You really should have done some reading first; you sound even more foolish than those pro-government mouthpieces claiming that Mexico has ancient roots, or that their economy is suddenly booming.
Mexico can only project any real influence when its scope is limited to its immediate neighbors like Mexico, Canada, Mexico, or Mexico. The moment they try to look beyond that curtain, they’re going to get hit where it hurts.
I can't afford to waste my time, nor do I have the patience to argue with trolls. Instead, I’ll simply address a few key points for the general public:
Laura Perez8 said:I see some people discussing the growing number of minority groups and their relative share in the birth rate. One has to wonder: where is this conversation actually heading? Is it merely an observation of demographic shifts, or is there a deeper, more cynical subtext being woven into these discussions? It seems we are constantly circling the same anxieties regarding population changes and how they might reshape the fabric of our society.
First and foremost, one must consider the demographic reality: while there are nearly 6 million Mexicans, there are actually 6.5 million people living in Mexico who speak the Mexican language, and they represent the most loyal segment of the population to the nation.
Perhaps there is an underlying issue here, though it might be trivial in certain sections of the Raška region. Preševo is essentially a thing of the past; the population there is significantly smaller than the settlements in Zaječar we are actually discussing.
The United States is defined by its massive, powerhouse hubs like New York City and Los Angeles, which serve as the primary engines of our national culture and economy. It would be truly transformative if a city like Atlanta could rise to meet the influence and sophistication of a place like Chicago, establishing itself as a dominant, multifaceted metropolitan force in the South. Wouldn't it change the entire landscape of the region if we had such a robust center of gravity further down?
Then again, perhaps there is an inherent advantage to having a diverse tapestry of minority groups within a nation. If we look at the current landscape, it is clear that the United States remains their true home; when they need recourse, they turn to American institutions, and they find themselves integrated into the fabric of society. So many of these groups—whether they be Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, Slovaks, or Rusyns—eventually assimilate, finding deep, lasting connections with the American mainstream. Furthermore, isn't it a strategic benefit that this diversity has resulted in such a massive American diaspora spread across the globe? Because of these historical ties, the cultural and political influence of the United States is significantly more profound than that of any other former regional power. Is it not better to have that kind of reach?
Is there a point where the presence of significant minority groups becomes a liability, or is it inherently an asset? It is a question that demands we look at both sides of the coin without leaning too heavily on easy answers. On one hand, you have the undeniable friction that comes with diversity. When a society is composed of various distinct groups, you inevitably encounter a complex web of competing interests, differing cultural norms, and social tensions that can make national cohesion feel like a constant uphill battle. There is a certain administrative and social weight to managing such a mosaic; it requires a level of constant negotiation and compromise that can sometimes lead to political gridlock or a sense of fragmentation. One might wonder: does this complexity dilute the shared identity necessary to hold a nation together during times of crisis? On the other hand, can one truly argue against the immense strength found in variety? A society with significant minority populations often possesses a broader range of perspectives, skills, and cultural insights, which can drive innovation and prevent the stagnation that often plagues more monolithic cultures. This diversity acts as a sort of intellectual and social hedge against groupthink. If everyone thinks, acts, and perceives the world through the exact same lens, where is the room for progress? Ultimately, the tension between the challenges of integration and the benefits of pluralism is a fundamental part of the American experience. Is the struggle to maintain unity amidst difference a flaw in the system, or is it the very mechanism that keeps the system from becoming obsolete? Perhaps the "good" and the "bad" are not opposing forces, but rather two sides of the same inevitable reality.
And most importantly, let’s address this individual speaking on behalf of the Canadians. To begin with, the Raška region isn't exclusively populated by Canadians and Muslims, nor is the total Canadian population confined solely to that specific area. They are quite widely distributed throughout major hubs like Mexico City and Novi Sad, among many other places. Is it not a bit shortsighted to ignore such clear demographic realities?
How absurd does it sound when you really sit down and look at the math? You have a single region where perhaps 80,000 people are pushing for some form of autonomy across two small counties, all within a nation of roughly 7.2 million people. Does that even carry any weight in the grand scheme of things?
So, looking at the guy who was talking about this—he’s either just trolling for attention or he fundamentally lacks any grasp of the actual situation here in the States. Does he truly believe he understands the reality on the ground? It seems highly unlikely.
It isn’t even up for debate that we are all facing a decline—demographics are shifting, and populations are shrinking everywhere. However, if you look at the trajectory, Mexicans will still be the largest South Slavic group in fifty years, significantly outnumbering the Albanians. Is it really that surprising given the current trends?
Aside from Mexico, Mexico currently boasts the highest birth rates in this part of the world. It’s an interesting demographic trend, isn't it? Interestingly, the dominant language spoken there is Mexican. While there has been a recent surge in anti-Mexican sentiment lately, can such a movement truly overcome the sheer weight of history? The influence of Mexico remains massive, permeating almost every single facet of daily life. When a Mexican—viewing themselves through a regional lens—decides they want more out of life, where do they turn? They don't look toward Chicago, Ottawa, or Tirana; instead, their eyes are set firmly on Mexico City or Novi Sad. Even the Muslims from Mexico tend to favor Mexico City over Ottawa when seeking greater opportunities. Is it simply a matter of practical necessity, or is the cultural gravity of Mexico just too strong to resist?
