The Mex Files

Entries categorized as ‘Walmart’

Foreign Policy in Aisle 12?

3 January 2009 · 4 Comments

The WTF OF THE WEEK courtesy of the award-winning* Inca Kola News:

Wal Mart (you might have heard of them) is currently buying up D&S, the Chilean supermarket chain that is market leader in its home country (via its Líder brand of supermarkets and hypermarkets) . As part of the purchase process, Wal Mart today instructed D & S that it has until January 4th to remove from its shelves all products supplied by Cuba.

Also, products from Venezuela and Iran.

Otto at the award-winning Inca Kola News* is, of course, an investment adviser, and recommends stocking up now on Cuban Rum. But, you have to ask why a Chileans can’t buy products from countries with which Chile has trade agreements, and why Wal-Mart is involved. The answer, of course, is the Helms-Burton Act, which attempted to force foreign nations to uphold the United States embargo on Cuba, by applying sanctions on businesses that did business with the Cubans. Mexico and Argentina (along with the European Union, Britain and Canada) all — very diplomatically — told Messers Helms and Burton to shove it up their ass. I haven’t really thought to look to see if Cuban products are in Mexican WalMarts, but Mexico is the largest foreign investor in the Island’s economy, and Canadians are the #1 source of tourists.  You can buy cohibas or six-packs of that god-awful rum-and-cola in Mexican convenience stores without any trouble.

While I suppose a very convoluted rationale might be made for denying Chileans the right to buy Cuban cigars at low-low prices, or whatever Venezuelan or Iranian goods they might want are mysteries to me. I thought the United States — and WalMart — were all about free trade, but apparently, it means freedom to trade objects made in the Communist People’s Republic of China or the theocratic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as opposed to those made in another Communist country, or in another theocratic state. And, as to Venezuela, which has good relations with Chile, it’s… it’s … a democratic country with a Socialist president.  Just like Chile… and Bolivia… and Paraguay… and Uruguay… and Brazil … and Ecuador.

I don’t expect consistency in any country’s foreign policy, but on the other hand, I haven’t heard of private corporations being used as an arm of foreign policy since the early 1940s.

walmartolini

* Inca Kola News is a finalist for the “Weblogs Best Latino, Caribbean, or South American Blog” listing for 2008.  Way to go, Otto!!

Categories: Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · Argentina · Bolivia · Chile · Cuba · Gringo(landia) · Iran · Multinationals · Venezuela · Walmart

Tourism and its discontents

29 September 2008 · Leave a Comment

Now that we’re coming to the end of “Sept-hambre” merchants here in Mazatlan and other tourism-centered business communities, are holding their collective breaths.  Whether the U.S. financial melt-down will have as major an impact on the Mexican tourist trade is a given.. whether Canadian and European tourists will make up the difference is questionable.

And… the tourists coming now are different from those in the past, as are their needs and expectations.  Whether tourism is even a benefit to a community is in question, as Kent Patterson wrote last month in the Americas Policy Program Report (“‘Acapulco-ization’: The Final Stage of Tourism?”) on the economic changes successful tourist destinations have had on the local economy:

A huge change has been the shift toward residential tourism. Drawn by the spell of the Bay of Santa Lucia, moneyed outsiders began purchasing time-shares and condos for their visits. Increasingly, hotels faced competition from “pirate” entrepreneurs who rented cheap rooms to cash-strapped visitors.

Changes in tourism also influenced the type of businesses operating in Acapulco. Enjoying their beach visit with a condominium kitchen, tourists could obtain their own meals at the new Wal-Mart or one of the large Mexican-owned big box stores rather than sampling the flavors of a local restaurant.

Even the old mom-and-pop corner store, or “changarro,” romanticized by former President Vicente Fox as the beacon of petty capitalist opportunity, is fast becoming an obsolete institution as U.S.-style convenience stores begin popping up two or three per block in some areas. The largest such chain, OXXO, is owned by a northern Mexico-based corporation, FEMSA, which bottles Coca Cola.

Categories: Acapulco · Economy & Business · Guerrero (State) · Informal economy · Multinationals · Provincia · Retirees · Tourism · Walmart

Chihuahua nips Wal-Mart: in-dispensa-ble and indefensible

5 September 2008 · 2 Comments

Dspensas — coupons or credit vouchers — are commonly used in Mexico not just for social programs (Mexico City’s “old age pensions” are not cash payouts, but can be used for food and necessities, like the ATM cards states in the U.S. used to replace food stamps).  They are not just for social programs, though.  Businesses often provide dispensas.  There’s certain tax advantages for the employer (who lowers their payroll taxes) and they are often presented to potential employees as a company benefit.  Which, for most employees, they are.

What no one seems to have thought of until now was that these limit the consumers’ rights.  It’s a modern recasting of an old problem, that was one of the major factors in the Revolution… peonage and the tienda de raya (company store).  While Mexico was the first country to outright forbid slavery, the more “modern” economic form of slavery, peonage, remained.  It was simple enough:  people were legally enjoined from leaving their jobs until their debts to the employer were settled.  And, of course, the employee was not paid enough for basic necessities, receiving script for a company store that sold goods far beyond any reasonable price, keeping the worker in hock forever.  Of course, this system was used throughout the world (and still is), even in “advanced” countries well into the 20th century.

The 1910-20 Revolution was based in a lot of different grievances, but both the rural and urban workers saw themselves (and rightly so) as the main force for radical change.  The “radical” 1916-17 Queretaro Constitutional Convention’s delegates included not just rural revolutionaries and union members themselves, but a contingent of what was then a new specialty, labor lawyers.  What emerged was unique:  the first consitution on the planet to include an entire labor code.  While Article 123 of the Constitution has been “reformed” over the years (usually to the benefit of employers), and has its oddities (Mexico is probably the only country in the world where making your employees go to a cafe to pick up their paycheck is a constitutional violation), it has stood up pretty well, and is the basis of most 20th century labor codes. Article 123 specifically forbids employers to pay in company script, or force workes  to buy from the company store.  Dispensas, however, as long as they are not your paycheck, and not making you buy on credit, are perfectly legal.  UNLESS…

Enter the chain stores and debit cards.  Of course, the chains have the ability to process debit cards, and if your dispensa is a debit card, you’re shit out of luck if you want to shop at a mom-n-pop in most places.   My local abarrotes — which does have a scanner — handles credit purchases the old fashioned way.  If Lolita knows you, she writes down what you owe her in a school notebook, and when you pay she deducts the outstanding amount.

