Whatever happened to made in Mexico?

[hector]

A quick Google suggests we have similar amount of trade with both ($650B).

I think the us-mexico supply chains are just super complex, with parts and unfinished products moving back and forth across the border multiple times. Hence tags like "made in the US with Mexican parts" and such. That was why people shit a brick when Trump wanted to close the border.

I wouldn’t doubt the actual numbers; I never looked them up. The usual filter between my brain and words typed onto the forum was short-circuited when I decided to start the thread.

If the supply lines are that complex, that seems silly to me. I know there’s some similar silliness with the catch and processing of seafood between the US and Asia, but Mexico literally is right there!! Why haven’t the supply logistics been figured out?

I would imagine that a US company could build factories just on the Mexican side to do end-to-end manufacturing and ship the finished product to the US. Hell, that probably does happen all ready.

Lots of stuff is made in Mexico. Especially car stuff. If I recall correctly, the Hemi engine used to be made exclusively in Mexico.

[alek]

Lots of stuff is made in Mexico. Especially car stuff. If I recall correctly, the Hemi engine used to be made exclusively in Mexico.

Yeah, I believe that.

Here's my thing. It's hard for me to believe that once upon a time, someone or some group, thought to themselves, "Instead of investing more in our neighbors [Mexico, Canada, the rest of the countries on this giant landmass], let's invest a bunch of money and effort into trading with a country that's across the Pacific Ocean to the point where they will be in the top 3 of the list of US trade partners," and thought that would be a good idea.

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

[hector]

Lots of stuff is made in Mexico. Especially car stuff. If I recall correctly, the Hemi engine used to be made exclusively in Mexico.

Yeah, I believe that.

Here's my thing. It's hard for me to believe that once upon a time, someone or some group, thought to themselves, "Instead of investing more in our neighbors [Mexico, Canada, the rest of the countries on this giant landmass], let's invest a bunch of money and effort into trading with a country that's across the Pacific Ocean to the point where they will be in the top 3 of the list of US trade partners," and thought that would be a good idea.

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

Better for who?
It's a tough question.
For most of my life I thought trade encouraged peace. I still do, in the aggregate.
But, as the doctor mentioned earlier, it seems the US is becoming more like China than China is the US.

I think it's possible that in terms of liberal values the US would have been better off with that investment going to Mexico, that we would have been less likely to mimic China's authoritarianism.

Mexico certainly would have been better off. Not only wealthier, but the legitimate economy might have crowded out some cartel activity, and a better funded police and military might have more capably fought the cartels.

Some Chinese poor people would have been infinitely worse off though, much poorer than they are now. And the Uyghers might be better off.

[JonA]

Here's my thing. It's hard for me to believe that once upon a time, someone or some group, thought to themselves, "Instead of investing more in our neighbors [Mexico, Canada, the rest of the countries on this giant landmass], let's invest a bunch of money and effort into trading with a country that's across the Pacific Ocean to the point where they will be in the top 3 of the list of US trade partners," and thought that would be a good idea.

I think most of them thought the money would be flowing the other way. A developing country with 1.4 billion people looking to buy American products.

[hsilman]

I think most of them thought the money would be flowing the other way. A developing country with 1.4 billion people looking to buy American products.

As I recall, this was a significant part of the rhetoric. Didn't quite work out like that.

[Hardartery]

Lots of stuff is made in Mexico. Especially car stuff. If I recall correctly, the Hemi engine used to be made exclusively in Mexico.

Yeah, I believe that.

Here's my thing. It's hard for me to believe that once upon a time, someone or some group, thought to themselves, "Instead of investing more in our neighbors [Mexico, Canada, the rest of the countries on this giant landmass], let's invest a bunch of money and effort into trading with a country that's across the Pacific Ocean to the point where they will be in the top 3 of the list of US trade partners," and thought that would be a good idea.

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

Better for who?
It's a tough question.
For most of my life I thought trade encouraged peace. I still do, in the aggregate.
But, as the doctor mentioned earlier, it seems the US is becoming more like China than China is the US.