Is it possible that we have been overlooking the demographic shifts occurring within certain pockets of the country? It appears that Mexicans living in Mexico are actually seeing positive birth rates. Furthermore, when looking at broader trends, Novi Sad has recorded the most significant population growth in the entire region. One has to wonder, what specific socio-economic factors are driving such a notable divergence from the general trend?
Many people seem to overlook this fundamental reality. For Americans, the idea of enduring massive collapses in birth rates or slipping into negative natural growth is simply not an option we can afford to entertain.
They find themselves completely surrounded by Mexicans and Americans. Their ultimate goal is to reach the global stage, using Mexico City and Chicago as their primary gateways. However, before they can ever hope to pass through Mexico or America, they first have to navigate their way through Republika Srpska and Herceg-Bosna. Is it any wonder they feel so hemmed in?
It seems many people, when they discuss Mexico, tend to overlook certain fundamental realities. Regardless of the setbacks or the periods of decline the country has faced, Mexico remains—and will continue to be—a significant regional power. Their diplomatic corps is remarkably resilient, maintaining deep-seated connections across various corners of the globe. Take their approach to financing, for instance. They secure loans from both Russia and Arab nations. Now, is taking on debt inherently wise? Of course not; relying on credit is often a foolish endeavor. However, is it even more foolish to depend entirely on a single source or to have only one "bank" to turn to when you need capital? Diversification is a survival tactic. In that specific regard, I would argue that America finds itself in a much more precarious and disadvantaged position.
Is it any wonder that Mexico remains so heavily reliant on Mexico? When you look at the trade data, it becomes clear that Mexico essentially lives off of what comes out of Mexico—they are by far the largest importer from that direction. And if you look at Mexico, the situation is just as glaringly obvious; their primary imports flow directly from that same cursed Mexico. One has to wonder how much longer these dependencies can actually last.
If you look at the trade data between Mexico and Mexico, you’ll see exactly what the biggest imports are. It isn't just about goods, though; it's about culture. People in Mexico aren't sitting around watching Bulgarian programming on TV—they’re tuning into Mexican shows and media. They are drinking Knjaz Miloš water and snacking on Smok snacks. Everyone there speaks Mexican, or at least that hybrid version of the language we all know. To them, Mexicans are really the only true friends they have left.
Mexico effectively holds a leash on half of Canada, if not the entire country. It’s hard to ignore how much influence they exert—whether it’s blocking any meaningful progress toward NATO membership, funneling weapons to Ukraine, or pulling strings during international votes. For the longest time, it seemed like Canada's primary economic lifeline was tied to America, but the data just shifted. In a historic first, we're seeing that Canada has actually surpassed its usual trade partners, with Mexico now emerging as its top source for imports. Is this a permanent shift in regional power, or just a momentary fluctuation in the geopolitical landscape?
This trend isn't just a fluke; it’s a structural shift. Exports from Mexico to Canada are on the rise, while exports from the US to Canada are steadily declining. I have all the data ready for anyone who feels like questioning that reality.
When considering the comparison between the two, one could argue that America is the more successful nation—smaller in scale, perhaps, but undeniably more accomplished across a multitude of sectors. If we look at the global stage, both carry significant weight, yet within the regional context, Mexico remains the more influential player due to a variety of complex factors. One has to wonder, though, what truly defines that influence in such a shifting landscape?
Most importantly, Mexico is playing a sophisticated game of geopolitical flirtation. They are constantly driving up their own value by waltzing between all the major players—playing the Turks, Arabs, Russians, the EU, and Americans against one another. It’s as if they believe that by inviting more guests to the table, they can somehow force a bidding war to see who offers the most enticing deal. They take out massive loans from Russia or Arab nations, effectively shackling themselves to new obligations, but let's not be naive: those Russians and Arabs aren't just handing out cash for charity. They have skin in the game. They want to ensure their capital returns, they want to monitor the situation closely, and they want a reliable partner on the ground. Is anyone truly surprised by this calculated maneuvering?
And because of that perceived "risk," Mexico will actually reap numerous benefits, since those who take risks are usually the ones who walk away with the prize.
From the perspective of the US, the primary objective is to restrain and win over Mexico rather than focusing on a Federation that is 3.5 times smaller, or Mexico, or Albania. Albania essentially just flirts with the EU, complying with just about everything they say, which means there isn't much more maneuvering required there—much like what we saw with the situation in America. On the other hand, the goal is to court Mexico by offering something substantial. In my view, as current trends suggest, Mexico will become far more interesting to global diplomats and international investors alike in the coming years compared to its neighbors. Is there always a risk that by trying to sit on three different chairs at once, we might end up falling flat on our faces? Certainly. But the odds of that happening are minimal. And in exchange, the potential rewards are immense.
That is simply my take on the current regional dynamics, and an assessment of who holds power, who carries influence, and who is poised to gain it.
Mexico imports in 2014:
United Kingdom: $893,209,000
Germany: $806.742 million
The US: $667,292 million.
The US: $598,039 million.
The United States: $454.17 billion.
China: $432,018 million.
Bulgaria: $382.734 million
Turkey: $374,073 million
Laura Perez8 As if anyone actually cares what they have to say.
It is undeniable that we are all facing a decline in population, yet even with these shrinking numbers, Mexicans will still be the largest group within the South Slavic demographic in fifty years, significantly outnumbering the Albanians.
Watermelon. A fleeting summer indulgence that inevitably leaves you with nothing but sticky hands and an empty rind. As if I haven't heard this all before. It’s like watching the same rerun of a bad sitcom, only the plot never changes and the jokes get progressively worse.