What about when the employer is a chain-store?  The State of Chihuahua got an injunction from the Surpreme Court against Walmart because their “social benefits plan” which includes company debit cards as dispensas.

So, all you WalMart employees out there… when you think of calling yourself a “peon”… you’re right.

Categories: Chihuahua · Courts · Economy & Business · Legal system · Provincia · Walmart

Don’t shop for me, organize

9 February 2008 · 1 Comment

As goes Los Cabos, so goes… Lake Chapala, San Miguel …?

The cost-of-living for Mexican workers in the gringo ghettos is significantly higher than in other places, especially in relatively isolated places like Los Cabos.  When the teachers were on strike there a few years ago, the tourist websites included comments from people in Los Cabos that they couldn’t understand it… a beer was only a dollar.  Gee, nice, but how much was milk and toilet paper and cooking gas (and what housing was available for locals?).

From Reuters:

Mexico City, Feb. 7 – Wal-Mart de Mexico (Walmex), the country’s biggest retailer, suffered its first-ever strike this week when 300 workers from two stores and a restaurant

Jaime Camacho, a top official from a grass-roots workers movement that backed the strike action, told Reuters that black and red strike flags were hung at the entrance of the stores and restaurant in the beach resort of Los Cabos at midday on Wednesday, closing down the establishments.

“We lifted the flags today at 9 a.m. local time (1700 GMT). The strike has ended,” Camacho said on Thursday. The units affected were a Wal-Mart Supercenter, a Sam’s membership store and a Vips restaurant, he said.

Walmex was not immediately available for comment.

Walmex employs over 150,000 people across Mexico and is considered the country’s biggest private sector employer. Workers are not unionized.

Workers at the Los Cabos stores and restaurant held their strike action with the backing of Mexico’s Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants, or CROC, a union-style organization that defends workers’ rights.

Camacho said the Walmex workers had complained about bad treatment from managers and that they were not being paid overtime or given benefit packages similar to those awarded by other Walmex stores in the country.

The company agreed to grant some of the workers’ demands and signed a new labor contract on Thursday, Camacho said.

Media reported that in December of last year, protesters picketed outside a Walmex story in the Mexican capital to show support for employees who tried to form a union.

anarcho-walmart.jpg

Categories: Baja Califonia Sur · Cabo San Lucas · Clueless gringos in Mexico · Economy & Business · Organized Labor (Sindicatos) · Provincia · Walmart

Bush league Ivy Leaguers and Plan Mérida

30 October 2007 · 7 Comments

A e-mail sent to the Oaxaca Study Action Group about the U.S. funded expansion of the “War on Drugs” — the so-called “Plan Mexico” now being marketed under the more palatable name of “Plan Mérida” reads:

Plan Mexico has its roots in a pre-NAFTA concept born in rightwing think tanks. …
The concept dates back to Reagan’s time. Basically it was focused on economic concept coming out of Harvard. After years of conquest based on the theory of “Control the politics and you control the economy” of 18th and 19th century expansion the Harvardians turned the theory around: “Control the economy and you control the politics,”

The grand idea was to create a U.S. hemisphere with economic control from Alaska to Tierra de Fuego. NAFTA was advertised as a trade agreement but it was more than that: It was a measure to gain economic control over Latin America by indebting them to the U.S. through loans,extracting raw materials, creating a cheap labor pool and making the economies of the Latin American countries totally dependent. It worked with Mexico but along the way South America pulled out, Brazil and Argentina refusing to stay debt dependent and Venezuela developing a booming oil economy.

Plan Puebla-Panama fits into this plan of economic domination. So does the woeful condition of Pemex, which has to have outside investment just to maintain its equipment. (Thirty years of failing to put any money in infrastructure has totally depleted its capacity to continue to produce.) The U.S. already controls the banking system and through NAFTA both retail and commercial markets. (WalMart, McDonalds, etc.).

In 2006, shortly before the July presidential elections, I attended a forum in La Paz at which Davidow, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, was the featuredspeaker. I commented to the guy sitting next to me (suit and tie, shaved so closely his chin gleamed) that things might not work out the way Davidow was saying if López Obrador won the election.

He smiled and told me, very quietly, “The U.S. will never permit López Obrador to become president of Mexico.”

Plan Mexico gives Calderón a few millions bucks worth of equipment to repress leftists like APPO, of course. The U.S. government will pay U.S. manufacturers for all of the goodies they produce and send.

True or not, I’ve always felt that the very narrow (and statistically improbable) Calderón “victory” was a little too much like some of our “improbable” election results lately (Bush-Gore; Bush-Kerry) to be dismiss U.S. involvement entirely. And — given that I was loudly complaining about Republican Party operatives working for the Calderón campaign, it isn’t just a paranoid fantasy to suggest — as the PRD has maintained — that “they wuz robbed” .

I’ve also been suggesting (hell… I’ve been saying) that Calderón’s own “War on Drugs” was more a way of establishing his credibility than any real attempt to put down the narcotics trade. And, like the OSAG poster, I’ve wondered if the military actions weren’t ALSO designed to intimidate the opposition.

I happen to agree with the writers’ analysis of what has happened to the Mexican economy, though I’m less likely than he is to credit (or blame) some Harvard professors and right-wing think tank papers. Right and left, all country’s elites largely bought off on the globalization fad of the last few years.

While even some of the authors of globalization (like Joseph Steiglitz) have come to recognize ithe very real shortfalls of — oh — “neo-internationalism” or “neo-liberalism” (especially in middle-class countries like Mexico and Brazil), the Bush Administration seems to still be enamored of what’s more and more seen as a “retro” theory, and one that didn’t take into account OTHER factos like climate change, limits to growth and growing class disparaty in the wealthy nations (like the United States).

