June 1, 2019

"We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets."

"A cell with a maximum capacity of 12 held 76 detainees, another with a maximum capacity of eight held 41, and another with a maximum capacity of 35 held 155, according to the report. '[Customs and Border Protection] was struggling to maintain hygienic conditions in the holding cells. With limited access to showers and clean clothing, detainees were wearing soiled clothing for days or weeks... Corrective action is critical to the immediate health and safety needs of detainees, who cannot continue to be held in standing-room-only conditions for weeks until additional tents are constructed'..."

So says a report on a leaked forthcoming report by The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General about an inspection of an El Paso Border Patrol facility. I'm reading that at ABC 10 News San Diego, but it says the report was obtained by CNN. I went to CNN.com to get their link, because I prefer the direct source, but multiple searches of the CNN front page make me think it is not there. And there are a lot of headlines on the CNN.com front page, and much of that stuff is inconsequential clickbait, such as "Jennifer Aniston's plane lost a tire, and somehow Jimmy Kimmel is involved" and...
Maybe that's a robot that laughs just like you, CNN, you creepy, quasi-human entity, but don't say I smile and frown like that. How about some serious coverage of this overcrowding? I watched a little of your TV channel yesterday, and I heard your newsfaces emitting sounds on the subject of Trump's tariffs (which I see as a desperate effort to shock Mexico into helping us with the border emergency) and they were going on about how price increases on goods from Mexico would cost us Americans some money — as if that's a human tragedy, avocados getting pricey. I watched Jake Tapper maintaining that frown he does so well. Does he frown just like Sophia?

I want to be fair, so I'm going to the transcript of yesterday's show, which I only watched out of the corner of my eye as I was trying to read. I remember noticing the style and mannerisms of the guest Robby Mook, which are very exaggerated and make him seem to be something from the uncanny valley. (By the way, the men's faces on Tapper's show are thickly slathered with opaque makeup, and I was commenting out loud that the men look like they are made of latex (and that was before I "met" Sophia the Robot).)

The transcript helps me avoid the distraction of the facial fakery. And I can see that there was, in fact, some talk of the inspector's report:
TAPPER: And there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. Let's show the pictures, these images that we got showing dangerous overcrowding at one of the Border Patrol centers in El Paso, Texas. They found the center which can hold up to 125 people holding 900 people earlier this month. So, Robby, the question would be, the devil's advocate question, why not try something? These, literally, thousands of migrants are crossing Mexico and Mexico's letting it happen because they're ultimately -- they're ultimately going to go into the United States. 
CNN political commentator David Urban inserts "They're aiding them in some instances" — that is, Mexico is helping the migrants come into our country — before the target of the question begins his answer. The question needed that boost if Mexico is not just "letting it happen" but actively abetting it.

Mook answers:
ROBBY MOOK, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first of all, you know, the administration had faced this before when Obama was president. And what they did was, they went to the root of the problem, which is violence in Central America, and really tried to fix that problem, rather than just a bunch of bluster at Mexico. The other thing to remember here...

URBAN: How'd that work?

MOOK: ... is these tariffs -- it actually worked. And the numbers went down. And these tariffs are on American importers of goods. This is a tax on the American people.

TAPPER: Right.
Mook and Tapper spot the exit door marked "Don't Tax Americans!"?
MOOK: So it doesn't actually make sense, logically. I think, sadly, because of the messed-up politics of the Republican base, this is a very powerful message. So that's why the president's doing this.
Huh? Enthusiasm for taxing Americans isn't a go-to Republican position and opposing taxing Americans isn't the usual position of Democrats, like Mook, so what is he saying doesn't "make sense, logically"? Notice that Mook didn't have one word of empathy for the migrants in the horribly overcrowded detention facility in El Paso. They're standing on the toilets, because it's the last place to stand in a cell, and how does anyone use the toilet? Mook — with this maddenly insouciant, callow expression on his face — just goes ahead and pitches the line it's all politics for President Trump.
MOOK: People think this is a way to create jobs by stopping people at the border, which nobody's ever proven that.
Is his unstated idea open borders? There's no overcrowding if you give up detaining people. I doubt that Democrats think open borders is "a very powerful message" for them, so I'm not surprised he doesn't come out and say that.
MOOK: I do think, though, you brought up the most important issue, which is this president has really bet a lot on this new trade deal.
No! Jake Tapper brought up the issue of overcrowding in the detention center. Mook is doing that stupid TV talk show thing of pretending he got asked the question he wants to answer.
MOOK: He has to have Democrats to help him with that. Why would any Democrat want to do anything to help the president's trade policy at this point?
Well, maybe, Robby, because real people are suffering in detention centers and Democrats don't want to advocate open borders and because they're afraid they'll be painted as inhumane and obstructionist.
MOOK: Because if you wake -- you just don't know what's going to happen. You might wake up tomorrow and he's put new tariffs in, after you just gave him some political equity to pass a trade bill. So, I think this is really dumb for him in terms of getting that passed and it's bad policy.
What? The tariffs are about pushing Mexico to help with the humanitarian crisis! Mook has switched the topic to trade deals (a political reason to refrain from using tariffs), and after some chatter on that subject, we get a video presentation on "how prices could rise for you on everything from cars to groceries to even iPhones."
TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than a third of all vegetables bought in the U.S. wine, beer and snack foods too, more than a third of all televisions, nearly half of all air conditioners, machinery, medical tools and much more. Americans buy so much from Mexico, economists are warning a new tariff on Mexican goods could hit very hard, especially when it comes to cars....
That's the American idea of "hit very hard." Your new car is more expensive. Picture that. Stop thinking about the detained migrants standing on the toilets. Frown like a robot at the prospect of a higher-priced iPhone.

After the video presentation, Foreman says, "Well, it could very well be more than just a few cents for a piece of fruit. One analyst says, if it reaches the highest threatened level here, a 25 percent tariff on Mexican goods, that could mean the cost of a new car would rise, on average, $1,300. So, Jake, as they say, how do you like them apples?"

Get it? "More than just a few cents for a piece of fruit...  how do you like them apples?" Ha ha ha. Fruit... apples... get it?

Are you laughing like a robot yet?

150 comments:

David Begley said...

I don’t know how that mook, Robby Mook, shows his face. Way more money than Trump’s campaign and he blew the race.

Mook is the only person Hillary hasn’t blamed for her loss.

Just watch Trump’s tariff stop the alien invasion. Another win for Trump. American voters will figure out that Trump puts America first.

traditionalguy said...

Humane treatment of prisoners is a question. But the Dems say they are refugees bused here for free by Soros. Boom. We must self destruct or else. If this goes on and on nobody in DC should be elected again. Including the Republicans.

Chuck said...

This is an interesting post, Althouse, but you seem to think that everybody is missing the point by not addressing a real, existing humanitarian crisis. (And that open borders immigration to the U.S. cannot be an answer.)

Okay.

So is the answer something like wholesale reform/development of the places that these immigrants are coming from? To make Guatemala, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico places where their nationals can stay and live decent lives?

Tariffs on Mexican goods isn't that answer.

Quayle said...

[First just want to give a shout-out to all my fellow reds.

“Walk on, walk on
With hope in your heart
And you'll never walk alone”]

I heard on CNN that the world is going to end in 12 years from global warming.

In other news I heard that this stupid president took action could raise the price of fruit by 25%.

Stay tuned for the following important messages on laundry soap, teeth whitener, and Chevrolet trucks.



Ann Althouse said...