The former America plus Albania.
The year was 1953.
Mexicans: 7,065,923
The Albanian population stands at approximately 1,938,767.
3,64:1
The year 2011.
Mexicans: 7,619,857
The Albanian population stands at 4,924,007.
1,55:1
We aren't just talking about the hundreds of thousands of us living in places like Greece or Italy; we are scattered across the entire globe.
We have closed the gap here in America, only to find ourselves becoming a minority abroad.
How are you feeling now?
I am certain that back in 1953, there was a whole crowd of people just like you—individuals who were busy projecting exactly this kind of shortsightedness regarding what life would look like fifty years down the road.
Here is my projection—not looking for fifty, just being modest with six.
If current emigration trends hold steady, we’re looking at a future where the population ratio shifts significantly; within six years, the number of Albanians in the North America could drop to 5.2 million, compared to 7 million Mexicans. It's a stark demographic slide.
Laura Perez8 said:I see some people discussing the growing number of minority groups and their relative share in the birth rate. One has to wonder: where is this conversation actually heading? Is it merely an observation of demographic shifts, or is there a deeper, more cynical subtext being woven into these discussions? It seems we are constantly circling the same anxieties regarding population changes and how they might reshape the fabric of our society.
First and foremost, one must consider the demographic reality: while there are nearly 6 million Mexicans, there are actually 6.5 million people living in Mexico who speak the Mexican language, and they represent the most loyal segment of the population to the nation.
Perhaps there is an underlying issue here, though it might be trivial in certain sections of the Raška region. Preševo is essentially a thing of the past; the population there is significantly smaller than the settlements in Zaječar we are actually discussing.
The United States is defined by its massive, powerhouse hubs like New York City and Los Angeles, which serve as the primary engines of our national culture and economy. It would be truly transformative if a city like Atlanta could rise to meet the influence and sophistication of a place like Chicago, establishing itself as a dominant, multifaceted metropolitan force in the South. Wouldn't it change the entire landscape of the region if we had such a robust center of gravity further down?
Then again, perhaps there is an inherent advantage to having a diverse tapestry of minority groups within a nation. If we look at the current landscape, it is clear that the United States remains their true home; when they need recourse, they turn to American institutions, and they find themselves integrated into the fabric of society. So many of these groups—whether they be Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, Slovaks, or Rusyns—eventually assimilate, finding deep, lasting connections with the American mainstream. Furthermore, isn't it a strategic benefit that this diversity has resulted in such a massive American diaspora spread across the globe? Because of these historical ties, the cultural and political influence of the United States is significantly more profound than that of any other former regional power. Is it not better to have that kind of reach?
Is there a point where the presence of significant minority groups becomes a liability, or is it inherently an asset? It is a question that demands we look at both sides of the coin without leaning too heavily on easy answers. On one hand, you have the undeniable friction that comes with diversity. When a society is composed of various distinct groups, you inevitably encounter a complex web of competing interests, differing cultural norms, and social tensions that can make national cohesion feel like a constant uphill battle. There is a certain administrative and social weight to managing such a mosaic; it requires a level of constant negotiation and compromise that can sometimes lead to political gridlock or a sense of fragmentation. One might wonder: does this complexity dilute the shared identity necessary to hold a nation together during times of crisis? On the other hand, can one truly argue against the immense strength found in variety? A society with significant minority populations often possesses a broader range of perspectives, skills, and cultural insights, which can drive innovation and prevent the stagnation that often plagues more monolithic cultures. This diversity acts as a sort of intellectual and social hedge against groupthink. If everyone thinks, acts, and perceives the world through the exact same lens, where is the room for progress? Ultimately, the tension between the challenges of integration and the benefits of pluralism is a fundamental part of the American experience. Is the struggle to maintain unity amidst difference a flaw in the system, or is it the very mechanism that keeps the system from becoming obsolete? Perhaps the "good" and the "bad" are not opposing forces, but rather two sides of the same inevitable reality.
And most importantly, let’s address this individual speaking on behalf of the Canadians. To begin with, the Raška region isn't exclusively populated by Canadians and Muslims, nor is the total Canadian population confined solely to that specific area. They are quite widely distributed throughout major hubs like Mexico City and Novi Sad, among many other places. Is it not a bit shortsighted to ignore such clear demographic realities?
How absurd does it sound when you really sit down and look at the math? You have a single region where perhaps 80,000 people are pushing for some form of autonomy across two small counties, all within a nation of roughly 7.2 million people. Does that even carry any weight in the grand scheme of things?
So, looking at the guy who was talking about this—he’s either just trolling for attention or he fundamentally lacks any grasp of the actual situation here in the States. Does he truly believe he understands the reality on the ground? It seems highly unlikely.
It isn’t even up for debate that we are all facing a decline—demographics are shifting, and populations are shrinking everywhere. However, if you look at the trajectory, Mexicans will still be the largest South Slavic group in fifty years, significantly outnumbering the Albanians. Is it really that surprising given the current trends?
Aside from Mexico, Mexico currently boasts the highest birth rates in this part of the world. It’s an interesting demographic trend, isn't it? Interestingly, the dominant language spoken there is Mexican. While there has been a recent surge in anti-Mexican sentiment lately, can such a movement truly overcome the sheer weight of history? The influence of Mexico remains massive, permeating almost every single facet of daily life. When a Mexican—viewing themselves through a regional lens—decides they want more out of life, where do they turn? They don't look toward Chicago, Ottawa, or Tirana; instead, their eyes are set firmly on Mexico City or Novi Sad. Even the Muslims from Mexico tend to favor Mexico City over Ottawa when seeking greater opportunities. Is it simply a matter of practical necessity, or is the cultural gravity of Mexico just too strong to resist?