That’s what worries me most about “Plan Mérida”… not that a couple of billion U.S. dollars are going to the Mexican military to purchase U.S. made goods and equipment, but that it opens the door to some even more retro ideas. John Negroponte was in Mexico City the other day to talk to Felipe Calderón about “Plan Mérida”.

But what does anti-narcotics military/legal action have to do with “the economy and immigration”, which were the subject of these talks. Negroponte, speaking of fascists, scares the hell out of me. Besides the mess he made as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, his record in Latin America is fightening

As ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, Negroponte played a key role in US aid to the Contra death squads in Nicaragua and shoring up the brutal military dictatorship of General Gustavo Alvarez Martínez in Honduras. Between 1980 and 1994 U.S. military aid to Honduras jumped from $3.9 million to $77.4 million. Much of this went to ensure the Honduran army’s loyalty in the battle against popular movements throughout Central America.

…According to the New York Times, Negroponte was responsible for “carrying out the covert strategy of the Reagan administration to crush the Sandinistas government in Nicaragua.”

…n early 1984, two American mercenaries, Thomas Posey and Dana Parker, contacted Negroponte, stating they wanted to supply arms to the Contras after the U.S. Congress had banned further military aid. Documents show that Negroponte brought the two with a contact in the Honduran armed forces.

The operation was exposed nine months later, at which point the Reagan administration denied any US involvement, despite Negroponte’s participation in the scheme. Other documents uncovered a plan of Negroponte and then-Vice President George H.W. Bush to funnel Contra aid money through the Honduran government.

The son of a Greek-British shipping magnate, John Negroponte attended Philips Exeter Academy and Yale University, attaching himself to William H.T. Bush (Bush I’s brother, and Bush II’s uncle). I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but there is more than a whiff of cronyism about Negroponte and the Bush clan. Given his record in Honduras (he was later U.S. Ambassador to Mexico (Unsourced in Wikipedia’s biography is the statement “During Negroponte’s tour as US Ambassador to Mexico (1989-1993), he officiated at the block-long, fortified embassy and directed, among other things, U.S. intelligence services to assist the war against the Zapatista rebels of Chiapas.” — probably true, but unproven).

Carlos Salinas de Gortari (with a Harvard PhD in Economics) was President of Mexico during Negroponte’s tenure at the corner of Reforma and Danubo. This was precisely the time when NAFTA was developed — and when “neo-liberalism” became state policy in Mexico (and when the PEMEX collapse started… and when McDonalds and WalMart first made their appearance in the Republic)… and when the narcotics trade became economically and politically important.

I draw no conclusions at this point, but connecting the dots doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

Categories: 2006 Elections · AMLO · Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · C.I.A. · Carlos Salinas · Death squads · Drugs · Economy & Business · Evil-doers · Felipe Calderón · George W. Bush · Gringo(landia) · Honduras · Human Rights · Mexican History 1921+ · Nicaragua · Politica (Mexicana) · Walmart

Wall Street Journal supporting Mexican left?

5 August 2007 · 2 Comments

Mexicans with drive, ambition and a willingness to take risks sneak across the border to the U.S. But they don’t just come for jobs. They also come for the capital. When these immigrants arrive they don’t just sell their labor, many start small businesses in the food, construction, maintenance and landscaping trades. When those businesses are launched, illegal Mexican immigrants hire other illegal Mexican immigrants. A great deal of Mexico’s job creation takes place inside the U.S.

 

So writes Joel Kurtzman in a source I very seldom quote – the Wall Street Journal. I agree with much of Kurtzman’s analysis of the problem, the impossibility of obtaining credit and capital for investment :

 

Mexico’s financial and economic structures fail at providing entrepreneurs with the capital they need to create jobs. The economy is too concentrated, with nearly half of it controlled by a single family — that of the billionaire Carlos Slim. A handful of other families own the bulk of Mexico’s remaining wealth. Mexico’s legal and business structures effectively fence off from competition whole sectors of the economy. In telecommunications, petroleum and much of the real-estate and tourism sectors, real competition is restricted. Mexico could jumpstart its job-creation engine by opening these sectors of its economy to real competition.

 

Mexico’s financial system is to entrepreneurship what sharks are to a swimmer’s beach. Banking, which is conservative and risk-averse, dominates Mexico’s financial system, accounting for about 55% of all financial assets, compared with just 24% of all financial assets in the U.S. In the U.S., the capital markets and a diverse array of funds provide most of the capital. If that weren’t enough, Mexico’s top three banks control 60% of all banking assets. If entrepreneurs are turned down by the first bank, they really have only two more places to apply. For a country its size, Mexico’s stock and bond markets are hugely underdeveloped when measured as a percentage of GDP.

Household credit is also scarce in Mexico and amounts to only about 5% of GDP, versus 65% in the U.S. Without access to credit, Mexico’s consumer and retail sectors have not grown sufficiently. These sectors could be vibrant job-creation engines if Mexicans had wider access to credit.

 

I disagree with his solution – allowing foreigners access to PEMEX, and markets. It’s exactly what the Fox and Calderón administrations have been trying to do, and what NAFTA was supposed to do, during which time emigration has skyrocketed.

 

Kurtzman complains that Mexican businesses are too concentrated. Agreed, but this was in the Wall Street Journal, after all. You get the sense that his idea of competition is Exxon v PEMEX or WalMart v Grupo Electra, not “Aborotes El Toro” v “Aborotes Guadalupe”. One thing he fails to note is that the emigrant remittances are largely responsible for those real competitive businesses. Remittances largely go either to education or to financing those very changaros and “biznes” ventures that create jobs and build a stable middle class.

 

It’s not that the giant businesses don’t have their uses. The U.S. press paid attention when Wal Mart de Mexico started offering banking services, though Grupo Electra’s Banco Azteca and chain-store banks throughout Latin America have been around for years.

 

Sure, I agree – monopolistic practices are under scrutiny now. Telecommunications will change in the next few years after the Supreme Court cleared the way for broader access to the airwaves. Mexico City’s investment in district-wide WiFi access is going to shake up the computer industry.