I think it's possible that in terms of liberal values the US would have been better off with that investment going to Mexico, that we would have been less likely to mimic China's authoritarianism.

Mexico certainly would have been better off. Not only wealthier, but the legitimate economy might have crowded out some cartel activity, and a better funded police and military might have more capably fought the cartels.
Some Chinese poor people would have been infinitely worse off though, much poorer than they are now. And the Uyghers might be better off.

Speaking from experience in Latin America here, but not much in Mexico as I haven't been there much personally (Although I know quite a few people in various parts of Mexico). The level of corruption in the police as a whole is difficult for an American or Canadian to comprehend, If something bad happens, like a robbery or kidnapping or non-domestic disturbance murder, the police are probably involved. At a minimum. No one trusts the police, and you do not call them for help because they don't do that. Better funding is irrelevant, it's a systemic problem and part of the culture. It would require a large scale cultural change to be different. So the problem became that the protectionist rallying point was job loss to Mexico because that's where a lot of manufacturing went, because cheap wages and lax/non-existent standards (Like OSHA stuff) and lack of Unions meant lower cost for the company to produce things. Shipping was cheap, so the math dictated that you make stuff where labour costs are low to maximize profits. This is very demonized in the US and seen as costing good paying jobs and hurting Americans for the good of corporate profits. And it kind of is, but not really.
Short term there is a loss of "Good" jobs, but lower inflation as the cost of goods is kept down in an essentially artificial manner. The long term is that the developing country starts to build a middle class and experience and ever increasing standard of living over time because of the influx of money to the workers. This results in a trading partner over time with a bigger economy and similar standard of living and a culture heavily influenced by the US. This also means that at smoe point the jobs also leave that country in favour of a less developed country with lower labour costs. Everything used to say "ade in Taiwan", then "Made in Japan", then "Made in China". There was also "Made in Mexico" in there and a few others. There is a lot of stuff still made in Mexico being sold in the US, walk into a Northern Tool and you will be surrounded by it. The same stuff is sold under the brand name Truper in Central America. Even when it has a sticker advertising something different, a lot of that stuff was really made in Mexico, it is just assembled in the US or all of the parts are made in the US and it is assembled in Mexico. There are ways around the rules while still netting the profits and getting that "Made in USA" sticker on it. The result over all was the amalgamation of some industries. A US company bought one of the main Canadian steel producers and shut everything down to eliminate the competition (Stelco). The other big one is also now foreign owned but not American (Dofasco). There are many other examples. The net result was a lot of merging. Tim Hortons was partnered with Wendys, and is now part of Burger King, much to the detriment of Tim Hortons. The same thing happened with some Mexican interests, but mostly stuff was just mothballed there when production was too difficult becasue of politics or corruption issues.

[mikeylikey]

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

For sure, like just the other day after I got done eating a salad of dollars I went and filled my gas tank with dollars and then drove to the doctor for a sinus infection and he prescribed me 2 dollars twice per day with a glass of dollars and I was all better.

[JonA]

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

For sure, like just the other day after I got done eating a salad of dollars I went and filled my gas tank with dollars and then drove to the doctor for a sinus infection and he prescribed me 2 dollars twice per day with a glass of dollars and I was all better.

Boomers be like:. "Why can't you get a summer job and pay for things? That's what I did!" But they only had to fill their gas tanks with nickels.

[Culican]

For sure, like just the other day after I got done eating a salad of dollars I went and filled my gas tank with dollars and then drove to the doctor for a sinus infection and he prescribed me 2 dollars twice per day with a glass of dollars and I was all better.

Well at least they are good for something.

[DoctorWho]

I think most of them thought the money would be flowing the other way. A developing country with 1.4 billion people looking to buy American products.

As I recall, this was a significant part of the rhetoric. Didn't quite work out like that.

A lot to agree with, but I think the conclusion is even worse. Trade and limited market mechanisms DID produce big improvements in standards of living for a lot of China citizens. But they seem perfectly happy with self-censorship, social credit scores, and living in a kinda-sometimes-benevolent-to-some totalitarian state. (Some of this is almost certainly partly wrong)

Weird thing is that many Rs think that's just what the Ds want, and many Ds think that's just what the Rs want. And each will give up some freedom to stick it to the other.