"So is the answer something like wholesale reform/development of the places that these immigrants are coming from? To make Guatemala, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico places where their nationals can stay and live decent lives?"

You're suggesting a return to colonialism? That's a big project. How would you do that? No one can do it, but it makes you feel good to speak in those terms. Mook suggests it: "Well, first of all, you know, the administration had faced this before when Obama was president. And what they did was, they went to the root of the problem, which is violence in Central America, and really tried to fix that problem..."

I guess the important part is that Obama really tried.

I remember when the children sang, "He's going to change it, rearrange it, Obama's gonna change it, Obama's gonna change the world."

Those were the days of dreams, But now the dream is over...and the insect is awake.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

The people who are all aghast about the tariffs on products coming from Mexico are economic illiterates. The tariff is a powerful tool to "persuade" the other, in this case the Mexican Government, to do what you want. Tariffs are temporary tools.

Will it increase the cost of some goods to the consumer? Yes. 5% increase in tomatoes or avocados (which are already priced too high) is not going to harm the ordinary consumer. Tomatoes at .85 a pound versus .90 a pound. Unless you are buying a shit ton of tomatoes it isn't going to stop you from making a salad. IF you are a company like McDonald's then you can increase your sales by 5% and it still isn't going to stop people from buying.

Of course at some point the elasticity of the product will be affected. Supply and demand and the elasticity of products. People stop buying the product OR the supplier reduces their profit margin and keeps the selling price flat to the curve (so to speak).

Trump understands this as a graduate of one of the premier schools in business and economics. Wharton. Established in 1881 through a donation from Joseph Wharton, the Wharton School is the world's oldest collegiate school of business. Furthermore, Wharton is the business school that has produced the highest number of billionaires in the US.

The suppliers in Mexico WILL be putting pressure on their Government to comply with the demands of our Government. The suppliers can 'probably' absorb a 5 or 10% tariff for a while.

However, that 5% is going to hurt them MUCH MUCH more than the average consumer who can absorb 5% for some occasional purchases. Especially when the consumer has OTHER sources of supply and the Mexican producers do not.

If the morons in the media will just shut up and think once in a while (ha fat chance) then the economic policy of Trump (or any other President with economic knowledge and experience) will win.

rhhardin said...

Homeless people live in cars. Tow some junk cars into a very large fenced-in area. Keep adding cars as necessary.

Landfills are also popular with the poor. Surely there are some available landfills.

Also it will let them feel at home.

rhhardin said...

The point of tariffs is to restrict trade, not to raise money.

Bob Boyd said...

The reporters came in to the holding area and it caused a hubbub. Somebody in the back got up on the toilet so he could see what was going on.

rhhardin said...

There's a slight complication in the the cartels control the border, not Mexico.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I guess the important part is that Obama really tried.?

Trying is really good. Good JOB!!! Give him a participation trophy. Yes. It makes everyone 'feel' good. "Well, he tried"

Trying when you have no effing idea what you are doing....disaster. When it is your kid, you can try to fix it. Maybe.

When it is the President of the United States who is trying without a clue about what he is doing....the world goes into melt down mode.

Save us from the clueless "triers".

stlcdr said...

These reports of the atrocious cell conditions: are there accompanying photos...of all the women and children in these cells? My guess (and I could be wrong) is that they are mostly young males, not of the ‘family type’.

Bob Boyd said...

What Democrat wouldn't love the idea of a 5% tax on all goods to fight climate change?

Mark said...

Let's be clear that these are NOT "prisoners." They are always free to leave via the exit door to the south, to back home to their own countries.

michaele said...

Thank you, Ann, for an appropriate and satisfyingly scathing take down of the always so concerned Jake Tapper and his guests. I really hate this whole border mess. We deserve to be a country that enforces our laws and have them respected. It is not fair to the American taxpayer to be paying so much to help the citizens of other countries. It is a travesty that liberal judges keep striking down any enforcement measure that the Trump administration try to put in place to stem the flood. I seethe and stew about this issue.

Chuck said...

Don't tell me about Obama, Althouse. I never voted for him. I never supported him. I actively supported McCain, and Romney.

And while I expect that you didn't mean it literally, you shouldn't try to tell me that "it makes [me] feel good to speak in those terms..." You don't know what makes me feel good.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Chuck says: So is the answer something like wholesale reform/development of the places that these immigrants are coming from? To make Guatemala, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico places where their nationals can stay and live decent lives?

Tariffs on Mexican goods isn't that answer.


Correct. HOWEVER. That isn't the question or problem that is being addressed. Try to focus on what Trump is doing instead of what he wears or how he tweets, why don't you?

Getting the Mexican Government to do something to stop the IMMEDIATE problem of people from Central America, Mexico and other places from INVADING the US by going through the territory controlled by Mexico. THIS IS the problem

How to get the Mexican Government to sit up and pay attention? Tariffs are a good tool to get pressure on them from their own economic base....their producers and manufacturers.

Seriously...try to focus.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Mark astutely said>. Let's be clear that these are NOT "prisoners." They are always free to leave via the exit door to the south, to back home to their own countries.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

That train they rode in on....goes both ways.

wwww said...

You are surprised domestic CNN is not covering news? Or that CNN puts on randos to talk about tariffs?

International CNN is a little better. But domestic US cable is what it is. I do not watch it; it is not informative. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Mark at 8:04

Yes, this is an important fact. They are in voluntary confinement. If it’s too crowded, go home.

buwaya said...

The problem with development is that no-one onows how to do it.
It comes down to that old interest of mine in my days with the Asian Development Bank.

Development Economics is a huge thing, based on a critical requirement, of how to make a poor country rich. And the whole field is, so far, a total failure.
Nobody knows how to do it.

Countries do of course get richer. Some poor countries have gone from poor to rich.
But each case is unique, or nearly so, and there is no consistent policy set across them, and moreover there are lots of other less-successful countries that did the same things as successful ones.

Whatever the secret is, the one lesson of development economics is that the answer is not in public policy. None of the easy answers panned out. Education doesnt work, development aid or infrastructure aid dont work, favorable terms of trade don't work, lassiez-faire doesn't work, liberal democracy doesnt work. Nothing that sounds good works. Indeed, a lot of these things seem to follow success rather than create success. Education in particular seems more of a luxury good than anything else.

There are lots of people employed in pushing for or implementing sounds-good policies as above, many very comfortable careers in all this, but thats all a complete waste.

The world is generally getting wealthier overall, but that I think is just the background effect of improving human technology. Tech travels of its own, very easily, there is no need to push it. By itself it does not change the relative economic position of countries, and that "relative" is the big thing. People live better than their ancestors, even in Guatemala and Honduras and the Congo they eat better than they did thirty years ago, they consume more of everything, and they own a lot more stuff. But the grass will still seem greener elsewhere, sufficiently so that masses will want to move.

John henry said...

Re the detainees:

Fuck'em

If they don't like it go home.

John Henry

Mark said...

first of all, you know, the administration had faced this before when Obama was president. And what they did was, they went to the root of the problem, which is violence in Central America, and really tried to fix that problem

If these people truly are in need of refuge and asylum because conditions in their home countries are so horrific and oppressive, then the answer is YES, fix the root of the problem. The United Nations needs to send in military troops to forcibly remove the oppressive regimes in power there, put the leaders on trial for crimes against humanity and hang them, and restore humanitarian order. And the people of those countries should be willing to rise up militarily in defense of their own nations.