 

Ironically, it is the left that’s pushing the Calderón administration to start talking about correcting the monopolistic practices of the past and about changing the laws to make credit more widely available. Of course, access to credit means coming up with money. But, there’s no reason to suppose the investments must come from the usual foreign sources. Argentina’s president just in Mexico last week with an important trade agreement on automotive parts. Brazil’s Lula da Silva on a sales trip this week, peddling Brazilian ethanol. Lula is reported NOT discussing Mercosur, saying Mexico tied itself to North America, but there too, the left’s proposal to renegotiate NAFTA, and the recognition that some ties outside Mercosur (most likely through Banco del Sur).

 

I see more and more that the Mexican left ’s prescriptions for economic improvement – expanded ties to South America, more credit for small business and a focus on internal markets — are what is likely to be followed.

 

 

 

Categories: Americas (outside U.S. and Mexico) · Argentina · Automotive industry · Banking · Brazil · Economy & Business · Emigrant labor/remittances · Informal economy · Media · Mercosur · Multinationals · NAFTA · Oil and PEMEX · Politica (Mexicana) · Technology · Trade agreements and issues · Vicente Fox · Walmart

Attention Wal-Mart Shoppers…

3 August 2007 · 9 Comments

… now we know how they undersell local merchants. They stiff their bagboys.

In a country where nearly half of the population scrapes by on less than $4 a day, any income source is welcome in millions of households, even if it hinges on the goodwill of a tipping customer. And Wal-Mart did not invent the bagger program that, as a written statement from the company notes, pre-dates the firm’s arrival in Mexico, nor is it alone within the country’s retail sector in benefiting from the toil of unpaid adolescents. But in Mexico City, for example, the 4,300 teenagers who work in Wal-Mart’s retail stores free of charge dwarf similar numbers laboring unpaid for Mexican competitors like Comercial Mexicana (715) and Gigante (427). Although Wal-Mart’s worldwide code of ethics expressly forbids any “associate” from working without compensation, the company’s Mexican subsidiary asserts that the grocery baggers “cannot be considered workers.”

I won’t say it’s an organized “plot”, but there are comments in every posting to this story to the effect that “it gives the children a safe environment and an exposure to the working world that they wouldn’t get otherwise…” or a variation on the same, usually from someone who knows because “I live 3 months of the year in Puerto Vallerta and…”.


There are couple of problems with the happy rationales. Where you do have kids working for tips, it’s where the kid is part of the ownership circle — the son or nephew or cousin of the small merchant running an entrepreneural enterprise.

Usually, in neighborhood markets, that are owned by chains, the bagger is the check-out clerks kid, who gets the change, or at least a few pesos. Often the bagger is the checker’s kid, who is doing his homework or goofing off with the stock-boy when not bagging.

Secondly, if the kid is old enough to legally work, he or she is supposed to be paid. It doesn’t matter if they’re “associates” or not… if WalMart expects them to be at a certain place, they are at “asociados” under Mexican labor law, and have to receive the daily minimum (about 5 dollars), even if they only work an hour or two. I had a student who was the head of the law department of a major Mexican bank, who wanted me to come in and help out on some on-going translation, but we made other arrangements because of this regulation.

And, my observation is that WalMart does consider the baggers to be employees. They were always wearing the WalMart red vest and had a regular station within the store.

I think WalMart is bad in the long run for a lot of reasons (mom n’ pop stores clean the street every morning and act as the neighborhood watch — because they are part of the neighborhood; WalMarts don’t — they have employees, not people investing in the community), but this is just low.

WalMart and the rationalizers (must just be coincidence they all have the same story) are confusing baggers with beggars. And the bag boys I’ve seen in WalMart aren’t slugs… goofy teenagers, sure, but ones who know what a sindicato is… or have an uncle who is a labor lawyer, or an aunt whose comadre is active in the PRD, or….

BAGBOYS UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT — ah hell, if WalMart claims they’re not “associates” and doesn’t pay them squat now, they just have nothing to lose.

Categories: Clueless gringos in Mexico · Economy & Business · Evil-doers · Informal economy · Multinationals · Organized Labor (Sindicatos) · Walmart

Free Checking… or else!

14 July 2007 · 1 Comment

During my stint as an illegal alien in Mexico, about the only difficulty I ever encountered was opening a checking account. I had one in the U.S., so could draw on that for cash from Tarjeros Automaticos (not “ATM”… which is slang for “way cool”). I didn’t feel particularly alone in keeping cash around my apartment, though I did recommend to foreigners moving to Mexico City to think of better places to stash the cash than under the mattress.

This is a good move… Mexico’s banking system has been antiquated and frustrating for years (I once heard a Mexican banker saying that reforms in the 90s moved the banking system boldly into the 16th century). It’s weird, that in theory Mexican banks are even safer than U.S. banks (by law, Mexican banks cannot go broke, and depositors are completely covered. If a bank goes under, it is taken over by the government and sold), but people avoid using them.

The Bloomberg reporter says its the high fees keeping people from using banks, but it goes much deeper than that. People don’t trust banks. They’re bastions of the oligarchy, and there was some support for José Lopez Portillo when he nationalized them in 1982.

Lopez Portillo was barking mad — for unknown reasons he signed an executive order outlawing the teaching of cursive writing in Mexican schools (since rescinded) and vowed to protect the peso like a dog. For the rest of his life, the poor guy couldn’t enjoy a meal in a restaurant without everyone going “woof! woof! woof!”.

His successor, Miguel de la Madrid was a banker. He started the privatization of the Mexican economy, but it was Salinas de Goutari — widely considered a crook — who oversaw the restructuring and privatization of the banks. Most ended up in foreign hands (including, eventually Banco de Mexico, which is owned by Chase). And, everything started to go to hell.

Many blamed the spectacular hyperinflation of the time (between 1975 and the 1992 revaluation, the peso went from 12.5 to the U.S. dollar to about 3500 to the dollar) on the bankers. And there were a series of bank failures involving embezzlements and mismanagement (as there were in the U.S. Savings and Loan collapse during the Reagan administration — which had also sought to loosen government control over the banks).

