joining hands with Citibank] 100 years after its birth out of the 19th century merger. In other words, Banamex considers its birth on that merger that created a new institution, whereas the merger with Citibank is a "partnership".--theDúnadan 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grupo Financiero Santander (Mexico) claims on its site "La historia del Grupo Financiero Santander tiene su origen más remoto en la creación del Banco de Londres, México y Sudamérica en el año de 1864.", roughly Santander Financial Group has its origins in the creation of Banco de londres, Mexico y Sudamerica in 1864. This can be verified this on [[3]] there is a link "Conoce el Banco" and a sublink "historia" --LS1010 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunadan, I disagree... Equity is equity no matter what century you are in. And, if you ask me, Banamex retained its brand name and trademark because citigroup's was so tarnished in Mexico, and Banamex's so respected. It could also be because it was one of the conditions of the "merger". However, with equity buyout of such a magnitude, it is not a merger, it is an acquisition. Bookwise, Banamex is mostly property of Citigroup. However, that doesn't mean that its assets or their history are now different, or that they no longer exist... That is why Banamex can celebrate its 100th birthday. It would be interesting to compare the Banamex-Citigroup partnership to the conditions under which the Banco de Londer y México became Santander-Serfín...
LS1010, that is wonderful. However, it would be a lot more useful to get an independent source...
Hari Seldon 23:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Mexican Bankers Association "El primer banco privado comercial del país fue el Banco de Londres y México, que inició operaciones el 1 de agosto de 1864 como sucursal del banco inglés The London Bank of Mexico and South America Ltd durante el Imperio de Maximiliano de Habsburgo"[[4]], roughly The first private bank in the country was the Banco de Londres y Mexico, it started operations august 1st 1864 as a branch of the British bank The Bank of Mexico and South America Ltd during the Maximilan of Habsburg empire. --LS1010 14:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equity is equity? I don't undestand what you are saying. I was simply talking about laws restricing full acquision of Mexican banking institutions nowadays. But it really doesn't matter. If Serfin dates its origin back to Banco de Londres, then they are the oldest surviving institution. --theDúnadan 23:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunadan, your argument sounded as if the mergers and acquisitions that the Banco de Londres, México y Sudamerica went through to become today the Banco Santander-Serfín negated the latter of the history of the former. "Equity is Equity in any century" was meant as an argument that said, no matter when the mergers where made, or how much of the % of the stake was taken in the merger, property of the asset is one thing, and the history of the asset is another. I was merely defending that, if it could be sourced that indeed the Banco de Londres, México y Sudamerica were indeed older than Banamex, and a precursor of the Banco Santander-Serfin, then the argument that Banamex was not the oldest surviving financial institution is valid.
And, I didn't realize we were only talking about private financial institutions...
Hari Seldon 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the oldest financial insitution be the Montes de Piedad de Mexico? RichardBond (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Design[edit]

The page design has improved greatly, thanks in most part to Dunadan's entries. However, I am running with a resolution of 1440 x 900 pixels, and the tables look very weird in this resolution. I know they look ok in lower resolutions, but is there something that can be done so that the page, and particularly the tables, look good in all available resolutions? Hari Seldon 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using IE or Firefox? --theDúnadan 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IE7 with Windows Vista... Yes, I worship the devil and am a Microsoft enthusiast. I also have Office 2007, and they are all legal licenses paid by myself. I know... I am in sin, but, what can I do? Nobody is perfect, right?
Hari Seldon 01:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha, well I love Office 2007... I can't say the same thing about Vista: unless you have a really well-equipped computer, it will run extremely slow. Anyway, yes I have noticed that IE7 has trouble reading tables; in fact, even after reducing font size in tables to 90% (noticeable in Firefox), IE7 still sees it as 100%, so I had to reduce it further to 85%, same thing with the size of columns, especially in the agriculture section, IE7 tables are huge, compared to how you would see them of Firefox. Try downloading Firefox 2.5 just to see what I am talking about. I do not know if it is a glitch or just the way IE reads .html. --theDúnadan 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean now. They do look a lot better in Firefox... 85% you say?... let me try that... Hari Seldon 04:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean, I reduced the font size within the wiki text. If you read the code of the tables, you'll find something like fonsize="85%". You don't have to change the settings within IE or Firefox (just use normal size). When I first did the tables I had set the fontsize to 90% and it was noticeable in Firefox, but not in IE. I've been looking for a way to change the code to reduce column size too, but I haven't found a way... yet. =)--theDúnadan 14:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to make these changes browser specific? Hari Seldon 18:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, after all wiki translates into simple html, which is basic tables, basic fonts. Browser recognition is a lot more complicated, maybe that should be discussed in meta to see if they have come up with a solution. I've never really liked IE, not even IE7, which is a carbon-copy of tab-browsing that Firefox proposed long ago, and Firefox loads pages a lot faster. Even pictures have to be contained in the same section in IE, altering the layout of articles. --theDúnadan 18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ftas[edit]