That is -- if safety, security and freedom really are the reason that people claiming sanctuary are trying to invade this nation.

Bill Peschel said...

The news media make it deliberately difficult for you to find the original source material. Makes it easier to bend the narrative.

That's why they were pissed at Buzzfeed for releasing the piss report on Trump. It showed everybody how full of shit it was.

Marty said...

Buwaya: OTOH, we do know how NOT to do it.

Gahrie said...

So is the answer something like wholesale reform/development of the places that these immigrants are coming from? To make Guatemala, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico places where their nationals can stay and live decent lives?

All of those places used to be places where their nationals could live decent lives. They're all shithole countries now because the people who lived there fucked them up, and now they all want to come here and fuck our country up.

buwaya said...

Tarriffs affect both buyer and seller.

The effect on the seller is that they have to reduce their prices, to remain competitive with untaxed competitors.

The presence of competition is also why the buyer gets dinged with only part of the tarriff.

How much it harms seller vs buyer is complex and specific to the case. In the case of Mexico nearly everything it sells the US is easily substitutable, and the response of competitors would be immediate.

wwww said...

Tariffs on Mexican goods isn't that answer.

Tariffs assume Mexico has full control over it's territory and can act effectively with a operating military and police that are under the control of politicians in a rational way.

But we know "Mexico," as a nation-state, does not have full control over it's territory, even in touristy sections like Acapulco that are bleeding tourist $$ because of this lack of control:

Northern states - Avoid non-essential travel
Avoid non-essential travel to the following northern states due to high levels of violence, linked mainly to organized crime:

Chihuahua
Coahuila (except the city of Saltillo)
Durango
Nuevo León (except the city of Monterrey)
Sinaloa (except the city of Mazatlán)
Sonora (except the cities of Hermosillo and Guaymas/San Carlos)
Tamaulipas.
Exercise a high degree of caution in the cities that are excluded from the above advisory.

Safety and security situation

Western states - Avoid non-essential travel
Avoid non-essential travel to the western states of Guerrero (including Acapulco but excluding the cities of Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo and Taxco), Michoacán (excluding the city of Morelia) and Colima (excluding the city of Manzanillo) due to the high levels of violence and organized crime.

Rory said...

"I don’t know how that mook, Robby Mook, shows his face. Way more money than Trump’s campaign and he blew the race."

Mook, of course, was one of the authors of the strategy to throw the Republicans into disarray by elevating TV guy Trump into a credible candidate.

Nothing is surer than that conditions in damaged countries won't improve as long as those who dislike the conditions are leaving.

Mark said...

I remember a time when a certain people tried to flee their oppressive prison-camp country in search of freedom and security here, and the U.S. traditionally welcomed these refugees. Then the Clintons and Obama started to turn them away and ship them back to their hell-hole country.

No refugee or asylum status for them. None when you are trying to flee some evil communist country like Cuba.

wwww said...

So, it's a interesting intellectual project to hypothesize what could happen if Mexico was a functioning state that could exert full control over its territory. But it is what it is, and the USA has a big land and sea border.

buwaya said...

Re living decent lives -
This is a case of attitude much more than material conditions.
Rural poverty, as in close to the Malthusian edge, chronic malnutrition, high childhood mortality, that was the norm there. What they have now is a very different sort of poverty. They are rather well fed and their kids live to be adults at very nearly the rate American kids do.
The problems, the deficiencies, are higher up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

narciso said...

Was rostow the first big player in developmental economics, we outsourced a sizable portion of our manufacturing to Mexico and it has backfired.

Michael K said...

So is the answer something like wholesale reform/development of the places that these immigrants are coming from? To make Guatemala, Venezuela, Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico places where their nationals can stay and live decent lives?

Chuck wants to invade. I remember Reagan trying to stop Nicaragua becoming a communist shithole. Who was trying to stop him? Chris Dodd and assorted Democrats. Remember the Boland amendment ?

Obama solved the problem of "root causes." Why are they still coming ?

Mexico should be a rich country. What happened ?

No offense buwaya, but every Spanish colony has turned out to be poorly governed.

wwww said...

Well, no point in a discussion. It will all become evident in a few weeks: will this strategy work? Is Mexico a functioning state with full control over police and military and full control over it's territories?

We don't have to guess. It will be apparent a month from now if this works.

Michael K said...

we outsourced a sizable portion of our manufacturing to Mexico and it has backfired.

That's why the car manufacturers are worried about the tariff. Why arte those cars not made in Detroit ? Or Tennessee?

buwaya said...

Mexico has a very short southern border and whatever its law and order troubles it has far more than sufficient resources to control that.

There is moreover an enormous, modern and entirely functional economic and industrial infrastructure in Mexico. Massive volumes of internal trade move consumer and industrial goods all over the country.

Mexico is not a poor country at all, not in global terms. Mexico works, just not quite so well as it could.

Ray - SoCal said...

Trump wants Mexico to sign a safe third country agreement.

Articles about this in the Washington Post, NY Times, etc.

One from Yahoo:
https://news.yahoo.com/president-trump-reportedly-wants-asylum-215331325.html

If an asylum seeker to the us transits Mexico, they can be sent back to Mexico

Canada just signed such an agreement with the US.

narciso said...

The short answer is they wanted to save on labour costs, and associated issues like pensions, as well as assorted shakedowns from say Coleman young, but it had a cost to the social contract.

wwww said...

Mexico should be a rich country. What happened ?

Many things over the last 60 years. But, critically, about 10-15 years ago Mexico began loosing control over large sections of territory. Places like La Paz, are no longer in control. & of course touristy places like Acapulco. In this sense, the state is a failing state.

Ann Althouse said...

"The reporters came in to the holding area and it caused a hubbub. Somebody in the back got up on the toilet so he could see what was going on."

The report is by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General based on an inspection that was unnannounced.

Ray - SoCal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
buwaya said...

Its not Mexicans coming across the border, for the last few years Mexicans have been a minority of border crossers. Mexicans generally live well enough that they are fine staying home.

The current "crisis" is of mainly Central Americans crossing all of Mexico, the long way. These people are being induced to do so in part by an organized effort, and currently openly assisted by the current Mexican government.

People forget that the various earlier well-publicized columns moving through Mexico in 2017-18 were at least lackadaisically discouraged by the Mexican authorities. But then Mexico had an election, and it is now government policy to facilitate this migration.

narciso said...

But it's not a crisis, profs have a triplethink attitude.

Ann Althouse said...

"You don't know what makes me feel good."

It was rhetorical, but of course you are right. There are any number of motivations you might have had for writing what you did, but something made you feel like doing it, and the feeling of motivation is what I call "good." I define "good" within my comment as the feeling of needing to write what you did. Of course, I concede that only you and perhaps not even you know why you felt like writing that. Could have been the mischievous frisson of trolling. Could have been cynicism about anything ever helping and mockery of the people who think they can fix Latin American countries. I don't know.

Ray - SoCal said...

Buwaya has an interesting point, how do you lift a country out of poverty?

Rule of law seems to help a lot along with property rights. Corruption seems to be a huge cause of poverty.

Chile and Singapore have done an amazing job, unfortunately under what were dictatorships, on becoming richer countries.

Contrast with the Philippines and Argentina, that became poorer in the same time period.

The higher the poverty rate, the higher the corruption rate it seems.

Staying away from socialism / communism helps a lot.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

buwaya says: RE Tariffs How much it harms seller vs buyer is complex and specific to the case. In the case of Mexico nearly everything it sells the US is easily substitutable, and the response of competitors would be immediate.