[hector]

Lots of stuff is made in Mexico. Especially car stuff. If I recall correctly, the Hemi engine used to be made exclusively in Mexico.

Yeah, I believe that.

Here's my thing. It's hard for me to believe that once upon a time, someone or some group, thought to themselves, "Instead of investing more in our neighbors [Mexico, Canada, the rest of the countries on this giant landmass], let's invest a bunch of money and effort into trading with a country that's across the Pacific Ocean to the point where they will be in the top 3 of the list of US trade partners," and thought that would be a good idea.

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

Better for who?
It's a tough question.
For most of my life I thought trade encouraged peace. I still do, in the aggregate.
But, as the doctor mentioned earlier, it seems the US is becoming more like China than China is the US.

I think it's possible that in terms of liberal values the US would have been better off with that investment going to Mexico, that we would have been less likely to mimic China's authoritarianism.

Mexico certainly would have been better off. Not only wealthier, but the legitimate economy might have crowded out some cartel activity, and a better funded police and military might have more capably fought the cartels.
Some Chinese poor people would have been infinitely worse off though, much poorer than they are now. And the Uyghers might be better off.

Speaking from experience in Latin America here, but not much in Mexico as I haven't been there much personally (Although I know quite a few people in various parts of Mexico). The level of corruption in the police as a whole is difficult for an American or Canadian to comprehend, If something bad happens, like a robbery or kidnapping or non-domestic disturbance murder, the police are probably involved. At a minimum. No one trusts the police, and you do not call them for help because they don't do that. Better funding is irrelevant, it's a systemic problem and part of the culture. It would require a large scale cultural change to be different. So the problem became that the protectionist rallying point was job loss to Mexico because that's where a lot of manufacturing went, because cheap wages and lax/non-existent standards (Like OSHA stuff) and lack of Unions meant lower cost for the company to produce things. Shipping was cheap, so the math dictated that you make stuff where labour costs are low to maximize profits. This is very demonized in the US and seen as costing good paying jobs and hurting Americans for the good of corporate profits. And it kind of is, but not really.
Short term there is a loss of "Good" jobs, but lower inflation as the cost of goods is kept down in an essentially artificial manner. The long term is that the developing country starts to build a middle class and experience and ever increasing standard of living over time because of the influx of money to the workers. This results in a trading partner over time with a bigger economy and similar standard of living and a culture heavily influenced by the US. This also means that at smoe point the jobs also leave that country in favour of a less developed country with lower labour costs. Everything used to say "ade in Taiwan", then "Made in Japan", then "Made in China". There was also "Made in Mexico" in there and a few others. There is a lot of stuff still made in Mexico being sold in the US, walk into a Northern Tool and you will be surrounded by it. The same stuff is sold under the brand name Truper in Central America. Even when it has a sticker advertising something different, a lot of that stuff was really made in Mexico, it is just assembled in the US or all of the parts are made in the US and it is assembled in Mexico. There are ways around the rules while still netting the profits and getting that "Made in USA" sticker on it. The result over all was the amalgamation of some industries. A US company bought one of the main Canadian steel producers and shut everything down to eliminate the competition (Stelco). The other big one is also now foreign owned but not American (Dofasco). There are many other examples. The net result was a lot of merging. Tim Hortons was partnered with Wendys, and is now part of Burger King, much to the detriment of Tim Hortons. The same thing happened with some Mexican interests, but mostly stuff was just mothballed there when production was too difficult becasue of politics or corruption issues.

I agree with everything you wrote, except the part about better funding not impacting corruption and corruption being cultural.
A better paid police would be more expensive to buy off. Police that were harder to buy off would be more resistant to corruption, and so wouldn't as much perpetuate a culture of corruption.
If my local police department suddenly got paid Mexican wages and weren't allowed to leave their jobs I would expect immediate corruption, despite the local American "culture."