added links in the fta section. also changed # of ftas. by my count it is 44, including the 27 in the EU, and excluding venezuela, who pulled out of the g3 MrGears 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDP unclear[edit]

In the ecoomic history section, it says that GDP increased 6 fold from 1940 - 1970 but in the table it did not add up to 600% but rather about 100%. Im just curious as to what the exact figures are. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.2.93 (talk) 09:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the first sentence ranks Mexico's economy as the 13th largest economy in the world, but the cited page includes the European Union and then lists several members of the EU as seperate economies larger than that of Mexico. Under this same paradigm, Mexico's economy is ranked 14th due to the entire world economy being larger than the economy of Mexico. In order to remove double counting, I propose that the world economy and the economy of the EU should be disqualified from this country-ranking list. This sentence should be worded something more along the lines of "Of all of the country economies in the world, Mexico's economy is the 12th largest." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.89.20 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce[edit]

According to this page Mexico had a workforce of 38.09 million in 2004, acording to the 'mexico' article the population of mexico was 103 million in 2004, in this article the unemployment is 3.2% that means than about 35% of the population is in the workforce. Is the unemployment measured as a percentage of the population or of the workforce? and why is the workforce so small? I would guess it is due to a relatively young population and traditional gender roles (housewives, or women working in agriculture but not measured as such) but that would just be prejudice, anyone got the facts? - curious person 29 november 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.235.0.157 (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerospace[edit]

Hopefully this helps in expanding the Aerospace section

http://www.shephard.co.uk/Rotorhub/Default.aspx?Action=745115149&ID=e70bfa73-9415-4292-9140-154d081a77c1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusmariajalisco (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Mexico has increased its aerospace presence to a degree now Bell, Bombardier, Cessna and MD helicopters do build fuselages in Mexico but not only that currently Frisa Aerospace is building seamless rings for jet engines, its latest participation in the MRJ shows Mexico is achieving a higher degree of industrialization that this article originally claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.33.11.224 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations[edit]

I have made some alterations. In the main table I have introduced the two GDP per capita values -- the PPP and the nominal ones -- since articles about other countries' economies do the same. The values I introduced are those from the IMF, since that was also the source chosen for the GDP raw values. And the following sentence

  • GDP per capita levels circa 2900 were on par with Argentina and Uruguay, almost three times that of Brazil and Venezuela.[9]

I have removed due to the following reasons: 1) it is poorly formulated (2900?), 2) its last assertion - that Mexico's GDP per capita is or was three times that of Brazil or of Venezuela - doesn't correspond to contemporary values (probably never did), and 3) the source given for the that doesn't back it up. See this [[5]], at page 148 -- the alleged source for that information.Guinsberg (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug production[edit]