Yes. The ability of the consumer to substitute goods or services is the buffering effect on the consumer.

As I said. In the example of tomatoes. The consumer can have multiple sources of tomatoes. Local growers. Growers in other parts of the US. Both of which sources will see and economic boom due to tariffs on competing goods :-)

While the Mexican growers who will experience the tariffs which cause them either lower their prices or have lost profit, have less opportunity/time to change their delivery chain or find new buyers.

BTW: for those that are interested one of the root causes of the US Civil War was in tariffs instituted by the northern interests that hurt the South. ONE. Not the only.

Tariffs and the American Civil War Long but informative.

Protective tariffs and the Civil war" Easier reading with some contemporary political cartoons.

"Historians Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffer found that a few common factors increase the likelihood of secession in a region: lower wages, an economy based on raw materials and external exploitation. Although popular movies emphasize slavery as a cause of the Civil War, the war best fits a psycho-historical model of the South rebelling against Northern exploitation." Similar the the situation and feelings of rural States in our country in current times.

Beware!

Michael McNeil said...

Chuck, I don't care if you did or didn't vote for Obama. Despite the devastating lack of your approval, Althouse remains perfectly free — and I encourage her — to continue posting comparisons between Obama, his administration, vis-à-vis Trump and his, from time to time.

narciso said...

Progressives, their solution is just to let more unwatched. Yes peronism did a number on Argentina but menem couldn't restore the balance.

Gahrie said...

No offense buwaya, but every Spanish colony has turned out to be poorly governed.

That's because from the very beginning they were all about providing a benefit to Spain and the Spanish and fuck the people living there. Hell when they were colonies, Spanish born in Spain had a higher status than those with pure European blood born in the colonies, and much more than those with Indian blood.

Even today in those countries White and light skinned citizens have a high status, and are rarely poor, and Indian and dark haired citizens have low status and comprise most of the poor.

Fernandinande said...

"We also observed detainees standing on toilets in the cells to make room and gain breathing space, thus limiting access to the toilets."

'Round these parts, pardner, we are observed standing on toilets to escape from squirrels.

A cell with a maximum capacity of 12 held 76 detainees

Obviously someone is incorrectly determining the "maximum capacity".

Michael McNeil said...

Oh, and thank you, Ann, for including real html links in your comment above. Perhaps others will take the hint too.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Re tariffs working: We don't have to guess. It will be apparent a month from now if this works

A month?! What's the rush?

Have patience Grasshopper :-)

wwww said...

Chuck has stated the obvious. Another possibility is to develop a plan to curb the extreme gang violence in those countries South of Mexico. Could the USA develop a plan, in conjunction with those countries, that would help curb the extreme gang violence that is driving families and young children to flee in unprecedented numbers?

Reasons that plan may not work: Are those countries functioning to the point they could curb the violence? Could those countries curb the violence with support from the USA? Are those countries willing to work with the USA?

But we should be clear: Mexico and these Latin American Countries are not Sweden. They are not nation-states with full control over the military and police. There is rampant corruption. Expecting these countries to have the capacity to exert control the way, say, Sweden would, is not realistic to the situation on the ground.

Gahrie said...

Mexico is not a poor country at all, not in global terms. Mexico works, just not quite so well as it could.

Only because most of their poor people have moved to the United States and send tens of billions of dollars to Mexico every year. Mexico is a parasite on the United States.

buwaya said...

But Ray,

Here again you assume sounds-good factors.
This has to be evaluated against reality.

Rule of law in particular seems to be an emergent phenomenon, not a prerequisite.
Corruption is most definitely not an issue. Massively corrupt places like Taiwan and South Korea have reached economic takeoff. There are poor countries with adequate property rights, like the Philippines (compared to elsewhere). Etc.

This gets to my assertion - none of this works, there is no formula, no system, and nearly all of these things that seem vital can be shown not to be, they are effects, not causes.

We are at a cargo-cult level of forcing the appearance of development on countries, assuming that appearance means reality. Just like the tribesmen building fetishized airfields and hoping someone will land with cargo.

Ray - SoCal said...

>Mexico should be a rich country. What happened

China took a lot of jobs that were supposed to go to Mexico.

Mexico was a one party state since the revolution, until recently. Rule of Law and corruption are still huge issues. The drug war has not helped. Oil was used to pay for a huge, highly regulated government infrastructure. The schools were taught by the left, and teaching positions are sinecures. Large parts of the economy were nationalized, and it was incredibly hard to legally start a small business. And the us was a huge safety valve that allowed those with ambition, to leave, and create a better life. At least 10% of all Mexicans live in the US.



Gahrie said...

This gets to my assertion - none of this works, there is no formula, no system, and nearly all of these things that seem vital can be shown not to be, they are effects, not causes.

I'd submit that the Protestant work effort and Anglo-Saxon culture seemed to have worked rather well. Which is why everyone not living in a country based on them wants to move to a country which is.

narciso said...

Yes but the pan particularly under vicemte fix, wasnt appreciably better, pena nieto despite being financed by the cartels initially took some right steps but optics like the mansion for his soap star wife, the iguala massacre and the massive removal of oil subsidies doomed him. Also the el Chapo takedown backfired.

buwaya said...

Gang violence and drugs and etc. are another set of emergent phenomena.
They are effects, not causes. They aren't even the reason why these people make the trip. They are a rationalization for their condition, but its not why they are relatively poor. They were vastly poorer in the past, yet rarely migrated.

They move because, first, they know they can. And second, because they have a vision of something better. These are things technology gave them. Neither was true for their fathers and grandfathers.

narciso said...

Vicente Fox, Lopez obrador was the mayor if the capital, and he had left wing instincts but also pragmatic

narciso said...

Mook was the middlepuppet behind the anticavanaugh forces

JaimeRoberto said...

Mook is doing that stupid TV talk show thing of pretending he got asked the question he wants to answer.

At a company I worked for the CEO got media training. He said he was taught that while you might answer the question that was asked, you really want to answer the question that you wanted asked. I assume Mook has had the same training.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

CNN - where the men are actually made of latex.

buwaya said...

And China is incredibly corrupt, and rule of law is ... not.
And it was even more so, rule-less, property rights-less, and dominated by local powers running what amounted to feudal systems with impunity, back when it was aporoaching economic takeoff.
It also was and still is the source of most illegal drugs trafficked throughout East Asia, notably meth. In that sense it is Asia's Mexico.

Indeed, China is a consistent counterfactual to almost all the sounds-good rules.

RK said...

I want Sophia the robot who laughs and cries and is always on an emotional roller coaster. Just kidding.

wwww said...

"They were vastly poorer in the past, yet rarely migrated."

Buwaya, the violence is driving the recent high numbers in those countries. There's been a severe and extreme uptick.

rcocean said...

The MSM and the Chamber of Commerce want cheap labor and no tariffs. And they want to import millions of future Democrat voters, so of course they are against Trump's attempt to do something. Mexico is allowing hundreds of thousands of Central Americans to march through their country and invade the USA. That's why Trump wants them to act.

As DBQ states, the impact of any tariff will vary depending on the product and industry. How much of the price of product is due to prices in Mexico depends on the product. Its complicated. I know for a fact, that only a fraction of the price of a vegetable is due to wholesale farm price. Transportation, retail, and other costs are more significant. In any case, your Grocery store doesn't sell you Avocado at $2/lbs. because of the price it pays for Mexican Avocados. It sets the price based on how much revenue they can get.

