Re: Argentine's elections

At 20:40 14/5/95 -0400, Victor Storey wrote:
>	Ken Price expresses an idea - that Mexico is in a stage of 
>development like the US was in 100 years ago - that neoliberal critics of 
>the PRI love to cite, but it is this very point that makes these 
>neoliberals lose their credibility.  There is not a serious scholar in 
>the world who would make this argument.  Ken is insisting on ignoring 50 
>years of knowledge.  It is 1995 in Mexico, not 1895.  Mexico is not 
>building 19th century industry for a 19th century market - Mexico is 
>building late 20th century businesses for todays world market.  Arguing 
>that Mexico is in the past may feel good to proponents of capitalism, as 
>it is a way for them to avoid facing up to the failure of capitalism to 
>develop democratically in Mexico, but the argument is useful only as a 
>sermon to the converted.  Businessmen like the idea because it is 
>self-justifying.  But there is no way that Mexico can go through a 
>historical process of development that will mirror the USA 1895-1995 - 
>the USA was not Mexico of today in 1895 was it?  Did the US have a more 
>developed industrial neighbor with the relationship it has with us?  Did 
>the US seek to open its markets via a NAFTA?  
>The comparison is false.  Here we have reached the dead end of the 
>neoliberal argument.  It is historically shallow.  The question is not 
>how Mexico can relive the last 100 years of US history - it cannot - the 
>question is how Mexico can find its own way in the 21st century.  Nothing 
>in the US past provides a model.


Perhaps I did not do a good enough job expressing my opinion my perception
of Mexican business, so allow me to try once again-

First, I do NOT believe that ALL Mexican companies are in the 19th century,
in any way, shape or form. There are many Mexican companies able to complete
on world markets, and their products are competitive in both price and quality.

However, the companies that were purchased by "friends" of the Salinas
group, such as Mexicana, TelMex, etc. were bought by people looking for a
quick peso, and most companies came with some form of implied monopoly where
the buyers could get back their purchase price as quickly as possible.

100 years ago in the U.S.A., services such as railroads, oil companies etc.
were monopolies, just as TelMex is today. Their abuse of the public resulted
in anti-trust legislation and the breakup of those large companies in order
to insure competition. I believe that NAFTA is going to be one (but only
one) of the factors that force Mexico to do something that will have the
same effect. The business practices of some of the privatized industries is
similar to the business practices of the "robber baron" companies of 100
years ago in the U.S.A., and that is the point I was unsuccessfully trying
to make in my previous posting.

As in the U.S. early this century, Mexico is moveing toward a market where
monopolies are no longer possible, be they state or private. It is that
situation that I made reference to.

Ken Price

-+-+-                                 Kenneth M. Price
                PanAmerican Consulting Associates, Inc.
            <>Greenville, SC, USA <> Irapuato, Gto. Mexico <>  
    kenprice@sunbelt.net <> kenprice@mcimail.com <> 72646.2107@compuserve.com