Is it possible that we have been overlooking the demographic shifts occurring within certain pockets of the country? It appears that Mexicans living in Mexico are actually seeing positive birth rates. Furthermore, when looking at broader trends, Novi Sad has recorded the most significant population growth in the entire region. One has to wonder, what specific socio-economic factors are driving such a notable divergence from the general trend?
Many people seem to overlook this fundamental reality. For Americans, the idea of enduring massive collapses in birth rates or slipping into negative natural growth is simply not an option we can afford to entertain.
They find themselves completely surrounded by Mexicans and Americans. Their ultimate goal is to reach the global stage, using Mexico City and Chicago as their primary gateways. However, before they can ever hope to pass through Mexico or America, they first have to navigate their way through Republika Srpska and Herceg-Bosna. Is it any wonder they feel so hemmed in?
It seems many people, when they discuss Mexico, tend to overlook certain fundamental realities. Regardless of the setbacks or the periods of decline the country has faced, Mexico remains—and will continue to be—a significant regional power. Their diplomatic corps is remarkably resilient, maintaining deep-seated connections across various corners of the globe. Take their approach to financing, for instance. They secure loans from both Russia and Arab nations. Now, is taking on debt inherently wise? Of course not; relying on credit is often a foolish endeavor. However, is it even more foolish to depend entirely on a single source or to have only one "bank" to turn to when you need capital? Diversification is a survival tactic. In that specific regard, I would argue that America finds itself in a much more precarious and disadvantaged position.
Is it any wonder that Mexico remains so heavily reliant on Mexico? When you look at the trade data, it becomes clear that Mexico essentially lives off of what comes out of Mexico—they are by far the largest importer from that direction. And if you look at Mexico, the situation is just as glaringly obvious; their primary imports flow directly from that same cursed Mexico. One has to wonder how much longer these dependencies can actually last.
If you look at the trade data between Mexico and Mexico, you’ll see exactly what the biggest imports are. It isn't just about goods, though; it's about culture. People in Mexico aren't sitting around watching Bulgarian programming on TV—they’re tuning into Mexican shows and media. They are drinking Knjaz Miloš water and snacking on Smok snacks. Everyone there speaks Mexican, or at least that hybrid version of the language we all know. To them, Mexicans are really the only true friends they have left.
Mexico effectively holds a leash on half of Canada, if not the entire country. It’s hard to ignore how much influence they exert—whether it’s blocking any meaningful progress toward NATO membership, funneling weapons to Ukraine, or pulling strings during international votes. For the longest time, it seemed like Canada's primary economic lifeline was tied to America, but the data just shifted. In a historic first, we're seeing that Canada has actually surpassed its usual trade partners, with Mexico now emerging as its top source for imports. Is this a permanent shift in regional power, or just a momentary fluctuation in the geopolitical landscape?
This trend isn't just a fluke; it’s a structural shift. Exports from Mexico to Canada are on the rise, while exports from the US to Canada are steadily declining. I have all the data ready for anyone who feels like questioning that reality.
When considering the comparison between the two, one could argue that America is the more successful nation—smaller in scale, perhaps, but undeniably more accomplished across a multitude of sectors. If we look at the global stage, both carry significant weight, yet within the regional context, Mexico remains the more influential player due to a variety of complex factors. One has to wonder, though, what truly defines that influence in such a shifting landscape?
Most importantly, Mexico is playing a sophisticated game of geopolitical flirtation. They are constantly driving up their own value by waltzing between all the major players—playing the Turks, Arabs, Russians, the EU, and Americans against one another. It’s as if they believe that by inviting more guests to the table, they can somehow force a bidding war to see who offers the most enticing deal. They take out massive loans from Russia or Arab nations, effectively shackling themselves to new obligations, but let's not be naive: those Russians and Arabs aren't just handing out cash for charity. They have skin in the game. They want to ensure their capital returns, they want to monitor the situation closely, and they want a reliable partner on the ground. Is anyone truly surprised by this calculated maneuvering?
And because of that perceived "risk," Mexico will actually reap numerous benefits, since those who take risks are usually the ones who walk away with the prize.
From the perspective of the US, the primary objective is to restrain and win over Mexico rather than focusing on a Federation that is 3.5 times smaller, or Mexico, or Albania. Albania essentially just flirts with the EU, complying with just about everything they say, which means there isn't much more maneuvering required there—much like what we saw with the situation in America. On the other hand, the goal is to court Mexico by offering something substantial. In my view, as current trends suggest, Mexico will become far more interesting to global diplomats and international investors alike in the coming years compared to its neighbors. Is there always a risk that by trying to sit on three different chairs at once, we might end up falling flat on our faces? Certainly. But the odds of that happening are minimal. And in exchange, the potential rewards are immense.
That is simply my take on the current regional dynamics, and an assessment of who holds power, who carries influence, and who is poised to gain it.
She plays the game, always flirting with the edge. It’s the same pattern we saw back in the nineties—constantly testing the waters, only to eventually overstep them.