Though the Mexican banks are secure, the biggest headache for small businesses and consumers is that to be profitable, they have to operate by rules developed for wealthier countries. You just can’t get a small business loan for, say 10,000 pesos, let alone for a very small business loan like 2000 pesos to buy a bicycle for your delivery business, or a washing machine to do the neighbors’ laundry.

Capitalists and socialists unite! Attacking the bankers was a good political move for people like AMLO — who made an international reputation for himself by, of all things, pushing through tighter bank security regulations. Not financial security, but physical security. The rules were modeled on Italian laws and those from the City of Chicago and dealt with things like bulletproof glass and teller’s cages. The bankers, used to free city police protection and egged on by the Fox Administration’s search for some way to pick a fight with AMLO, came out the eventual losers. Meaning, the banks are safer than ever.

But, for a few thousand pesos, why bother. This is where the capitalists come in. Bloomberg mentions WalMart’s banking, but WalMart is a Juanito come lately to the business. Monte Piedad has been offering small loans since the 18th century and the pawnbrokers fill an essential gap (at my company, we once had to pawn a watch to meet payroll, which wasn’t at all unusual for any small business in a country where there’s no good way to borrow against receivables), but pawn shops aren’t exactly modern banking.

Department stores like Electra realized how much they could earn from small loans and — without any altruistic motives — went into giving credit for very small purchases indeed (you can buy a steam iron on credit at Electra). Brazilian store chains had the same idea, and a Banco Azteca teller cage in the back of an Electra store is a lot less intimidating than walking into HCSB for a few hundred pesos.

One other point. The country desperately needs to reform its tax laws. With even small businesses doing mostly a cash business, there’s no way to trace income and create a workable system. A friend of mine talked about “forcing” people to open bank accounts, but Mexicans are geniuses when it comes to subverting anything they are forced to do… seduction might work, but force, no.

It sounds, from the Bloomberg article, like the big guys (Banamex, HSBC, Sandander, Scotiabank — owned by U.S., British, Spanish and Canadian companies respectively) — are the ones who need forced to do business in Mexico the Mexican way.

Mexico to Require Lenders to Offer Free Accounts

By Adriana Arai

 

July 13 (Bloomberg) — Mexico’s central bank will require lenders to offer free accounts to low- and middle-income consumers to reduce service fees, which authorities say are keeping many Mexicans out of the financial system.

 

 

Under new regulations to be published July 16, commercial banks will have 180 days to offer accounts that don’t charge fees for automated-teller machine withdrawals, balance inquiries, debit cards and maintenance, the central bank said today on its Web site.

 

The requirement will make it easier for millions of Mexicans to open a bank account for the first time while forcing lenders to become more efficient, said Pascual O’Dogherty, head of financial system research at Mexico’s central bank.

 

“Many people don’t open an account because they’re afraid of the fees,” he said in an interview from Mexico City.

 

Mexico is stepping up efforts to increase competition in an industry where six banks control almost 90 percent of banking assets. Most of the country’s population of 105 million have no access to financial services. The government last year gave Wal- Mart Stores Inc.’s local unit, Wal-Mart de Mexico SAB, a commercial-banking license just as a similar request was denied by U.S. regulators.

 

Central Bank Governor Guillermo Ortiz, for his part, has made competition a priority since winning a second term in 2003. Ortiz has since required the banks to cut credit- and debit-card fees by $200 million annually and disclose all levies built into loans, among other measures.

 

 

The biggest banks in Mexico are units of Bilbao, Spain- based Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA, New York-based Citigroup Inc. and Banco Santander SA. HSBC Holdings Plc’s unit is the fourth largest. Enrique Castillo, president of the Association of Mexican Banks, wasn’t available today to comment on the new regulations, according to his office in Mexico City.

 

The new rules apply to any account where individuals deposit as much as 165 times the daily minimum wage per month — about 8,000 pesos ($743) — and to any payroll account, O’Dogherty said. Such threshold covers most of Mexico’s population, he said. The central bank doesn’t have an estimate for how many accounts would benefit or how many people may enter the banking system for the first time, he said.

 

Just a fifth of Mexico’s 25.8 million households use financial services, according to a 2004 survey by the government’s statistics agency, the latest available.

Categories: Banking · Brazil · Bureaucracy · Carlos Salinas · Economy & Business · Informal economy · José Lopez Portillo · Mexican History 1921+ · Real Mexico · Walmart

Ermo’s Television — Consumerism and Remittances

10 May 2007 · Leave a Comment

In the course of cinematic history, there have been many great quests: searches for the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, the true nature of Humankind, the essence of God, and, during this film from Chinese director Zhou Xiaowen, a 29-inch television. In Ermo… we follow the obsessive struggle of one woman (Alia) to earn the money to buy the biggest television in her village.

From a College of Wooster (Massachusetts) Chinese Course Description

Ermo is no different than a lot of poor and ambitious campesinas. As the IMDB.com plot summary says:

The independent Ermo supports her son and disabled husband, rising early to make noodles she sells as a street vendor. A snooty neighbor has a TV, so Ermo wants a huge one.

She takes a job in the city, has an affair, sells blood and eventually, she and her elderly impotent husband end up with a TV too big for their house.. and a living room full of neighbors trying to make sense of American football. A cautionary tale perhaps, but is there anything strange about the quest for consumer goods… or a better life? And, Ermo’s justification is that she wants the best for her son who spends way too much time at the neighbor’s watching cartoons.

Wait a minute. What does a Chinese movie have to do with the MexFiles?

Not much other than it’s a great movie I first saw on Mexican television and it has everything to do with remittances. Ermo has a lot of Mexican sisters, who come from Chiapas or Veracruz or Oaxaca to sell their goods in the streets. Perhaps they’re just planning to buy a television (or a computer — TVs having reached even the remotest parts of Mexico long ago), or perhaps she has other goals in mind.

Ermo was not poor in her own village, and the ladies who come to the city to sell a little of everything, aren’t necessarily either. And Mexico is a wealthier country than China. But people are people, and they want better lives… and better stuff.

