Talk:Economy of Mexico

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Economy of Mexico is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
June 13, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
A rated as A-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] older entries

> 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 This article is at least three years out of date...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

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

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."


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

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)


[edit] Changes

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)

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)


[edit] Income

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)

[edit] contradiction?

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."

???

[edit] doingbusiness.org

This link: (English) & (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)

[edit] Overhaul of this article

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Income vs. Foreign Income

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Mexican Economy

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)
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)


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)

[edit] A break

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)

[edit] oldest surviving financial institution in Mexico

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

[edit] Design

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)

Are you using IE or Firefox? --theDúnadan 00:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
Is there a way to make these changes browser specific? Hari Seldon 18:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] ftas

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)

[edit] GDP unclear

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)

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)

[edit] Workforce

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)