Flaming is better when we all relax.

Years ago, I swore off arguing with moonies and other assorted fundamentalist loonies.

But here are some matters to consider:

The doubling in Mexican corn production over the past several decades has occurred with the stimulus of state provided incentives, but without an expansion of lands cultivated for corn. What does that tell us? Why would landowners and farmers not have planted corn on abandoned or ignored or otherwise employed land during a period when government largesse made it virtually impossible to lose money doing so?

The run up in corn prices is a function of higher oil and gas prices. (In the US these fundamentals are conflated with so called national security issues, which is just a way to obscure interventionist policies undertaken to benefit elites). Corn production, even in Mexico with its abundance of cheap labour, is heavily dependent on oil and gas inputs and so profits do not increase as much as prices, if at all. Profits are also constrained by the costs of obtaining and maintaing land tenure. How much profit is available for each additional bushel of corn produced in Mexico?

The government of Mexico relies on domestic oil production for 37 % of its revenues, a stream of cash now clearly imperiled by declining overall production. What is the likelihood that the government is going to be willing to increase the expenditure on corn production supports, subsidies that amount to over 30% of the price paid to corn growers? What is the likelihood that the government sees an opportunity in higher corn prices to reduce expenditures on corn production supports?

There are other points to consider, but my dog needs a walk. In any case, there is enough here to tie up your bone(head) for a bit.

Old Hippie - If the land was no longer under village control how, or to whome was it re-allocated?


What you appear to be describing sounds similar to Britain's transition from a communal commons based agriculture to an agriculture based on privately owned estates.


In Britain the better farmers, or the more wealthy farmers, or those who had inherited wealth, purchased or gained title to what had been owned in common. If similar process occured in Mexico then someone, or some social group became rich. Who benefited in Mexico's case?


Cheers!

I don't doubt what you say. I was questioning Keithster100's simplistic answer that all Mexico's poor have to do is plant corn and grow rich. That was the reason for my sarcastic remark, "How nice that you've solved the problem of world poverty".