If tomorrow farmers got 50% less for Avocados, the Grocery store is NOT going to reduce the price by 50%. They won't reduce the price at all, if they can get away with it.

rcocean said...

Again the constant negativity from the MSM. Open borders in NOT a problem because Trump says the opposite. We shouldn't get better trade deals because Trump wants the opposite. Everything Trump does is wrong. It gets so fucking annoying.

rcocean said...

BTW, we have a crisis in the detention centers because the Democrats REFUSE to provide more $$$ to build larger and better facilities. IRC, there are only enough spaces for 50,000 at one time. Which is deliberate.

Bob Boyd said...

The report is by the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General based on an inspection that was unnannounced.

The inspectors came in to the holding area and it caused a hubbub. Some people in the back got up on the toilets so they could see what was going on.

rcocean said...

Lets say you're running a coffee shop. You set your Coffee price at $2.75/cup because Starbucks is charging $3/cup. The price of coffee beans go down by 25%. Do you reduce the price of a Cup of coffee by 25%? Of course not! You keep selling the coffee for $2.75, and pocket all the savings. You would only reduce the price, if you were losing business to Starbucks Because they lowered their prices.

Bob Boyd said...

The problem with illegal immigration is you can't screen out undesirables like toilet standers and people like that.

rcocean said...

BTW, that's one creepy looking robot. Talk about a bad picture.

buwaya said...

Is there really more violence there now than before?
Forty years ago there were guerilla wars with massive violence and hundreds of thousands of dead in El Salvador and Nicaragua, and some hundred thousand refugees or so got to the US.
But no caravans though Mexico.
And there is more of that, much more, going back.
The Mexican situation of the last decade is not driving Mexicans into the US.

And etc. and etc. These things are social phenomena, in part deliberately promoted and organized.

Ken B said...

Nice post. I do think Althouse finally sees right through CNN and the rest.

And of course, the tariff is NOT a new trade policy, it is a tactic in another area altogether. If Mexico helps with the migrant problems then the tariffs will end. Ergo, it is not trade policy.

Francisco D said...

And while I expect that you didn't mean it literally, you shouldn't try to tell me that "it makes [me] feel good to speak in those terms..." You don't know what makes me feel good.

Sober up and go to therapy, Chuckles.

Not everything is about you.

rcocean said...

Anytime anyone says, We shouldn't do anything NOW, we need to get at the ROOT CAUSES, they're full of bullshit.

That's what liberals were saying in the 1970s about crime. "Lets not put crooks in jail, we need to get at the ROOT CAUSES of crime". Translated it meant "Do nothing to stop crime"

buwaya said...

A huge part of the problem, in comparison to the past, is that the Guatemalans and Hondurans of 2019 have cell phones and internet, and moreover relatives in the US that can therefore communicate extremely well with them, to say that the trip is possible and worthwhile.

The Nicaraguans and Salvadorans of the 1980s did not have that.

Michael K said...

But then Mexico had an election, and it is now government policy to facilitate this migration.

Yes, I would like too call your attention again to this discussion of what is behind the current invasion.

And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.” He then declared it as “a human right we will defend.”

And:

AMLO has an economic plan where hundreds-of-thousands of his fellow Mexicans flood the Southern U.S. border region; overwhelm the system and essentially create an initial border economy; then, with the door and pathway created, begin a process of exfiltration of U.S. economic wealth directly into Mexico.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not crazy; he has a pretty ingenious strategy.

Through overwhelming the Southern border regions, the nation of Mexico will be able to influence local U.S. laws and overwhelm the local U.S. political structures. The Ameri/Mex zone penetrates into the U.S. and provides a borderless opening for migration, trade, commerce and the education of Mexican citizens through the utilization of U.S. social and economic systems.


His plan on how Mexico gets rich. It is a parasite,

Anonymous said...

DBQ: The people who are all aghast about the tariffs on products coming from Mexico are economic illiterates.

I expect the illiteracy and bad-faith whining from CNN. I'm a lot more irritated by the lumpen-economists who always appear here to chirp about "but muh rising consumer prices!". As if the only reason people aren't aghast at the tariffs is because those Econ 101 free-trade models had somehow escaped their notice, or were too complicated for them to understand.

But they're nowhere near as disturbing as the "we just need to fix all the problems in the world so people won't migrate" lunatics.

narciso said...

A confluence of factors, like NAFTA like the former spec ops army splinter (zetas) and other cartels lowered the monopoly of force

rcocean said...

I heard on the radio, that illegal aliens are arriving in groups of 100, one group of 1,000 arrived last month. These groups are organized by border smugglers, and often have parties of men and women claiming to be families and being related when they aren't.

None of this is surprising. If you tell people that you can come into the USA illegally if you do XYZ, then they will do XYZ. Because of "Babies at the Border" we cannot detain families. So presto-chango every illegal is not arriving with his so-called family.

Ray - SoCal said...

Buwaya - thanks for the response.

Agriculture reform seems to have helped a lot in Taiwan / South Korea.

South Korea seemed to have had a President that helped the economy a lot.

I don’t know about corruption in South Korea.

Focus / value on Education seems to be a common feature of South Korea, Taiwan, and China.

Taiwan allowed small businesses flourish that exported, often non forty niners. They also had the larger crony affiliated businesses (KMT/forty niners) that still dominate their mainstream media.

Both South Korea and Taiwan had universal conscription.

narciso said...

Yes the insurgencies of the 70s and 80s were very violent but they werent seemingly as random, the cartels were just starting to really consolidate from their Colombian senior management

narciso said...

The Mexican army is a blunt instrument, which is mostly concerned with it's own power, recall it was the precursors to the Zetas that crushed the guerilla uprisings in the 90s

Meade said...

"Lets say you're running a coffee shop. You set your Coffee price at $2.75/cup because Starbucks is charging $3/cup. The price of coffee beans go down by 25%. Do you reduce the price of a Cup of coffee by 25%?"

It depends. Let's say I'm having a problem with toilet standers. My toilet seat replacement costs have been skyrocketing.

I just might increase my price to $3.25/cup and then inform toilet standers like Robby Mook, "Hey, you know, Robby, if you go across the street to Starbucks, you can stand on the toilet AND walk out 25 cents richer."

narciso said...

The thing is on balance Starbucks coffee is not that good, I guess it's the branding.

rcocean said...

BTW the wholesale price of a Avacado is currently $1.27 lbs. Does your local store sell Avacados at $1.27 a Lbs or even $2.00 a lbs? My local store sells them for 1.50 each or $4.50/lbs. IOW, 2/3 of price has nothing to do the wholesale price!

So how much impact will tariffs have? Lets see. $1.27/lbs x. .05% = 6 cents a pound. So your Avacado instead of being $1.50 each will be $1.52 each.

OMG, its a trade war, we're all going to die!

Ray - SoCal said...

China has done an amazing job of becoming a richer country.

Challenges of China
- rule of law
- crony capitalism
- corruption
- one party state
- pollution
- aging population
- low trust society
- large state owned businesses
- tottering Banking/loan system
- declining return rate for infrastructure investment

So with all these negatives, how has China grown so much from the passing of Mao?

rcocean said...

I just might increase my price to $3.25/cup and then inform toilet standers like Robby Mook, "Hey, you know, Robby, if you go across the street to Starbucks, you can stand on the toilet AND walk out 25 cents richer."

Ha. You're Starbucks worst nightmare.

Meade said...