[alek]

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

For sure, like just the other day after I got done eating a salad of dollars I went and filled my gas tank with dollars and then drove to the doctor for a sinus infection and he prescribed me 2 dollars twice per day with a glass of dollars and I was all better.

Is this a retort to the penis joke? If not, is it a joke I’m too privileged to understand?

Either way, I don’t get it.

[Philbert]

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

For sure, like just the other day after I got done eating a salad of dollars I went and filled my gas tank with dollars and then drove to the doctor for a sinus infection and he prescribed me 2 dollars twice per day with a glass of dollars and I was all better.

Is this a retort to the penis joke? If not, is it a joke I’m too privileged to understand?

Either way, I don’t get it.

It is a joke about the utility of money, in the absence of stuff for sale.

[Hardartery]

I agree with everything you wrote, except the part about better funding not impacting corruption and corruption being cultural.
A better paid police would be more expensive to buy off. Police that were harder to buy off would be more resistant to corruption, and so wouldn't as much perpetuate a culture of corruption.
If my local police department suddenly got paid Mexican wages and weren't allowed to leave their jobs I would expect immediate corruption, despite the local American "culture."

I gree better funding might have an impact, but given the attitude regarding it both among the people in general and the police themselves I don't think it would have an appreciable impact other than maybe make the greedier ones even worse and more flagrant. If they were too proud to be bought, that would make a difference. There is corruption possible in any police force, it certainly has happened in the US and other Western countries, it at least isn't open and accepted there which limits it. Everyone just seems to accept it as a fact of life in Latin America and Africa for the most part which doesn't discourage it. It is less prevalent in places where the culture attitude is that it is unacceptable and beneath them. Pride is a huge factor, especially in machismo cultures. Maybe I am wrong there, but I think that has a bigger impact than pay because it also would change who wants to be a cop in that culture. Open corruption draws the corrupt and people that want easy money, instead of people that want to be actual public servants.

[Oldandfat]

How long have you had those boots? I remember once upon a time looking into them since they were much cheaper than AE. Then I think Covid happened, and I lost interest.

I have a pair of these that I wear daily in 3 seasons. They are holding up just fine after a little over a year. Normal scuffs and discoloration from wearing them when there's a bunch of snow and salt down. I can probably get rid of all of the marks if I took the time.

Some fraying of the tongue at the top, no wear on the eyelets or sole. I will continue to buy them because I originally bought a pair when they donated hundreds to our shelter. Good company.

Fender is producing some very nice guitars out of Mexico. Like really nice. Player plus series. Absolutely fantastic quality and playability.

They hold their own against anything out there.

Mexican fenders have been the gold standard of price to performance ratio for as long as I can remember.

If you haven’t, you should check out the player plus series. Absolutely knocked it put of the park again.

[hsilman]

If you haven’t, you should check out the player plus series. Absolutely knocked it put of the park again.

Jesus, $1100 and not even made in America? Prices are getting crazy.

[alek]

I'm not an isolationist or anything, but I can't help but think how 650 billion dollars could have a positive impact on North and South America. We're getting into "If my aunt had a penis, then she'd be my uncle." territory, but suppose we had invested half that 650 billion a year into Mexico. What good things could have come out of that, not only for Mexico, but the US as well? I'm not naive enough to believe that would solve all our problems, or Mexico's, but I bet things would be different... and better.

For sure, like just the other day after I got done eating a salad of dollars I went and filled my gas tank with dollars and then drove to the doctor for a sinus infection and he prescribed me 2 dollars twice per day with a glass of dollars and I was all better.

Is this a retort to the penis joke? If not, is it a joke I’m too privileged to understand?

Either way, I don’t get it.

It is a joke about the utility of money, in the absence of stuff for sale.

Okay. That leaves me with more questions, but whatever.

[Oldandfat]

If you haven’t, you should check out the player plus series. Absolutely knocked it put of the park again.

Jesus, $1100 and not even made in America? Prices are getting crazy.

In 2004 I bought an American deluxe strat. Hands down my favorite guitar to play. Until the player plus came out.