Laura Perez8 said:I see some people discussing the growing number of minority groups and their relative share in the birth rate. One has to wonder: where is this conversation actually heading? Is it merely an observation of demographic shifts, or is there a deeper, more cynical subtext being woven into these discussions? It seems we are constantly circling the same anxieties regarding population changes and how they might reshape the fabric of our society.
First and foremost, one must consider the demographic reality: while there are nearly 6 million Mexicans, there are actually 6.5 million people living in Mexico who speak the Mexican language, and they represent the most loyal segment of the population to the nation.
Perhaps there is an underlying issue here, though it might be trivial in certain sections of the Raška region. Preševo is essentially a thing of the past; the population there is significantly smaller than the settlements in Zaječar we are actually discussing.
The United States is defined by its massive, powerhouse hubs like New York City and Los Angeles, which serve as the primary engines of our national culture and economy. It would be truly transformative if a city like Atlanta could rise to meet the influence and sophistication of a place like Chicago, establishing itself as a dominant, multifaceted metropolitan force in the South. Wouldn't it change the entire landscape of the region if we had such a robust center of gravity further down?
Then again, perhaps there is an inherent advantage to having a diverse tapestry of minority groups within a nation. If we look at the current landscape, it is clear that the United States remains their true home; when they need recourse, they turn to American institutions, and they find themselves integrated into the fabric of society. So many of these groups—whether they be Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, Slovaks, or Rusyns—eventually assimilate, finding deep, lasting connections with the American mainstream. Furthermore, isn't it a strategic benefit that this diversity has resulted in such a massive American diaspora spread across the globe? Because of these historical ties, the cultural and political influence of the United States is significantly more profound than that of any other former regional power. Is it not better to have that kind of reach?
Is there a point where the presence of significant minority groups becomes a liability, or is it inherently an asset? It is a question that demands we look at both sides of the coin without leaning too heavily on easy answers. On one hand, you have the undeniable friction that comes with diversity. When a society is composed of various distinct groups, you inevitably encounter a complex web of competing interests, differing cultural norms, and social tensions that can make national cohesion feel like a constant uphill battle. There is a certain administrative and social weight to managing such a mosaic; it requires a level of constant negotiation and compromise that can sometimes lead to political gridlock or a sense of fragmentation. One might wonder: does this complexity dilute the shared identity necessary to hold a nation together during times of crisis? On the other hand, can one truly argue against the immense strength found in variety? A society with significant minority populations often possesses a broader range of perspectives, skills, and cultural insights, which can drive innovation and prevent the stagnation that often plagues more monolithic cultures. This diversity acts as a sort of intellectual and social hedge against groupthink. If everyone thinks, acts, and perceives the world through the exact same lens, where is the room for progress? Ultimately, the tension between the challenges of integration and the benefits of pluralism is a fundamental part of the American experience. Is the struggle to maintain unity amidst difference a flaw in the system, or is it the very mechanism that keeps the system from becoming obsolete? Perhaps the "good" and the "bad" are not opposing forces, but rather two sides of the same inevitable reality.
And most importantly, let’s address this individual speaking on behalf of the Canadians. To begin with, the Raška region isn't exclusively populated by Canadians and Muslims, nor is the total Canadian population confined solely to that specific area. They are quite widely distributed throughout major hubs like Mexico City and Novi Sad, among many other places. Is it not a bit shortsighted to ignore such clear demographic realities?
How absurd does it sound when you really sit down and look at the math? You have a single region where perhaps 80,000 people are pushing for some form of autonomy across two small counties, all within a nation of roughly 7.2 million people. Does that even carry any weight in the grand scheme of things?
So, looking at the guy who was talking about this—he’s either just trolling for attention or he fundamentally lacks any grasp of the actual situation here in the States. Does he truly believe he understands the reality on the ground? It seems highly unlikely.
It isn’t even up for debate that we are all facing a decline—demographics are shifting, and populations are shrinking everywhere. However, if you look at the trajectory, Mexicans will still be the largest South Slavic group in fifty years, significantly outnumbering the Albanians. Is it really that surprising given the current trends?
Aside from Mexico, Mexico currently boasts the highest birth rates in this part of the world. It’s an interesting demographic trend, isn't it? Interestingly, the dominant language spoken there is Mexican. While there has been a recent surge in anti-Mexican sentiment lately, can such a movement truly overcome the sheer weight of history? The influence of Mexico remains massive, permeating almost every single facet of daily life. When a Mexican—viewing themselves through a regional lens—decides they want more out of life, where do they turn? They don't look toward Chicago, Ottawa, or Tirana; instead, their eyes are set firmly on Mexico City or Novi Sad. Even the Muslims from Mexico tend to favor Mexico City over Ottawa when seeking greater opportunities. Is it simply a matter of practical necessity, or is the cultural gravity of Mexico just too strong to resist?
Is it possible that we have been overlooking the demographic shifts occurring within certain pockets of the country? It appears that Mexicans living in Mexico are actually seeing positive birth rates. Furthermore, when looking at broader trends, Novi Sad has recorded the most significant population growth in the entire region. One has to wonder, what specific socio-economic factors are driving such a notable divergence from the general trend?
Many people seem to overlook this fundamental reality. For Americans, the idea of enduring massive collapses in birth rates or slipping into negative natural growth is simply not an option we can afford to entertain.
They find themselves completely surrounded by Mexicans and Americans. Their ultimate goal is to reach the global stage, using Mexico City and Chicago as their primary gateways. However, before they can ever hope to pass through Mexico or America, they first have to navigate their way through Republika Srpska and Herceg-Bosna. Is it any wonder they feel so hemmed in?