The CIA factbook does support the figures given by the anonymous editor. What is the reasons for inclusion vs. exclusion of this data? I think this is the right place to take the debate with due respect for the D in WP:BRD. I don't care either way - but I think that the factbook does not duly establish the relevance of the drug issue to the general ecnomony - even thogh my instinct tells me that it must have an influence on the economy, just as the drug war must have. But I think it would require better sources - that directly address the economic effects of the drug production to include here.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally ridiculous and insulting to claim that a trillion dollar economy such as Mexico is somehow "supported" by the drug production. It is a total missconeception of that "crop info" from the CIA website. As drug "crops" are illegal no single source would be reliable on this matter. Also, as Maunus says, the source doesn't address the "economic effects" on Mexican economy. Logic tells me that because of the drug "production" is controlled by such a small number of criminals, it doesn't affect the whole economy at all, at least not a trillion dollar economy. Also it is well documented that Mexico is unfortunately a drug-transit country, not a producer per se (such as let's say Colombia or Afghanistan), so including this info would constitute undue weight. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 18:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are wrong in believeing that drug production is negligible for the Mexican economy (druglords do import billions of dolalrs annualy from the US to Mexico converting it into luxury goods and jobs), and as the CIA fact book shows Mexico is also a "production country" not just a "transit country" - I don't know if it is mostly a positive or negative effect), I also think your assumption about "such a small number" is in contrast with the reality of the drug war. I don't know how the death of 12,000 persons a year in drugrelated crime culd not affect the "trillion dollar economy" - just the affect on tourism has to be immense. But we do need better sources to assert the relation of the drug situation on the economy. You are also incorrect when you suggest that because the production is illegal that means that there are no reliable sources - there are many scholars working on this issue and they are all reliable, even though they may not be able to say anything with 100% security about the trade and production.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised about your support of adding info that portrays bad my country, I'd only be suprised otherwise... however, back to the matter. The anonymous IP only wanted to add info about the "amount of crops" realted to drugs, such as marihuana, making assumptions (without reliable sources) that these illegal activities make a considerable contribution to Mexico's economy. He didn't add info about the effect/contribution of narco-traffic was a whole, so wether if the criminals are a small or large group, or if tourism has been affected has nothing to do with his inclussion, with what we're supoused to discuss.
And as a side note, I'm kind of frustrated about your attitude towards this issue and its sensibility right now in Mexico. For a person that supposedely is living/has lived in Mexico for years, you seem to be uninformed about the drug-related violence and its focused effects. Not to mention the missconception that the killings are targeted at innocents citizens. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 19:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular interest in slandering Mexico, and your insiatinations otherwise are getting tedious. You ought wake up and realize that not all of the world has your rose colored patriotism - none of the Mexicans I know would disagree with the statement that the war on drugs hgas affected their daily lives in a decidedly negative way. And many of them have experience drugrelated violence first hand. And they certainly wouldn't want wikipedia to try and hide those facts. Why is it that you are so hellbent on playing one-man advertising bureau for the Mexican government? I lived in Cuernavaca when they killed Beltrán-Leyva there - I think I am pretty well informed about how drug-related violence affects the lives of common people in Mexico. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This source and other similar one's should be sufficient to include the material in some form or other.[6] Apparently there are also some economists at Harvard who are interested in giving Mexico a bad image...She estimates a 4.3 Billion dollar annual drug-related loss to Mexican economy.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This[7] source estimates an annual loss of 4,6 Billion dollars - 0,5% of the GNP. "Another serious economic challenge in Mexico is related to the violence taking place in some regions of Mexico after President Calderón’s campaign against organized crime and drug trafficking. The escalation of violence has resulted in increased risk aversion which has impacted foreign investment flows, particularly in the manufacturing industry. The costs from the drug trade far outweigh any of the benefits that drug-trafficking and associated crime might bring in terms of increased cash flows or positive spill-over effects. Some estimates of the costs associated with violence, investment losses, drug abuse, and other direct costs are estimated at $4.6 billion per year, or 0.5% of GDP.64 Costs could be even higher when taking into account the indirect costs of large numbers of violence-related outward migration, which lowers Mexico’s potential growth rate.65 The city planning department of Juárez estimates 116,000 homes were abandoned as of early 2010 because of the violence. This could translate into a population of up to 400,000 people, one-third of the city, that has migrated.66 Violence has also had a severe impact on