Yeah but have you seen the price of Arugula lately?

Huisache said...

I live in a small town about an hour away from the Texas / Mexico border. Last week the Border Patrol started releasing 10 to 25 detainees in our community on a *daily* basis. The nearest major city, San Antonio, is (according to some) a "sanctuary city." We're nothing of the kind. We're just the first town this side of the B.P. checkpoints.

But now our city and county now have to foot the bill for getting these people to shelters in S.A. Each body has allocated $10K. That's a lot of money for our fairly poor community, which for a small town has a lot of big-city problems (abundance of petty crime; drugs; gang / cartel activity; the occasional murder; youth crime & high dropout rate; a failed school district). Detainees have the option of riding a bus to S.A. – it costs us $277 each time – but nobody forces them to get on. The detainees appear to be about half adults, half children. People are up in arms – more than 60 went to the city council meeting to protest – but what options do we really have?

Churches are accepting donations & collecting carseats, hygiene kits, etc., for the migrants, and providing meals for B.P. agents (which we also did when they weren't getting paid during the government shutdown earlier this year).

Our paper had this to say: "Some will insist that the migrants should have stayed at home. But you don't claw your way north for a thousand miles with small children in tow, little money or food and a bag of meager possessions if staying put was an option. They come for no other reason than the alternative was death or worse. […] So Texans will step up at this time of crisis, just as we have for refugees from other disasters like hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And we will wait patiently for our elected officials in Washington to stop talking and act."

narciso said...

Well the army decided that killing people in large numbers after tien anmen was counterpriductive to being the partners with western industry.

narciso said...

Counterproductive, what the paper clearly leaves out is this is just another exercise in 'overwhelming the system'

walter said...

Yeah..we should wait for reformers to remake those countries "migrants" are flowing from.
Just be patient, folks. At least till 11/3/2020.
In the meantime, we must stick to the important work of smearing Trump and prejudicing people against him via threat or actuality of impeachment.
It will at least feel good.

Re Mexico, despite the requisite occasional facepalm wrt Rogan's commentary, this is an interesting episode:
Ed Calderon on The Joe Rogan Experience

buwaya said...

South Korea began its economic takeoff with @50% illiteracy. They became educated as they were becoming successful, and more so after, not before.

Compare to, say, the Philippines, that spent massively on public education for a hundred years, and was functionally at 100% literacy when SK was at 50%.

SK was dominated by Chaebols, family corporations, then as now.
Its a quite feudal structure. Hyundai, Samsung, etc.

The state deferred to these Chaebol, and indeed fostered them through low cost financing, including assistance in obtaining international loans. This was of course, in western terms, massively corrupt breach of a publuc-private divide. And payments of one sort or another went the other way. Consider Daewoo (now bankrupt) founded by a teacher and crony of Park Chung Hee, and successful because of, well, arrangements. South Korea has had constant bribery and conflict of interest scandals since forever.

Deep dive into each case, and the case for obvious fixes collapses completely. All, and I mean all, the explanations that depend on some sort of public-policy virtue, on some ideal of civil society, are completely useless.

Anonymous said...

rcocean: Anytime anyone says, We shouldn't do anything NOW, we need to get at the ROOT CAUSES, they're full of bullshit.

The root cause of the problem is the fact that too many actors in the U.S. don't want the problem fixed.

Nobody puts out ROOT CAUSES bullshit like root causes.

narciso said...

Much like the keiretsu/miti arrangement that flourished in Japan from the end of the war till the property bubble popped in 1990.

narciso said...

They've been pumping shovelready jobs for nearly 30 years since then, the ldp briefly lost its monopoly for a spell, now we have abr the grandson of kishi in charge.

Bob Boyd said...

Give me a place to stand and I will move the world

buwaya said...

"how has China grown so much?"

Well, obviously not through having enacted any changes to all those issues.
Indeed as China got richer a lot of them got worse.

What Deng Xiaoping, one of the greatest men of the 20th century, did in 1979 was simply permit Chinese to conduct private business as it suited them. This was under the influence of Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore, an enormously significant man, beyond even his influence on China.

However, what Deng did in China has long been the norm elsewhere, a lot of elsewheres, without economic takeoff.

Anonymous said...

buwaya: The state deferred to these Chaebol, and indeed fostered them through low cost financing, including assistance in obtaining international loans. This was of course, in western terms, massively corrupt breach of a publuc-private divide...

Deep dive into each case, and the case for obvious fixes collapses completely. All, and I mean all, the explanations that depend on some sort of public-policy virtue, on some ideal of civil society, are completely useless.


Not only are the sociological explanations useless, but no now First-World Asian state achieved that status by following the expert advice of Western economists, either. (E.g., on free-trade, comparative advantage, and non-protectionism. For that matter, rich Western states didn't get rich that way, either.)

Bob Boyd said...

I don't think we should get all down on America because some green horn inspector happened to run across his first toilet stander and was a little shocked. Heck, everybody is shocked the first time. That kind of thing ought to shock you. Big ol' dirty shoes all over the seat? I mean, come on, its beyond inappropriate, its disgusting.
And what? You think they don't have toilet standers in Guatemala? Of course they do. They have plenty of toilet standers, believe me. They're everywhere. Its part of the human condition.
And you know what else? Call me a cynic, but I seriously doubt this is the first time this clown climbed up on a toilet. People don't just suddenly, one day become toilet standers. No. It's a pathology. I bet he's been at it since he was a pup. He probably started out standing on his diapers. Well, anyway, whatever.

Amadeus 48 said...

There is a saying in Spain: "Where the is room for one, there is room for seven." This usually is said about tapas bars. The DHS is just being culturally sensitive by applying this Spanish proverb to its detention facilities. In fact, they have room for a few more.

n.n said...

The anti-nativists, foreign and domestic, are responsible for the collateral damage from immigration reform and related at both ends of the bridge and throughout.

Amadeus 48 said...

Will all the folks who think that tariffs on goods imported into the US have no impact on pricing, costs, and employment please apply the same reasoning to minimum wage laws and then get back to us?

Thank you for your attention.

Clyde said...

Again, if they stayed in their home country, where they belong, they’d have plenty of space. Something to think about.

Seeing Red said...

The Full Venezuela isn’t helping our Southern neighbors or US.

why Are we being pushed on our Northern border? They’re trying to get in from Canada, too.

It’s like it’s planned or something.

buwaya said...

To be clear, the opposite of civic virtue doesn't work either. Virtue or vice, it all seems irrelevant. You can find relative successes and relative failures for any policy, any program, any set of rules, any starting conditions, any social structure.

Nor of course do any economic policy or public policy specifics. There is nothing to show that there is any empirical engineering aporoach to development, any more than there is some science in it. We do not have a grasp of the problem, at all. That tells me, and of course a great many others by now, that everyone has been looking at the wrong things.

My point is that there is no known way to "fix" a country, other than to give it a huge lot of petroleum or something that can support everyone there as rentiers of some sort. But that comes with its own problems.

Nobody can fix Guatemala or Honduras or Mexico. Maybe not even the Guatemalans or Hondurans or Mexicans.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

It seems the real solution to the overcrowded detention centers is to process people through the immigration courts more quickly. To do that, you need more immigration judges, particularly ones that can decide cases quickly. Unfortunately, there is not room in the budget to hire more judges.

Fortunately, there is a simple solution. There are currently volunteer militias patrolling sections of the border. Trump should appoint them as volunteer immigration court judges. I bet they'd be able to decide cases quickly...

wwww said...