As Oscar Lewis noticed with Mexico City’s working class in the 1950s and 60s, many country dwellers stay, seeing the benefits of urban life. There’s nothing new in that. When the obsessively curious Lewis began his studies just after World War II, he could sort the wealth of families in given vecinidades by who owned a wrist-watch and who had THE radio in the complex. By the end, he’d stopped counting watches and radios and started counting TVs. Today he’d be counting I-pods, but not cell phones.

I lived for a several months in a cuarto ambulado (rooming house) where the big excitement on my floor was the day one of my neighbors got his own giant TV… and, like Ermo’s, it was too big to fit comfortably in his cramped living space (though — unlike Ermo’s neighbors — we didn’t watch foreign sports. We watched futbol and luche libre).

Ermo herself worked for her TV, but would her desires have been much different if her brother, or husband was working abroad and sending her money? She might still want to buy a TV. The grumps at the International Monetary Fund try arguing that remittances are a “moral hazard” for the recipient, which seems to mean they’ll be tempted to buy a big TV, but who are international bankers to lecture others on morals?

There’s some indication that remittances are a mixed blessing for rural economies. The folks who have them can invest in goods (like Ermo’s 29-inch color TV), but it raises prices for folks who don’t receive remittances. Much of the early criticism of remittances in the U.S. media took the form of collective head-shaking over new pickup trucks and satellite dishes in rural areas. “Why didn’t those people spend their money on schools or better houses?”

They did, but people — poor or otherwise — don’t always make the best consumer choices, and, besides, it could be argued that new trucks meant better transportation, and a satellite dish meant better educational opportunities. Remittance money is invested in the local community, and — according to most studies — at least doubles in value (My brother sends home a thousand dollars, and I buy bricks to build an addition on the house and hire local laborers. The laborers and the brick makers buy groceries and their own TVs. The grocer…and appliance store…).

As I’ve noted before, and as “credible” sources like the Inter-American Development Bank’s Manuel Orozco (“Worker Remittances in an International Scope” 1993, PDF file)

The benefits of migration are significant for both sending and receiving countries. Remittances are one important benefit for immigrant-sending countries.

Although there is no direct relationship between remittances and human development, they have an important impact on the economies of receiving countries. Migration and remittances do not necessarily relate to the level of development in a country (not only the poor migrate, nor is migration only from poorer to wealthier countries). Countries receiving remittances come from low, medium and even high human development
cohorts. The connection of remittances to development is related rather to a) the receiving country’s regional economic position and its relationship to a more economically salient country and b) the macroeconomic impact remittances have on the receiving country.

In other words, even a “middle income country” like Mexico benefits from remittances. The U.S. enjoys two benefits — by leaving the country, the money is effectively “banked,” and the “interest” comes back indirectly through Mexican purchases that benefit the U.S. (something I don’t pretend to comprehend), but the U.S. gains lower cost labor at home, and consumers who, being elsewhere, are at no cost (or low cost) to the seller (in other words, grand-dad back in Zacatecas buys his satellite dish from WalMex. And it’s not U.S. taxpayers financing the road that grand-dad drives down to the store, nor your local power plant that is providing the electricity, nor your local hospital that picks up the tab for the uninsured WalMart worker who falls off a ladder getting the dish out of the stock room).

More importantly, remittances aren’t only spent on consumer goods, though sometimes in themselves, they improve people’s lives. A refrigerator means better food — and presumably better health. A computer is … one hopes… educational. Bricks provide jobs for brickmakers and masons. Indoor plumbing benefits a family’s overall health. And remittance funding provides for education, or the chance for higher education.

Better educated, healthier people will earn more and have fewer — and healthier, better educated — children. A win-win-win for remittances.

One of the stupider anti-immigration measures you hear from time to time is a tax on remittances. While there are some costs to immigration, remittances seem to be a benefit. It certainly is for Western Union, which recongizes that remittance investments in Mexico are in their own best interests:

ENGLEWOOD, Colo.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The Western Union Company (NYSE:WU), a worldwide leader in money transfer services, is expanding its ties to Mexico, meeting with government officials who play a vital role in Mexico’s remittance industry and economic development.

Later this month, company officials will participate in high-level discussions in Mexico City on corporate initiatives and social responsibility. During these meetings, Western Union representatives also plan to announce the expansion of the 4+1 program, an economic and social development initiative in conjunction with Mexican Home Town Associations in the United States (HTAs) and the federal, state and municipal governments in Mexico.

…“Western Union has committed more than a million dollars to the 4+1 program, matching the contributions the HTAs and the three Mexican government levels have provided to support much-needed initiatives in key states in Mexico affected by high levels of poverty and migration. We will continue to set the industry standard, not only for products and services, but for social responsibility and good corporate citizenship.”

Earlier this year and during the initial stages of the program, Western Union helped fund eight projects in communities throughout the State of Zacatecas. These projects included an eco-tourism park, fruit and vegetable processing, nopal farming, agribusiness equipment, a pork farm and a computer assembly plant. In all, Western Union will contribute $1.25 million to these and other projects in five states. During an upcoming trip to Mexico, the company will announce the expansion of the program to the State of Mexico.

It’s a secondary, unexpected benefit. Immigrants are creating their own foreign aid programs. And if some campesino’s kid watches too much TV, so be it.

More than you’d ever want to read about remittances as microfinancing

Speaking of remittances — and added value –we depend on them for essentials like the phone, rent, electricity — to provide you the direct and indirect benefits of reading the Mex Files.

Categories: Agriculture · Banking · China · Ciudad de México · Economy & Business · Education and educators · Emigrant labor/remittances · Ermo (1994 Zhou Xiaowen) · Health · Human Rights · Indocumentados · Informal economy · Inter American Development Bank · International Monetary Fund · La Raza (Mexican cultures and peoples) · Multinationals · Nutrition · Real Mexico · Technology · Trade agreements and issues · Walmart · Western Union

They found paradise, and put up a WalMart…

7 March 2007 · 1 Comment

“When the small-business owner goes out of business, the middle class gets smaller,” says Sebastian Alvarez, a 34-year-old liquor-store owner who is part of a group in the tourist mecca of Los Cabos, at the southern tip of the Baja California peninsula, seeking to block a Wal-Mart. Though opposition is small today, he said he expects criticism of Wal-Mart to grow in coming years – just as it did over time in the U.S.