employment in Juárez, with the city losing 23.9% (91,940) of it formal jobs.67 Some analysts believe that Mexico must increase investor confidence to remain competitive because the drug violence is causing anxiety and uncertainty among investors. Cd. Juárez, which is close to the border with the United States and where much of the manufacturing industry is located, was, until recently, considered an attractive city for foreign investors and for doing business. However, the border violence that has erupted since Mexico’s crackdown on organized crime has changed the business environment and business leaders have been forced to take steps in increasing security in manufacturing plants such as abolishing overtime so that workers can go home before sunset. The Asociación de Maquiladoras, a local trade group located in Juárez, states that some foreign investors have passed on opening plants in Juárez since 2008, but that this was due to the recession and not to the increase in violence."·Maunus·ƛ· 00:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mexico is a major drug-producing and drug-transit country and is also one of the major conduits for proceeds from illegal drug sales leaving the United States. Proceeds from the illicit drug trade are the principal source of funds laundered through the Mexican financial and commercial systems. Other major sources of illegal proceeds being laundered include corruption, kidnapping, trafficking in firearms and persons, and other crimes. The smuggling of bulk shipments of U.S. currency into Mexico and the repatriation of the cash into the United States via couriers, armored vehicles, and wire transfers remain favored methods for laundering drug proceeds. In addition, criminal organizations have established networks with criminal groups based in other countries to facilitate and develop new methods to transport, transfer, and launder illicit funds. Estimates range from $8 billion to $25 billion being repatriated to Mexico from the U.S. annually by drug trafficking organizations." [8] - U.S. State Department

"major drug-producing nation; cultivation of opium poppy in 2007 rose to 6,900 hectares yielding a potential production of 18 metric tons of pure heroin, or 50 metric tons of "black tar" heroin, the dominant form of Mexican heroin in the western United States; marijuana cultivation increased to 8,900 hectares in 2007 and yielded a potential production of 15,800 metric tons; government conducts the largest independent illicit-crop eradication program in the world; continues as the primary transshipment country for US-bound cocaine from South America, with an estimated 90% of annual cocaine movements toward the US stopping in Mexico; major drug syndicates control the majority of drug trafficking throughout the country; producer and distributor of ecstasy; significant money-laundering center; major supplier of heroin and largest foreign supplier of marijuana and methamphetamine to the US market (2007)" [9] - CIA World Factbook —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.8.168 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If 18 Billion in remittances qualifies as significant, then surely 8 to 25 Billion in drugs revenue should count too. Pinning down any single source which provides detailed numbers has been difficult, unfortunately. Would it be more appropriate to add what drug revenue information there is under its own subsection? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.8.168 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is high time that this article either be revised to at least acknowledge the presence of illegal drug trafficking and the violence associated with it. The facts, as given in the notes above, are clear, verifiable and significant. If the present editor(s) refuse to take care of this, then the Wikipedia community needs to take note and take action. Poihths (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Do you have any sources on drug trafficking and Mexico's economy? ComputerJA (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lanix KIP.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Lanix KIP.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of section[edit]

This section was removed. It was the only information in the article about the most important aspect of the Mexican economy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption[edit]

An April 2012 article in The New York Times reported that a former executive of Wal-Mart de Mexico alleged in September 2005 that Wal-Mart de Mexico had paid bribes via local fixers called gestores to officials throughout Mexico in order to obtain construction permits, information, and other favors, that Wal-Mart investigators found credible evidence that Mexican and American laws had been broken, and that Wal-Mart executives in the United States "hushed up" the allegations. Reportedly, envelopes of cash produced dramatic results in a wide variety of situations and with both high and low level Mexican officials and functionaries. Rapidly obtaining construction permits gave Walmart a substantial advantage over its business competitors.[1]