"why Are we being pushed on our Northern border? They’re trying to get in from Canada, too."

No, they are trying to get to Canada from the USA. The preference is Canada, without question. Because immigrants choose Canada over the USA, unless relatives live in the USA.

wwww said...

Nobody can fix Guatemala or Honduras or Mexico.

That very well may be. However, the USA has a large, long, very long, border of sea and land. And many many more who fly into the country and overstay their visas.

buwaya said...

wwww,

They are crossing in both directions, from the US to Canada and vice versa. It seems more from Canada->US on the whole.
Why they do it is somtimes not so easy to understand.
Its sort of like those desperate people in Calais (aka "The Camp of the Saints") trying to get into the UK, often at risk of life. They are already in France, and they could get to anywhere else in the EU with far less trouble.

Michael K said...

other than to give it a huge lot of petroleum

Venezuela is the contrary example. Without a system of ethics and laws, natural resource wealth just adds corruption,

Michael K said...

Its sort of like those desperate people in Calais (aka "The Camp of the Saints") trying to get into the UK, often at risk of life. They are already in France, and they could get to anywhere else in the EU with far less trouble.

The Arab immigrants have been interviewed about that. It was about the time we were there in 2015. We could not take the Eurostar because they were blocking the trains. They said "Because the salary is better ."

The "salary," of course, is the welfare,

buwaya said...

The US has the means to solve this problem, control its borders, no matter the length of the border, to within tolerable limits. Perfection is not required.

The only thing you Americans lack is unity of interests. This is a conflict between you, American against American, not with those poor people. They are their own phenomenon almost independent of your problems.

One lot of you Americans has to defeat and crush the other lot of Americans.

walter said...

Link to Huisache's local paper article:
Feds have punted on migrant obligation
Appears they want to assume all "migrants" are fleeing "death or worse".
Perhaps the spread knowledge of our lame asylum laws influence the choice.
Meanwhile, the rapid DNA tests are revealing 1/3 of these child/parent units unrelated.

michaele said...

Maybe one of the people standing on a toilet was just Beto giving a speech and trying to generate enthusiasm among his potential voters.

wwww said...

Why they do it is somtimes not so easy to understand.

A refugee family at our church cried at their last communion because they had to go back to Texas. They landed first in Texas, and had to go back. Was startling to see a family so upset they had to leave Canada for the USA. Word is they have been granted refugee status in the US, but want to come back to Canada.

No reason to go to the USA unless they have relatives. No health care costs in Canada and University is much less expensive. Better public schools or free catholic private school with great language programs. Families with kids get $$ each month if household income is less then 150K/ year. Paid maternity leave for 18 months. There is no advantage to living in the USA unless relatives are present or they like warmer climate.

Many have been crossing into Canada illegally from the USA. Because of safe country treaty, they have to stay in they country they landed.

Gahrie said...

Venezuela is the contrary example. Without a system of ethics and laws, natural resource wealth just adds corruption,

Actually Venezuela was doing really well up to the point they elected a Socialist. One who exploited the racial and ethnic tensions in his country by the way.

buwaya said...

Venezuela was doing really well until petroleum prices crashed in the 80's-90's, for fifteen years, followed by stagnant or declining personal incomes as so much of the pop was so dependent on the oil-rents, made worse by 1970s welfare-state laws.

It was frustration with the governments inability to squeeze blood from a stone that led to political instability and the rise of Chavez. See El Caracazo.

Ironically no sooner did Chavez achieve power than petroleum prices exploded, solving all these problems, temporarily anyway. Chavez would not have lasted very long without this enormous money-stream for 15 years.

mandrewa said...

Mexico vs Brazil vs Argentina vs Canada vs Indonesia: 47 years

Mexico goes one step back for every two steps forward but still there is a lot of progress over the last 47 years.

I'm judging progress by the GDP per capita box. You may need to watch the video several times to see all that is going on.

Argentina is the worst performer of these five countries but even Argentina is advancing. Just not as much as these other countries.

Michael K said...

Actually Venezuela was doing really well up to the point they elected a Socialist. One who exploited the racial and ethnic tensions in his country by the way.

From what I have read, there was a lot of corruption with the rich doing well and the poor pretty much ignored. That's why they got Chavez.

Norway and England got oil riches but seemed to be less affected.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

buwaya: One lot of you Americans has to defeat and crush the other lot of Americans.

Sadly, this does appear to be the case.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

"Hey, you know, Robby, if you go across the street to Starbucks, you can stand on the toilet AND walk out 25 cents richer."

doesnt Mexico have Starbucks? Why cant they go there to stand on the toilet?

Fernandinande said...

CNN headline: "Billionaire accused of touching yoga instructor"

narciso said...

What was the catalyst was the dinosaur Carlos Andres Perez who nationalized pdvsa ran on fully restoring the safety net and then defaulted to the IMF austerity package that created the Caracazo which Chavez had probably planned for.

walter said...

Speaking of Starbucks..how/where is Howie Schultz these days?
Biden rise satisfying his desire for "centrist"?

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

@walter
he needs to shit or get off the pot-- not just stand on it

Rabel said...

"how has China grown so much?"

It's full of Chinese people. Mexico is full of Mexicans.

narciso said...

The coup made investing in Venezuela a dodgy thing indeed, plus there were a series of mysterious bombings, which the senior halvirssen was scapegoated for

wholelottasplainin' said...

It's...interesting...that Obama "tried" and failed to deal with the problem of instability, corruption and violence in Central America.

It's also...interesting...that the Kamala Harrises of the world want to restrict gun ownership in this country, which has a homicide rate some four to fifteen times LOWER than most of those Central American countries sending immigrants here.

It's an epidemic of violence in the U.S., don't you see...even though our average homicide rate (5.35 per 1000,000) is three times lower than that for all "the Americas" (16.3 per 100,000).

Go look yourself at the facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#Table

I agree that a new wave of colonialism is an impossible task, one we should never consider.

But the Left's constant drumbeat that the US is a very violent country just isn't borne out.

(and let's acknowledge that some of that homicide data is obviously cooked: note the very low rate for China for example)

narciso said...

Like sending weapons to the local gang through castaway, a splinter of fast and furious?

Michael K said...

Blogger Rabel said...
"how has China grown so much?"

It's full of Chinese people. Mexico is full of Mexicans.


Good point. I would qualify by saying the vast majority are Mestizos and the farther south from Mexico City, the smaller proportion of Spanish genes.

narciso said...

Why I do say that, because Chavez was a sleeper member of red flag, cabello who really runs the country was one too.

Bob said...

From an April 2019 NPR story:

Asked why his family was making the trip north, Javier says, "President Trump has to defend his nation, but the United States for us is like a mother, a mother who looks out for these small countries that we come from."...

...Within days, Trump backed off that threat and then made a new one. He gave Mexico a "one-year warning" to address the migrants and drugs crossing the border or he would slap tariffs on car imports from Mexico....


Thank goodness I was born in the United States.

Question: How many immigrants would / will the "open-borders" politicians allow in before they, too, someday slam the door shut on the next "deserving", poor illegal migrant who presents himself for entry.

Answer: When the influx interferes with their ability to buy votes from their existing constituents.

Bilwick said...

When I am forced to use the men's room at the local public-library men's rooms, I stand on the toilets, too. Something about using the same toilet as the stinky homeless people who hang out in the libraries (and who all seem to have IBS, probably from eating trash-literally) makes me queasy. But when you gotta go, you gotta go.

