Mexico pwned by narcoterrorists: Anti-kidnap chief kidnapped

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Honestly, I don't see why we don't pull most of our foriegn aid form everywhere else and try our best to reform/help that festering **** hole that is Mexico. You would think with it being right there we would care more about it.

Probably the best solution to the illegal immigration problem right there.

How much do we spend on foreign aid per year? $10 billion or so?

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Honestly, I don't see why we don't pull most of our foriegn aid form everywhere else and try our best to reform/help that festering **** hole that is Mexico.

Maybe it's because the people who control the aid don't want to see millions of Africans die of starvation and disease?

[Patroklos]

Africa is close to Europe = Europe's problem. Whatever happened to spheres of influence?

Probably the best solution to the illegal immigration problem right there.

Coupled with deporting as many illegally residing Mexican citizens as possible, yes. I think people forget this, they are not anonymous exiles but legal citizens of another country, who should take responsibility for them.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo


It's not even close to the richest latin american country by any measure if you mean per capita income. Do you mean that it has the largest gdp of any latin american country and are you for some reason excluding Brazil from latin america if that is the case?

In per capita terms only Chile comes close.

http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/countries/latam/latgdppc.htm

Barnabas might be right about PPP terms but I haven't looked it up. Back in the 90's Argentina was almost at the top but then they had a financial meltdown and the local currency went in the toilet.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Barnabas
Mexico has the highest nominal per capita income, but in ppp it is well behind Chile and Argentina.
The souther cone countries Chile Argentina (and Uruguay) are still the ones with the highest standard of life by far.

Mexico also has the benefit of sending the poorest members of its society to the USA.

Yes, Mexico's numbers are greatly helped by sending the poorest to the US where they work and send money back to relatives in Mexico. No doubt about that.

I had to look it up but in PPP terms certain small island nations in the Caribbean have the highest per capita GDP due to tiny populations and one big industry (tourism in the Bahamas, which is technically the richest in Latin America, and oil in Trinadad, which is the second richest per capita in PPP terms. Of the large countries it seems the cone does indeed slightly edge out Mexico in PPP terms using 2005 data. I'm not sure if things have changed due to currency fluctuations over the last 2 years though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Coupled with deporting as many illegally residing Mexican citizens as possible, yes. I think people forget this, they are not anonymous exiles but legal citizens of another country, who should take responsibility for them.

That won't happen. Mexico relays up the US as a safety valve to take in large numbers of young males who would other wise be unemployed and standing on street corners causing problems. There is no way the Mexican government wants them back if it can avoid it.

Mexico's big problem is that the haves control everything and have set up the system exclusively for their benefit. Seriously, the country has one of the lowest tax rates of any country on Earth despite being in the lower upper class of income countries. The rich and middle classes won't even pay for schools or roads in the country so the poor are totally ****ed with virtually no education, no running water in the villages, and no paved roads leading to most of those villages. There is the added complication of race where virtually all the rich are white Spaniards and the poor are natives or Mestistos. The whites don't see why they should lower their standards of living to help the natives so you're screwed even if you're a poor white person.

Oil money has made up the difference between taxation and expenditures since the 1950's when nationalization occurred. However, due to government neglect the oil sector hasn't seen a lot of reinvestment (as the government has taken the profits and spent them else where) so out put is declining rapidly. They're going to have to do something (read: raise taxes on the rich) to find more money or they're going to have to slash their already WAAAAYYYYYY underfunded services.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Africa is close to Europe = Europe's problem.

Fortunately, those in power don't (always) think like that. When people are starving, and your aid dollars can do more good in one place than in another, they don't care whose "sphere of influence" they fall under

[Dinner]

BTW I'm talking about total taxation as a percentage of GDP when I say Mexico has one of the lowest tax rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW I'm talking about total taxation as a percentage of GDP when I way Mexico has one of the lowest tax rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ta...otal-as-of-gdp

That doesn't include Mexico, as far as I can see.

[Berzerker]

You can't see the other possible parsing of that sentence?

I do today, just had my coffee

[Lawrence of Arabia]

That doesn't include Mexico, as far as I can see.

??? its the first one on the left.

[Dinner]

He's linked a graph to another site.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

That doesn't include Mexico, as far as I can see.

??? its the first one on the left.

Wow. You're not having a good couple of days, are you?

First you demonstrate that 4 years of courses in economics have left you with little understanding of a statistical concept as simple as standard deviation, now this...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

sample variance Var(X_bar)/n goes to zero as sample size n increases. FACT. this property used to prove LLN.
after a decade of uni still not knowing the difference between sample and population variances: PATHETIC.
not clicking on a link: dumb mistake.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
sample variance Var(X_bar)/n goes to zero as sample size n increases.

Thanks for accepting my point, numbskull.

The variance of an ensemble of calculated mean values decreases as the number of measurements used to calculate each mean value increases. The variance of an ensemble of individual measurements of a value does not decrease. This is the fourth time I've explained that to you, yet you still refuse to acknowledge that what you said here:

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

Let's make this absolutely clear: you are claiming that the standard deviation of any set of independent dice rolls approaches 0 as the size of the set approaches infinity?

thats correct. its called the Law of Large Numbers. The variance of X_bar which is equal to sigma^2/n approaches zero as n increases.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4908148#post4908148

is idiotic...

Do you honestly not understand the difference between the standard deviation of a set and the standard error on the mean of a set?