Wal-Mex is already the biggest private employer in the Republic, and growth shows no sign of tapering off any time soon, writes John Lyons in the Wall Street Journal (reprinted here). While I have the usual lefty objections to WalMart (environmentally unfriendly, ugly big boxes in pedestrian-unfriendly neighborhoods), I have to admit Wal-Mex has done some things right.

I always thought Banco Azteca (the consumer savings bank owned by Grupo Electra Department Stores) was one of the best things to happen to the Mexican working class. They could get credit for very small purchases, and it gave SOME of the estimated 75% of Mexicans who don’t use conventional banks access to more credit than was available through the family network and traditional methods (I had a student with a “real” credit card, who was the investor or financer of six or seven family businesses — a bicycle for a delivery driving uncle here, a brothers’ computer there…). Sometimes alls you need is a blender or two, or a steam iron to become an entrepreneur, and without small credit, that’s not possible.

Banco Azteca was — and is — proving that micro-lending isn’t a charitable enterprise. Working people pay their loans (I once sat through a real estate buying seminar… not that I’ve ever had money… and right now I don’t have any – hey, it’s PLEDGE MONTH HERE AT MEX FILES) … where looking for pickup trucks in driveways was one of the signs of a neighborhood worth buying into. The theory back then was that pickup drivers were working guys, and working guys paid their bills). And, if granny is making a few pesos ironing clothes for their neighbors, she’s as much a member of the business community as Carlos Slim. Certainly, she won’t be as influential as Slim… but, she will have a stake in the prosperity of the community.

And… middle-class values. A Mexican small business owner is someone of importance in their community. Even if you’re only talking about your block in Mexico City. I had my apartment wiring fixed by the nephew of the lady who sold quesadillas and breakfasts to construction workers out of the local in the front of my building because… well, because la Señora was the business owner I knew and trusted. And I wasn’t acting like a lost gringo. That’s how you get things done… through local shop owners.

The middle-class values extended to things like sweeping the sidewalk every morning, the informal “neighborhood watch” committee, feeding my dog on occasion (she was a notorious mooch) and taking in the mail if I wasn’t home. The kind of things that make neighborhoods livable. And, being middle class, you can be sure her the kids were going to school, and doing their homework every day.

Not that she — or I — or anyone else in the neighborhood, had any money to speak of. Income does not make you middle-class. And that is my real problem with Wal-Mex.

Yes, they pay better, and its a good thing to get people into the “formal economy” where they can get housing credits and pay into IMSS (Social Security). But, as employees of some big box, they don’t have neighborhood ties, and aren’t going to sweep the sidewalk just because it’s your home. And they aren’t usually living in the neighborhood (though there are some moves to encourage employers to find employees nearby residences).

I think the people who say “well, Mexicans prefer to shop at the locals because …” are whistling in the dark. Mexicans are no different than any other shopper. They’ll like the local, and the local shopkeeper, but that won’t stop them from shopping where their peso goes the furthest. They’ll complain about the crappy fruit (WalMex fruit is aweful… my favorite fruit, zapote, has to be very fresh or it turns to wood. WalMex distribution systems have no way of dealing with things like that). They’ll complain about having to take the bus to the store and wrestle their packages back on. But they won’t notice until the local is gone. Just like the U.S.

The bigger problem is the ownership. Mexico built a middle class by “going it alone”. One of the ironies of the Revolution was that by concentrating on education and development, Mexico went from almost no middle class to a relatively middle-class country, or one with middle class values. And, they were the voters who threw out the Revolutionary party in favor of the counter-revolutionary PAN in 2000.

After World War II, when the new PRI (founded in 1948) sought to consolidate the revolution, creating a national consumer base, and the national industries to support the middle-class, were priorities. Volkswagen was more a Mexican company… and “el Vocho” a Mexican car, even with its Germanic lineange, than otherwise.  The others who were given special consideration and government loans or contracts to get they started — Herdez, Goya, Cemex, Commercial Mexicana and so on — were fostered to meet internal needs. Mexican consumers had access to the same stuff other advanced countries had… just not all the brands. You could buy canned soup — but there weren’t five or six brands selling the same tomato soup. You might get crappy goods for some things (old Mexican plumbing is a nightmare!), but the money you spent stayed in the country… as did the jobs.

Wal Mex is 62% owned by Wal Mart… which means the Walton family of Arkansas. Their interests are not Mexico’s interests.  If I have to eat crappy fruit… and give up zapotes except for rare trips to the campo… I don’t want the money going to some bubbas who are too damn rich to begin with. Or the price of tortillas going through the roof.  Or my neigbhors working for ‘da man… and not themselves.

Categories: Banking · Carlos Slim · Ciudad de México · Economy & Business · Informal economy · La Raza (Mexican cultures and peoples) · Multinationals · Real Mexico · Walmart

Stupid, and proud of it… the Minuteman and el Super Tazón

6 February 2007 · 3 Comments

I haven’t a clue who John Boggan is, but he posted this in the Scottsdale (AZ) East Valley Tribune  

Tonight while most people were watching the superbowl, I had to make a trip to Wal Mart for my daughter… I went in to find not one english speaking person in the entire store! not only that, I did not not see any shoppers but those of hispanic descent! This is just proof that these people have no intention of becoming american. They wont speak the language, they want us to cater to them, and by god they dont even care about the superbowl! that’s just un-american, but dont try to get them to work during the world cup!

Uh, John … since you probably can’t read Spanish, you probably don’t often read the Mexican intellectual daily, Jornada, but I guess you can figure out what the picture was on Monday’s front page.  Sorry you missed the game…

Categories: Border Issues · Humor · Media · Right Wing Idiots · Walmart

Corn-y rationales for tortilla prices don’t sell

19 January 2007 · Leave a Comment

Although the Calderón administration has slapped price controls on tortillas ($8.50 per kilo) the price is still very, very high. 

The NEW “salario minimo” — which is based on a broad market basket of goods and services in Zona “A” (the most expensive parts of the country) is only $50.57 a day.  In theory this is enough for a family of four to get by… but just barely.  The difference between 6 or 7 pesos and 8.50 pesos per day is a huge chunk of an already inadequate income. 