John henry said...

Narciso,

Starbucks doesn't even sell coffee. They sell coffee flavored beverages which cost them less than actual coffee would and which they sell for more than a cup of coffee would.

Starbucks is directly responsible for the hundreds of billions of bottles of water sold annually.

I heard the vp of Coke speak at the nsda conference in 1999. He told how a group of execs was with him in a Starbucks and they were talking about the marketing genius of Starbucks. "they take a cup of coffee, replace the expensive ingredients with chemical flavors and soy, put a sleeve on the cup, add a fancy story and you've replaced cheap cup of coffee with an expensive cup of crap.

why don't we take the concentrate, sugar and co2 out of coke, put a fancy name on it and just sell the water for the same price. "

He thought he was joking, he said, but they kicked it around, and decided it might work.

The industry went from millions of bottles of water to billions in about 5years.

It almost all comes from city water supplies. The same water you get almost free. A bit of extra filtration and such.

John Henry

Birkel said...

Everybody talking about economic trade theory, have you ever seen the modeling beyond two countries with all the attendant variables? There are about 14 of those variables.

Now try to figure out how many calculations are required for x-way trade: 14*[(x-1)+(x-2)+...(x-{x-1})]

Anybody who says they can do those calculations for 10, 15, or 180 countries is absolutely full of shit.
The math is too complicated for most everybody with 3 countries.

Prove me wrong, you shallow thinking Ricardo worshippers.

John henry said...


Lets say you're running a coffee shop. You set your Coffee price at $2.75/cup because Starbucks is charging $3/cup. The price of coffee beans go down by 25%. Do you reduce the price of a Cup of coffee by 25%? Of course not! You keep selling the coffee for $2.75, and pocket all the savings. You would only reduce the price, if you were losing business to Starbucks Because they lowered their prices.


AOC, is that you?

First, coffeshops and Starbucks are bad examples to illustrate this. The price of coffee beans probably makes up about 10% of the total cost of a cup of coffee in the coffee shop and probably less than 5% in Starbucks.

But, if we were to assume that coffee costs were a more significant cost, Here is what would happen in the real world.

Coffee costs go down the same for both businesses, both businesses make a higher profit per cup. But the coffee shop decides that more volume, even at a lower total price per cup will drive up revenue so they lower the cost from 2.75 to $2.50.

Everyone starts buying their coffee there, revenue and profits go up.

Now, shop B (starbucks?) sees all the business and profit they are losing and drops their price to $2.40 to get back some of the volume.

And so on until both coffee shops are back to making their acceptable level of profit. An equilibrium.

A lot more complex than that in the real world. It assumes that both sell ONLY coffee or that the other things they sell have no effect. It also ignores that if coffee prices drop from $2.75 to 2.50 there will be some people who will buy coffee instead of brewing their own. Or drink coffee instead of hot Dr Pepper and so on. Lost of potential substitutions.

A maxim of the successful business enterprise is:

"We cannot control price. We can only control costs" I've been teaching this for a long time and thought it was Andrew Carnegie but I can't find any reference to him saying that. Or anyone else, for that matter. Perhaps it is original with me? (I doubt it)

The point being that volume is determined by price and for a given volume, the price is out of the enterprises control. Their profit is dependent on increasing the gap between cost and price.

Lower the cost of production inputs (be it coffee or iron ore) and you increase your profit for that volume/price.

John Henry

John henry said...

Blogger Ray - SoCal said...

Mexico was a one party state since the revolution, until recently. Rule of Law and corruption are still huge issues.

True but that is not the source of the problem. The problem goes back 500 years or so.

Several writers, Thomas Sowell is one, Hernan DeSoto another and a couple others I can't remember off hand have posited that the problem with Spanish America was the the reason the Spaniards came to the New World. They came essentially as looters. What would they rip off from the Indians, what could they rip out of the ground. They ripped so much silver and gold out of the ground that they caused a serious inflation in Spain and much of Europe. There was so much silver that it's value declined to about 10% of what it was in the 1400s.

The idea of the Spaniards was to come get silver and get rich then go back to Spain and live a life of ease.

The English, and some of the other Europeans, but mainly the English, came as builders. They came permanently. They also came for liberty that they did not have in England. They farmed, they build, they manufactured and so on.

This is a HUUUUUGE oversimplification, of course.

I can't remember his name but he was the Venezuelan economist who founded OPEC (Copied almost word for word from the Texas Railroad Commission). He said "Oil is the devil's excrement" meaning that the abundance of oil fostered a culture of livng off the olil with no need to do anything productive.

It occurs to me that an earlier version of this might have been "La plata es la cc del diablo"

John Henry

John henry said...

Madison's own Mike Duncan has been dong a series of podcasts called "Revolutions" for the past few years. He recently wrapped up a 30 part series on the Mexican Revolution. First couple episodes were on the pre-revolutionary history. The whole series is excellent.

The other series on the English, American, Haitian, French, and Bolivarian revolutions as well as a couple others have also been great. We are now 2 eps into the history of the Russian revolution which promises to be equally good.

Listen or download from any Podcast app or go to https://www.revolutionspodcast.com/

Last year I read a pretty good book on the Mexican revolution called Villa and Zapata, a history of the Mexican Revolution by Frank McGlynn. Very good.

I spent a week in Chihuahua a couple years ago. Having an afternoon free, I hired a cab and told him to just drive me around the city and show me what he thought was interesting. He was a huge Villa fan. Seemed to think that Villa was the best thing ever to happen to Mexico. (I was not going to disagree with him!) and I think we saw every statue and mural of Villa in the city.

Chihuahua was a very nice city and I was impressed with how many parks and how much greenery and trees they had.

John Henry

John henry said...

When I was cruising the Mediterranean in 1969, All the toilets were for standing. Essentially a recessed porcelain square with a hole in the center and two footpads. This was standard in Spain, Italy, Greece, Malta. Only regular crapper we saw were in the RN dockyard in Gibraltar. For the RN Matelots. They were in this square, roofless brick structure, along the walls with no dividers much less doors. Big horse trough for pissing in along one of the walls.

Something like this https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/01/article-2570828-1BEFBFA400000578-123_634x547.jpg

When it rained you got wet. They had the hardest toilet paper I ever saw. It was waterproof.

We spend a week in drydock there and had to use this facility even just to take a leak. We were supposed to, anyway.

John henry said...

Blogger wholelottasplainin' said...

homicide rate some four to fifteen times LOWER

Could you explain the math on this and how it works?

The way it reads is, if I have a homicide rate of, say, 20, I multiply that by 4.

4X20 give me 80.

Now I subtract 80 from 20 and I get a homicide rate of minus 60? How does that happen? Digging up and reviving corpses?

Not to pick on you but this kind of arithmetical nonsense of "X time less than y" has been driving me nuts for more than 60 years now.

I wish people would just stop it.

John Henry

narciso said...

Perez Alfonso, I remember it from yergins account in the prize.

Freeman Hunt said...

If accurate, those conditions are totally unacceptable. Where are the competent people who can set up a large, orderly camp? Seems like the military would know how to do this.

Birkel said...

Freeman Hunt,
An Obama judge blocked military spending for border concerns.

Freeman Hunt said...

Human beings created in the image of God piled together like a nest of rats? Do it anyway. Let the judge enforce his own order.

Birkel said...

I won't disagree with you, Freeman Hunt, on this point.
And the Supreme Court should stop these national injunction orders, post haste.

But I'm telling you how it is currently playing out.