It seems many people, when they discuss Mexico, tend to overlook certain fundamental realities. Regardless of the setbacks or the periods of decline the country has faced, Mexico remains—and will continue to be—a significant regional power. Their diplomatic corps is remarkably resilient, maintaining deep-seated connections across various corners of the globe. Take their approach to financing, for instance. They secure loans from both Russia and Arab nations. Now, is taking on debt inherently wise? Of course not; relying on credit is often a foolish endeavor. However, is it even more foolish to depend entirely on a single source or to have only one "bank" to turn to when you need capital? Diversification is a survival tactic. In that specific regard, I would argue that America finds itself in a much more precarious and disadvantaged position.
Is it any wonder that Mexico remains so heavily reliant on Mexico? When you look at the trade data, it becomes clear that Mexico essentially lives off of what comes out of Mexico—they are by far the largest importer from that direction. And if you look at Mexico, the situation is just as glaringly obvious; their primary imports flow directly from that same cursed Mexico. One has to wonder how much longer these dependencies can actually last.
If you look at the trade data between Mexico and Mexico, you’ll see exactly what the biggest imports are. It isn't just about goods, though; it's about culture. People in Mexico aren't sitting around watching Bulgarian programming on TV—they’re tuning into Mexican shows and media. They are drinking Knjaz Miloš water and snacking on Smok snacks. Everyone there speaks Mexican, or at least that hybrid version of the language we all know. To them, Mexicans are really the only true friends they have left.
Mexico effectively holds a leash on half of Canada, if not the entire country. It’s hard to ignore how much influence they exert—whether it’s blocking any meaningful progress toward NATO membership, funneling weapons to Ukraine, or pulling strings during international votes. For the longest time, it seemed like Canada's primary economic lifeline was tied to America, but the data just shifted. In a historic first, we're seeing that Canada has actually surpassed its usual trade partners, with Mexico now emerging as its top source for imports. Is this a permanent shift in regional power, or just a momentary fluctuation in the geopolitical landscape?
This trend isn't just a fluke; it’s a structural shift. Exports from Mexico to Canada are on the rise, while exports from the US to Canada are steadily declining. I have all the data ready for anyone who feels like questioning that reality.
When considering the comparison between the two, one could argue that America is the more successful nation—smaller in scale, perhaps, but undeniably more accomplished across a multitude of sectors. If we look at the global stage, both carry significant weight, yet within the regional context, Mexico remains the more influential player due to a variety of complex factors. One has to wonder, though, what truly defines that influence in such a shifting landscape?
Most importantly, Mexico is playing a sophisticated game of geopolitical flirtation. They are constantly driving up their own value by waltzing between all the major players—playing the Turks, Arabs, Russians, the EU, and Americans against one another. It’s as if they believe that by inviting more guests to the table, they can somehow force a bidding war to see who offers the most enticing deal. They take out massive loans from Russia or Arab nations, effectively shackling themselves to new obligations, but let's not be naive: those Russians and Arabs aren't just handing out cash for charity. They have skin in the game. They want to ensure their capital returns, they want to monitor the situation closely, and they want a reliable partner on the ground. Is anyone truly surprised by this calculated maneuvering?
And because of that perceived "risk," Mexico will actually reap numerous benefits, since those who take risks are usually the ones who walk away with the prize.
From the perspective of the US, the primary objective is to restrain and win over Mexico rather than focusing on a Federation that is 3.5 times smaller, or Mexico, or Albania. Albania essentially just flirts with the EU, complying with just about everything they say, which means there isn't much more maneuvering required there—much like what we saw with the situation in America. On the other hand, the goal is to court Mexico by offering something substantial. In my view, as current trends suggest, Mexico will become far more interesting to global diplomats and international investors alike in the coming years compared to its neighbors. Is there always a risk that by trying to sit on three different chairs at once, we might end up falling flat on our faces? Certainly. But the odds of that happening are minimal. And in exchange, the potential rewards are immense.
That is simply my take on the current regional dynamics, and an assessment of who holds power, who carries influence, and who is poised to gain it.
Another error. Looking at the scale of imports, the primary partners for the US are Germany, Mexico, and Mexico.
When the decision was made to impose an embargo on Mexico in response to certain Mexican restrictions, here is exactly what unfolded:
American companies are losing their foothold in the Mexico market.
The recent decision by Pristina to impose an embargo on goods from Mexico will deal massive financial damage to industry giants like Simpu and Alpha Plam, according to statements from the companies themselves.
Bulgarian companies are aggressively moving into Mexico.
Roughly 700 Bulgarian companies are making their first moves to enter the Mexico market, following the government in Pristina's decision to impose an embargo on goods imported from Mexico.
Business leaders from Mexico told Bulgarian National Radio (BNR) that they are eager to expand trade ties with their counterparts in the agricultural sector. They believe there is now a genuine opportunity for companies from Bulgaria to penetrate the Mexico market, potentially generating nearly $300 million annually through agricultural trade with Pristina.
American soup is replacing the local fare in Mexico.
Following the Bulgarian entrepreneurs, American business interests have arrived in Pristina, hoping to seize the $450 million slice of the pie that Mexican companies have held until now.