  1. ^ Barstow, David. "Vast Mexican Bribery Case Hushed Up by Wal-Mart After High-Level Struggle". The New York Times. April 21, 2012. Retrieved April 22, 2012.
  • A corruption scandal regarding Wall-Mart de Mexico is not the most important aspect of Mexican economy. Indeed while the topic of corruption itself is important and should be included in the article, it is also not "the most important aspect of Mexican economy". We should have a section on corruption but it should be based on academic publications on the topic (of which I am sure there are many) and not on a single recentist news story about one particular case. Including it as is is clearly against both WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. I would be happy to collaborate with you in writing a section about the significance of corruption to the Mexican economy, but it would have to conform to the asic principles of encyclopedic value.
Here are some sources we should start by consulting: Stephen D. Morris. (2009) Political Corruption in Mexico: The Impact of Democratization. [10] [11][12][13][14][15]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, cash is more important than socks when packing. Now all we have is silence. Neither the Mexican people, visitors, or foreign businessmen have what what they need to know. They might think they can just offer cash without using a gestor as an intermediary. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That said, by all means please add information from those sources. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With the exception of http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Political_Science/people/documents/ThePoliticalEconomyofNarco-CorruptioninMexico.pdf those sources are both inferior, blaming corruption on the PRI which is long out of power, and behind paywalls. The accessible PDF file, "The Political Economy of Narco-Corruption in Mexico" is 14 years old and concerned with narcotics corruption, not the everyday grind of trying to conduct ordinary business. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are still immensely more useful than a news report on a single case of corruption. There must be more recent books on Mexcian economy that can be used of course, I'll look for some.[16][17]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more general NYT's article which follows up http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/world/americas/bribery-tolerated-even-as-it-hurts-mexican-economy.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source they cite Mexico: Illicit Financial Flows, Macroeconomic Imbalances, and the Underground Economy A January 2012 Report from Global Financial Integrity User:Fred Bauder Talk 09:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those should be good to work with combined with the OECD and the political corruption stuff.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More: "COMPARMEX Reveals New Statistics on Corruption" "Gastan empresas 10% de sus ingresos en actos de corrupción: Coparmex" "Sector patronal urge a combatir la corrupción" User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good. I am sorry for not having worked on this - i am a little tied up elsewhere, ut I am looking forward to coming back and writing this section if you don't beat me to it. The lack of a section on the impact of the drug war and of general corruption on the Mexican economy has been a longstanding problem.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC484%7CMexico&source=1%7CITC) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Mexico. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Mexico by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Economy of Mexico[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Economy of Mexico's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "IMF":

  • From Egypt: Enders, Klaus. "Egypt: Reforms Trigger Economic Growth". International Monetary Fund. Retrieved 2 February 2011. In its most recent review of Egypt's economy, the IMF has said the expansion has broadened from energy, construction, and telecommunications to labor-intensive sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing.
  • From Economy of Pakistan: "Economy's size swells to $245 billion PKR". Retrieved 2014-03-31.
  • From Economy of Peru: "Peru and the IMF". International Monetary Fund.
  • From Germany: "Germany". International Monetary Fund. October 2014. Retrieved 2 November 2014.
  • From Economy of Armenia: [18], IMF
  • From Economy of Iran: World Economic Outlook Database (Iran). International Monetary Fund (2010). Retrieved July 25, 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Economy of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economy of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Economy of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Size of labor force?[edit]

The article as of August 6 2016 gives the size of Mexico's labor force as 78 million, but the World Bank web site's listing gives 55.6 million as of 2014: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.TOTL.IN. I've added a citation needed tag for now. Xelkman (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Economy of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Economy of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding topic of 'Food [in]security' Suggestion[edit]

The poverty section mentions 'food insecurity' at the end of the second paragraph but mentions nothing afterwards. I feel that the inclusion of a section or a redirect to a new page on the issue of food insecurity would be a good addition to this page. Jk956 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Economy of Mexico. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs updating[edit]

The article would be much improved by citing data less than years old. Amuseclio (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Amuseclio[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_Mexico&oldid=1194058715"