The salario raise was set before the tortilla jump, and the explanations for the jump don’t quite make sense. 

The USDA was reporting back in June 2004 that U.S. corn exports to Mexico had been rising since 1994 (when NAFTA went into effect). 

It’s important to understand the types of corn being exported:

Most of the increased trade has been in yellow corn, used primarily to feed livestock. But over the past 3 years, about 10 percent of this trade has consisted of white corn, which is used to produce tortillas and other traditional Mexican foods.

There are two fairly distinct markets for corn in Mexico: yellow corn for livestock feed and other industrial uses, such as the production of starch and high-fructose corn syrup, and white corn for direct human consumption. Over the next decade, the growth of yellow corn exports is largely assured by the anticipated expansion of Mexican livestock production. Prospects for white corn exports are more difficult to predict, given the changing structure of Mexico’s corn, milling, and tortilla industries.

It’s WHITE CORN — for human consumption — that suddenly jumped.  The standard explanation — that more yellow corn (used also for ethanol production) was planted at the expense of white corn doesn’t make sense. 

Neal Dikeman, a partner in something called a “boutique merchant bank advising strategic investors and startups in cleantech” finds it “funny” that ethanol demand in the United States and WalMart business practices are also sending tortilla prices through the roof. 

I assume he means “that’s weird” as opposed to “ha-ha!  That’s a laugh!” but it’s hard to tell.  They call Economics the “dismal science” for a reason… the practicioners are cold-blooded SOBs to whom humor is a foreign language anyway. 

From what I can decypher of Dikema’s ivory-towered economic gobbledy-gook, increased demand for yellow corn is driving white corn off the market, causing white corn (the kind people eat.  Yellow corn is used for animal feed or ethanol or sweeteners) prices to jump.  That’s a given.  But to Dikeman:

… this price rise is just a perfect example of how globalization can even out the impact of something like ethanol demand on corn prices by spreading the effect across multiple markets and multiple commodities .

In other words… “Oh well, it all works out in the end.” 

He’s just looking at this from an academic viewpoint, and one can safely assume, a few pesos difference (or double the price in some places) won’t hurt him.  He probably doesn’t eat tortillas anyway.  But if they are your “daily bread” this is a matter of life and death. 

And, Dikeman’s theory would only make sense if Mexican farmers — white corn producers — are also planting yellow corn.  They’re not.  They’re being driven off the land by a number of other factors.  Breaking up the ejitals (the collectively owned farms) was probably not done as well as it could have been.  The small individual farms can’t compete against corporate entities in the United States and Canada.  And those countries subsidize both the growers (through fuel rebates among other things) and exports. 

 I’ve recommened Jennifer Rodgers’ website since she’s an expert on the effects of genetically modified corn on indigenous communities.  I’m dubious of the sustainability of corn strains that require chemical fertilizer and special harvesting techniques (i.e., fuel intensive agriculture) in a country where farms are small, independent units, and not huge corporate enterprises.  I think in general, GM corn is going to destroy Mexican agriculture (and… given that Mexico — the motherland of corn — still grows varieties that would be needed if any plant disease was to wipe out a monoculture corn variety, it is very bad disaster planning). 

I’m starting to think GM corn will do nothing but make Mexico more dependent on outside resources (fertilizer and fuel) and do nothing but force more farmers off their own land. I’m surprised the Mexican poster didn’t notice some other possible effects of the tortilla jump.  Wal Mart has been undercutting the mom-n-pop tortilla vendors.  With tortilla sales pretty much limited to two major distributors (Maseca and Cargill — the lattter being a U.S. owned company), Ethanol speculation MAY be a factor, but Dikeman also mentions that Wal-Mart has taken advantage of the situation and is starting to undersell neighborhood tortilla distributors.

Stories that Mexicans are crossing the border to buy tortillas at U.S. Wal Marts seem to fall in the category of “urban legends” (besides higher U.S. prices for basic commodities, there are the tolls and transit costs that wouldn’t make tortillas cheaper in U.S. stores, even with the sudden doubling in price… what people who’ve reported this are probably seeing is Mexican and Mexican-Americans who’ve always shopped at Wal Mart buying their weekly tortillas, and just never noticed before… and jumped to conclusions). 

Tortillas always had a set price when I lived in Mexico City no matter where you bought them. But if you bought from the mom-n-pops, it was mom and pop and their daughter and their nephew and his buddy who were making a living and investing in your neighborhood (and sometimes feeding the neighbors who had late paychecks or hungry kids). Walmart has… employees, not owners (not owners in my neighborhood, anyway — and not owners who swept the sidewalk and gave handouts to the neighborhood dogs).

Dikeman also noticed the glut in yellow corn used for corn sweeteners. He also mentioned NAFTA… and OUR desire to sell genetically modified corn to the nation where corn production began (and where there are still a lot of varieties that aren’t found anywhere else).

Given that there has been a concerted effort to keep corn sweetners (which compete with Mexican grown sugar) on the market (and to avoid a soft-drink tax which would have hurt the foreign sweetner market more than the sugar growers) AND to go ahead with dropping protections for Mexican corn growers (and, probably allowing genetically modified corn to enter the country), both pushed by PAN, I think this post I saw (of all places on Lonely Planet’s Thorn Tree Mexico Message Board — which sometimes has good political/cultural discussions not normally found on tourist message boards) – written by a Mexican national, not a tourist – is on a lot of Mexican’s minds and should be taken seriously:

ISN’T IT IRONIC that the first to suffer under the new PAN president are the poor with the price hikes for tortillas. Kind of gives a new meaning to the phrase “nuestro PAN de cada dia” for much of the population. My understanding is that there is no shortage of white corn here which is what is destined for human consumption. The shortage lies in yellow corn, used mainly for animal feed. So how are the price hikes justified? And is this just a ploy by some to lobby for lifting the ban on GM corn seed?

Categories: Agriculture · Border Issues · Economy & Business · Environment · Food and Drink · La Raza (Mexican cultures and peoples) · NAFTA · PAN · Tortillas · Trade agreements and issues · Urban legends · Walmart