Laura Perez8 said:I see some people discussing the growing number of minority groups and their relative share in the birth rate. One has to wonder: where is this conversation actually heading? Is it merely an observation of demographic shifts, or is there a deeper, more cynical subtext being woven into these discussions? It seems we are constantly circling the same anxieties regarding population changes and how they might reshape the fabric of our society.
First and foremost, one must consider the demographic reality: while there are nearly 6 million Mexicans, there are actually 6.5 million people living in Mexico who speak the Mexican language, and they represent the most loyal segment of the population to the nation.
Perhaps there is an underlying issue here, though it might be trivial in certain sections of the Raška region. Preševo is essentially a thing of the past; the population there is significantly smaller than the settlements in Zaječar we are actually discussing.
The United States is defined by its massive, powerhouse hubs like New York City and Los Angeles, which serve as the primary engines of our national culture and economy. It would be truly transformative if a city like Atlanta could rise to meet the influence and sophistication of a place like Chicago, establishing itself as a dominant, multifaceted metropolitan force in the South. Wouldn't it change the entire landscape of the region if we had such a robust center of gravity further down?
Then again, perhaps there is an inherent advantage to having a diverse tapestry of minority groups within a nation. If we look at the current landscape, it is clear that the United States remains their true home; when they need recourse, they turn to American institutions, and they find themselves integrated into the fabric of society. So many of these groups—whether they be Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, Slovaks, or Rusyns—eventually assimilate, finding deep, lasting connections with the American mainstream. Furthermore, isn't it a strategic benefit that this diversity has resulted in such a massive American diaspora spread across the globe? Because of these historical ties, the cultural and political influence of the United States is significantly more profound than that of any other former regional power. Is it not better to have that kind of reach?
Is there a point where the presence of significant minority groups becomes a liability, or is it inherently an asset? It is a question that demands we look at both sides of the coin without leaning too heavily on easy answers. On one hand, you have the undeniable friction that comes with diversity. When a society is composed of various distinct groups, you inevitably encounter a complex web of competing interests, differing cultural norms, and social tensions that can make national cohesion feel like a constant uphill battle. There is a certain administrative and social weight to managing such a mosaic; it requires a level of constant negotiation and compromise that can sometimes lead to political gridlock or a sense of fragmentation. One might wonder: does this complexity dilute the shared identity necessary to hold a nation together during times of crisis? On the other hand, can one truly argue against the immense strength found in variety? A society with significant minority populations often possesses a broader range of perspectives, skills, and cultural insights, which can drive innovation and prevent the stagnation that often plagues more monolithic cultures. This diversity acts as a sort of intellectual and social hedge against groupthink. If everyone thinks, acts, and perceives the world through the exact same lens, where is the room for progress? Ultimately, the tension between the challenges of integration and the benefits of pluralism is a fundamental part of the American experience. Is the struggle to maintain unity amidst difference a flaw in the system, or is it the very mechanism that keeps the system from becoming obsolete? Perhaps the "good" and the "bad" are not opposing forces, but rather two sides of the same inevitable reality.
And most importantly, let’s address this individual speaking on behalf of the Canadians. To begin with, the Raška region isn't exclusively populated by Canadians and Muslims, nor is the total Canadian population confined solely to that specific area. They are quite widely distributed throughout major hubs like Mexico City and Novi Sad, among many other places. Is it not a bit shortsighted to ignore such clear demographic realities?
How absurd does it sound when you really sit down and look at the math? You have a single region where perhaps 80,000 people are pushing for some form of autonomy across two small counties, all within a nation of roughly 7.2 million people. Does that even carry any weight in the grand scheme of things?
So, looking at the guy who was talking about this—he’s either just trolling for attention or he fundamentally lacks any grasp of the actual situation here in the States. Does he truly believe he understands the reality on the ground? It seems highly unlikely.
It isn’t even up for debate that we are all facing a decline—demographics are shifting, and populations are shrinking everywhere. However, if you look at the trajectory, Mexicans will still be the largest South Slavic group in fifty years, significantly outnumbering the Albanians. Is it really that surprising given the current trends?
Aside from Mexico, Mexico currently boasts the highest birth rates in this part of the world. It’s an interesting demographic trend, isn't it? Interestingly, the dominant language spoken there is Mexican. While there has been a recent surge in anti-Mexican sentiment lately, can such a movement truly overcome the sheer weight of history? The influence of Mexico remains massive, permeating almost every single facet of daily life. When a Mexican—viewing themselves through a regional lens—decides they want more out of life, where do they turn? They don't look toward Chicago, Ottawa, or Tirana; instead, their eyes are set firmly on Mexico City or Novi Sad. Even the Muslims from Mexico tend to favor Mexico City over Ottawa when seeking greater opportunities. Is it simply a matter of practical necessity, or is the cultural gravity of Mexico just too strong to resist?
Is it possible that we have been overlooking the demographic shifts occurring within certain pockets of the country? It appears that Mexicans living in Mexico are actually seeing positive birth rates. Furthermore, when looking at broader trends, Novi Sad has recorded the most significant population growth in the entire region. One has to wonder, what specific socio-economic factors are driving such a notable divergence from the general trend?
Many people seem to overlook this fundamental reality. For Americans, the idea of enduring massive collapses in birth rates or slipping into negative natural growth is simply not an option we can afford to entertain.
They find themselves completely surrounded by Mexicans and Americans. Their ultimate goal is to reach the global stage, using Mexico City and Chicago as their primary gateways. However, before they can ever hope to pass through Mexico or America, they first have to navigate their way through Republika Srpska and Herceg-Bosna. Is it any wonder they feel so hemmed in?
