3 ms·

Is Mexico really a zero supply chain risk? I don't know much about the cartels or violence in Mexico, but that's the first thing I think of when you describe M

by Teever 4y ago

Is Mexico really a zero supply chain risk? I don't know much about the cartels or violence in Mexico, but that's the first thing I think of when you describe Mexico as low risk.

brendoelfrendo 4y ago
It's unquestionable that violent crime in Mexico has gone up over the past several years, but the question is: does that represent a supply chain risk? I don't have the data, but it doesn't seem like cartels or violent criminals typically target civilian manufacturing infrastructure. Mexico has a lot of manufacturing already, and a relatively healthy demographic distribution (that is, unlike the US and some other developed countries, they actually have enough young folks to replace the old folks leaving the workforce). I feel like Mexico would have to try very hard to fail at being a manufacturing powerhouse in North America. As an aside, this is a good reason for the US to really strengthen its relationship with Mexico and try to help Mexico fix its problems; the US is probably going to be even more dependent on Mexican manufacturing in the future when this whole supply chain shuffle shakes out.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  The cartels generally don't wanna destroy the factories. They wanna tax them.
- anonAndOn 4y ago
  >try to help Mexico fix its problems Do you mean like returning the former Defense Minister to Mexico before trial? It's so nice that we can "help". [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/salvador-cienfuegos-zepeda-dismissal-drug-trafficking-charges-mexican-general/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/salvador-cienfuegos-zepeda-dism...
wsinks 4y ago
I think their parenthetical about a maquiladora on the border was the hedge on Mexico as zero supply chain risk. There is increased cartel risk. I follow a former White House geopolitical analyst after I met him at a conference. Here's his latest talk on Mexico: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yilSJg5CMd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yilSJg5CMd4
- toolz 4y ago
  This guy speaks with a great deal of confidence. I love listening to him talk, but the claims he make are breathtaking and he seems to make them without a second thought. For that reason I was curious to see what sort of predictions he's made in the past and see how accurate he has been. Well, maybe not quite as powerful at predictions as he is at making geopolitical claims. (He made a bunch of claims in 2009, for the coming decade I'll paraphrase and link to his predictions) He claimed the middle eastern wars would be withdrawn from and the world would see it as American weakness. That appears to be incorrect from any metric I can find. He claimed chinas economy would collapse within the decade in 2009. Well, that's not anywhere approaching corret. He claimed Germany in the same timeframe would ascend to late 1930 levels of political power. I'm not sure how to quantify that, but I sincerely doubt anyone looks at Germany as strongly as they looked in late 1930s. He predicted Russia would push their western front, but I'm not so sure that was a bold prediction given the russia-georgia war, but he's definitely correct here. Made a soft prediction of an eastern asia conflict due to Japans collapsing demographics, not correct, but not a strong prediction either. Concluded by saying we're going to invert into a deflationary economy, which also appears to be very wrong. I don't know nearly enough to call the guy out by any means, but I do take his word with a lot of hesitancy. I can't think of anyone who speaks as boldly and confidently across such a large domain without feeling the need to evidence their claims. https://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-predictions-for-the-next-decade-2010-1#china-doomed-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-predictions-for-the...
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    > He claimed Germany in the same timeframe would ascend to late 1930 levels of political power. I'm not sure how to quantify that, but I sincerely doubt anyone looks at Germany as strongly as they looked in late 1930s. Agreed literally, but post-Ukraine Germany has made an historical shift, for the first time since WWII, to invest seriously in their military and support foreign militaries, and before that, during the Trump administration, they gained much influence and stature as arguably the world leader on human rights. > He claimed the middle eastern wars would be withdrawn from and the world would see it as American weakness. That appears to be incorrect from any metric I can find. That actually has been US policy under Obama, Trump and Biden: Trump tried to withdraw from everywhere. Under the Democratic Presidents, the policy has been that the US is less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, the Middle East is consuming not-unlimited US geopolitical power (including military power), and we need to shift geopolitical resources to China while deepening our relationship with NATO. Obama withdrew from Iraq, made a deal with Iran, and instead of supporting the Saudis he tried to balance them and Iran; he also began the shift of geopolitical resources, including military, to China. Trump withdrew from Iraq and Syria, and undermined various other relationships. Biden pulled out of Afganistan (Middle East adjacent, bordering Iran), explicitly stating the the reasons above (China, etc.) and is shifting more resources to China, and has clearly defined them as 'the pacing threat'. And many have claimed, including after the two Iraq/Syria pullouts and the Afghan pullout, that America is weaker.
qiskit 4y ago
They are zero risk in that they are completely within our sphere of influence. Canada and Mexico are as zero risk as you can get from an american perspective.
- Teever 4y ago
  As a Canadian I agree with you on Canada but im a little skeptical about Mexico. Again, im no expert on Mexico but from my understanding of the cartel situation Mexico isn't even in the sphere of influence of Mexico. I don't thing the US would want to put critical supply chains Ina country like Mexico unless they're willing to put troops there to eliminate the cartels, which to be honest would be a terrible idea.
  - 8note 4y ago
    Wouldn't the us just pay off the cartels?
    - Teever 4y ago
      And when the cartels alter the deal?
galaxyLogic 4y ago
Cartels are bad, but they really want to do more business rather than less, import more into the US. More ordinary trade there is, easier it is also to smuggle drugs I would guess.