It’s just as well made as my amdeluxe and has all the same features. Player plus is almost half the amdeluxe in price.

1100 is very reasonable for what you get. Fender Mexico is pumping out some great stuff. And not just fender. Charvel (fender) is awesome too.

[mikeylikey]

It is a joke about the utility of money, in the absence of stuff for sale.

Okay. That leaves me with more questions, but whatever.

I think most people get trade exactly backwards. Typically it goes something like this: "gosh we sent $650b to China, think what we could have Done With That Money here." But, as I alluded to, the correct answer is "fuck all" because money is pretty useless by itself.

There are two parts to the way I look at this:

Part 1 ) The only reason we sent the $650b to China is because people there are willing to make us toasters and sunglasses and other Stuff(tm) for about a quarter what anybody else would want to be paid. So, they got $650b worth of money and we got a pile of consumption goods that would have cost upwards of $2t if we had it made somewhere labor costs more. That's like getting >$1t worth of free stuff. The question then shouldn't be "what could we have done with the $650b we spent on Stuff(tm)" it should be "what are we going to do with the $1.5t we saved not making it here."

Part 2) The Money doesn't stay in China*. At the end of the day the only reason a Dollar has any value to a foreigner is that you can buy American stuff with it or trade it to somebody who wants American stuff. Chinese people can't put dollars in their gas tanks or their supper dish any more than we can. So they spend the dollars on American stuff... specifically, Airplanes followed by Soybeans according to google. So the correct way of thinking about "Sending $650b to China" is that we are sending them planes and beans in exchange for toasters and sunglasses, but we're sending them HALF the number of planes and beans we would have had to send Mexicans for the same amount of toasters and sunglasses.


*And if it did, that would be even better; we get toasters and sunglasses and they get little pieces of paper. Literally, free stuff. Which is what happens in a currency war.

[alek]

It is a joke about the utility of money, in the absence of stuff for sale.

Okay. That leaves me with more questions, but whatever.

I think most people get trade exactly backwards. Typically it goes something like this: "gosh we sent $650b to China, think what we could have Done With That Money here." But, as I alluded to, the correct answer is "fuck all" because money is pretty useless by itself.

Well yes, money is only useful as a currency when you can exchange it for goods.

There are two parts to the way I look at this:

Part 1 ) The only reason we sent the $650b to China is because people there are willing to make us toasters and sunglasses and other Stuff(tm) for about a quarter what anybody else would want to be paid. So, they got $650b worth of money and we got a pile of consumption goods that would have cost upwards of $2t if we had it made somewhere labor costs more. That's like getting >$1t worth of free stuff. The question then shouldn't be "what could we have done with the $650b we spent on Stuff(tm)" it should be "what are we going to do with the $1.5t we saved not making it here."

I'm not going to claim to be any type of expert on trade, but to the above, I say, "Maybe." The $650b a year didn't just happen overnight--at least I assume it didn't--it increased as we did more and more business with China over the years and decades. And this is where the penis joke comes in: we cannot know what the outcomes would have been had the US invested the money into Mexico, or anywhere else, way back when instead of in China. If only this... If only that... Useless.

Things may cost more; things may cost less; :shrugs:

Part 2) The Money doesn't stay in China*. At the end of the day the only reason a Dollar has any value to a foreigner is that you can buy American stuff with it or trade it to somebody who wants American stuff. Chinese people can't put dollars in their gas tanks or their supper dish any more than we can. So they spend the dollars on American stuff... specifically, Airplanes followed by Soybeans according to google. So the correct way of thinking about "Sending $650b to China" is that we are sending them planes and beans in exchange for toasters and sunglasses, but we're sending them HALF the number of planes and beans we would have had to send Mexicans for the same amount of toasters and sunglasses.


*And if it did, that would be even better; we get toasters and sunglasses and they get little pieces of paper. Literally, free stuff. Which is what happens in a currency war.

Eh, I think this is where I'm injecting my values into the discussion. I'd rather be sending stuff to our neighbors*.

*To add: for this discussion, my definition of neighbor is any country on the continents of North and South America.