by Teever 4y ago

Is Mexico really a zero supply chain risk? I don't know much about the cartels or violence in Mexico, but that's the first thing I think of when you describe Mexico as low risk.

brendoelfrendo 4y ago

It's unquestionable that violent crime in Mexico has gone up over the past several years, but the question is: does that represent a supply chain risk? I don't have the data, but it doesn't seem like cartels or violent criminals typically target civilian manufacturing infrastructure. Mexico has a lot of manufacturing already, and a relatively healthy demographic distribution (that is, unlike the US and some other developed countries, they actually have enough young folks to replace the old folks leaving the workforce). I feel like Mexico would have to try very hard to fail at being a manufacturing powerhouse in North America. As an aside, this is a good reason for the US to really strengthen its relationship with Mexico and try to help Mexico fix its problems; the US is probably going to be even more dependent on Mexican manufacturing in the future when this whole supply chain shuffle shakes out.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
The cartels generally don't wanna destroy the factories. They wanna tax them.
anonAndOn 4y ago
>try to help Mexico fix its problems Do you mean like returning the former Defense Minister to Mexico before trial? It's so nice that we can "help". [0]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/salvador-cienfuegos-zepeda-dismissal-drug-trafficking-charges-mexican-general/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/salvador-cienfuegos-zepeda-dism...

wsinks 4y ago

I think their parenthetical about a maquiladora on the border was the hedge on Mexico as zero supply chain risk. There is increased cartel risk. I follow a former White House geopolitical analyst after I met him at a conference. Here's his latest talk on Mexico: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yilSJg5CMd4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yilSJg5CMd4

toolz 4y ago
This guy speaks with a great deal of confidence. I love listening to him talk, but the claims he make are breathtaking and he seems to make them without a second thought. For that reason I was curious to see what sort of predictions he's made in the past and see how accurate he has been. Well, maybe not quite as powerful at predictions as he is at making geopolitical claims. (He made a bunch of claims in 2009, for the coming decade I'll paraphrase and link to his predictions) He claimed the middle eastern wars would be withdrawn from and the world would see it as American weakness. That appears to be incorrect from any metric I can find. He claimed chinas economy would collapse within the decade in 2009. Well, that's not anywhere approaching corret. He claimed Germany in the same timeframe would ascend to late 1930 levels of political power. I'm not sure how to quantify that, but I sincerely doubt anyone looks at Germany as strongly as they looked in late 1930s. He predicted Russia would push their western front, but I'm not so sure that was a bold prediction given the russia-georgia war, but he's definitely correct here. Made a soft prediction of an eastern asia conflict due to Japans collapsing demographics, not correct, but not a strong prediction either. Concluded by saying we're going to invert into a deflationary economy, which also appears to be very wrong. I don't know nearly enough to call the guy out by any means, but I do take his word with a lot of hesitancy. I can't think of anyone who speaks as boldly and confidently across such a large domain without feeling the need to evidence their claims. https://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-predictions-for-the-next-decade-2010-1#china-doomed-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/stratfor-predictions-for-the...
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > He claimed Germany in the same timeframe would ascend to late 1930 levels of political power. I'm not sure how to quantify that, but I sincerely doubt anyone looks at Germany as strongly as they looked in late 1930s. Agreed literally, but post-Ukraine Germany has made an historical shift, for the first time since WWII, to invest seriously in their military and support foreign militaries, and before that, during the Trump administration, they gained much influence and stature as arguably the world leader on human rights. > He claimed the middle eastern wars would be withdrawn from and the world would see it as American weakness. That appears to be incorrect from any metric I can find. That actually has been US policy under Obama, Trump and Biden: Trump tried to withdraw from everywhere. Under the Democratic Presidents, the policy has been that the US is less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, the Middle East is consuming not-unlimited US geopolitical power (including military power), and we need to shift geopolitical resources to China while deepening our relationship with NATO. Obama withdrew from Iraq, made a deal with Iran, and instead of supporting the Saudis he tried to balance them and Iran; he also began the shift of geopolitical resources, including military, to China. Trump withdrew from Iraq and Syria, and undermined various other relationships. Biden pulled out of Afganistan (Middle East adjacent, bordering Iran), explicitly stating the the reasons above (China, etc.) and is shifting more resources to China, and has clearly defined them as 'the pacing threat'. And many have claimed, including after the two Iraq/Syria pullouts and the Afghan pullout, that America is weaker.

qiskit 4y ago

They are zero risk in that they are completely within our sphere of influence. Canada and Mexico are as zero risk as you can get from an american perspective.

Teever 4y ago
As a Canadian I agree with you on Canada but im a little skeptical about Mexico. Again, im no expert on Mexico but from my understanding of the cartel situation Mexico isn't even in the sphere of influence of Mexico. I don't thing the US would want to put critical supply chains Ina country like Mexico unless they're willing to put troops there to eliminate the cartels, which to be honest would be a terrible idea.
- 8note 4y ago
  Wouldn't the us just pay off the cartels?
  - Teever 4y ago
    And when the cartels alter the deal?

galaxyLogic 4y ago

Cartels are bad, but they really want to do more business rather than less, import more into the US. More ordinary trade there is, easier it is also to smuggle drugs I would guess.