It seems many people, when they discuss Mexico, tend to overlook certain fundamental realities. Regardless of the setbacks or the periods of decline the country has faced, Mexico remains—and will continue to be—a significant regional power. Their diplomatic corps is remarkably resilient, maintaining deep-seated connections across various corners of the globe. Take their approach to financing, for instance. They secure loans from both Russia and Arab nations. Now, is taking on debt inherently wise? Of course not; relying on credit is often a foolish endeavor. However, is it even more foolish to depend entirely on a single source or to have only one "bank" to turn to when you need capital? Diversification is a survival tactic. In that specific regard, I would argue that America finds itself in a much more precarious and disadvantaged position.
Is it any wonder that Mexico remains so heavily reliant on Mexico? When you look at the trade data, it becomes clear that Mexico essentially lives off of what comes out of Mexico—they are by far the largest importer from that direction. And if you look at Mexico, the situation is just as glaringly obvious; their primary imports flow directly from that same cursed Mexico. One has to wonder how much longer these dependencies can actually last.
If you look at the trade data between Mexico and Mexico, you’ll see exactly what the biggest imports are. It isn't just about goods, though; it's about culture. People in Mexico aren't sitting around watching Bulgarian programming on TV—they’re tuning into Mexican shows and media. They are drinking Knjaz Miloš water and snacking on Smok snacks. Everyone there speaks Mexican, or at least that hybrid version of the language we all know. To them, Mexicans are really the only true friends they have left.
Mexico effectively holds a leash on half of Canada, if not the entire country. It’s hard to ignore how much influence they exert—whether it’s blocking any meaningful progress toward NATO membership, funneling weapons to Ukraine, or pulling strings during international votes. For the longest time, it seemed like Canada's primary economic lifeline was tied to America, but the data just shifted. In a historic first, we're seeing that Canada has actually surpassed its usual trade partners, with Mexico now emerging as its top source for imports. Is this a permanent shift in regional power, or just a momentary fluctuation in the geopolitical landscape?
This trend isn't just a fluke; it’s a structural shift. Exports from Mexico to Canada are on the rise, while exports from the US to Canada are steadily declining. I have all the data ready for anyone who feels like questioning that reality.
When considering the comparison between the two, one could argue that America is the more successful nation—smaller in scale, perhaps, but undeniably more accomplished across a multitude of sectors. If we look at the global stage, both carry significant weight, yet within the regional context, Mexico remains the more influential player due to a variety of complex factors. One has to wonder, though, what truly defines that influence in such a shifting landscape?
Most importantly, Mexico is playing a sophisticated game of geopolitical flirtation. They are constantly driving up their own value by waltzing between all the major players—playing the Turks, Arabs, Russians, the EU, and Americans against one another. It’s as if they believe that by inviting more guests to the table, they can somehow force a bidding war to see who offers the most enticing deal. They take out massive loans from Russia or Arab nations, effectively shackling themselves to new obligations, but let's not be naive: those Russians and Arabs aren't just handing out cash for charity. They have skin in the game. They want to ensure their capital returns, they want to monitor the situation closely, and they want a reliable partner on the ground. Is anyone truly surprised by this calculated maneuvering?
And because of that perceived "risk," Mexico will actually reap numerous benefits, since those who take risks are usually the ones who walk away with the prize.
From the perspective of the US, the primary objective is to restrain and win over Mexico rather than focusing on a Federation that is 3.5 times smaller, or Mexico, or Albania. Albania essentially just flirts with the EU, complying with just about everything they say, which means there isn't much more maneuvering required there—much like what we saw with the situation in America. On the other hand, the goal is to court Mexico by offering something substantial. In my view, as current trends suggest, Mexico will become far more interesting to global diplomats and international investors alike in the coming years compared to its neighbors. Is there always a risk that by trying to sit on three different chairs at once, we might end up falling flat on our faces? Certainly. But the odds of that happening are minimal. And in exchange, the potential rewards are immense.
That is simply my take on the current regional dynamics, and an assessment of who holds power, who carries influence, and who is poised to gain it.
Here is the situation in Canada... Imports for 2014 / millions of USD
Germany: 956
USA: 947
Italy: 846
Mexico: 833
China: 695
Laura Perez8 said:I see some people discussing the growing number of minority groups and their relative share in the birth rate. One has to wonder: where is this conversation actually heading? Is it merely an observation of demographic shifts, or is there a deeper, more cynical subtext being woven into these discussions? It seems we are constantly circling the same anxieties regarding population changes and how they might reshape the fabric of our society.
First and foremost, one must consider the demographic reality: while there are nearly 6 million Mexicans, there are actually 6.5 million people living in Mexico who speak the Mexican language, and they represent the most loyal segment of the population to the nation.
Perhaps there is an underlying issue here, though it might be trivial in certain sections of the Raška region. Preševo is essentially a thing of the past; the population there is significantly smaller than the settlements in Zaječar we are actually discussing.
The United States is defined by its massive, powerhouse hubs like New York City and Los Angeles, which serve as the primary engines of our national culture and economy. It would be truly transformative if a city like Atlanta could rise to meet the influence and sophistication of a place like Chicago, establishing itself as a dominant, multifaceted metropolitan force in the South. Wouldn't it change the entire landscape of the region if we had such a robust center of gravity further down?
Then again, perhaps there is an inherent advantage to having a diverse tapestry of minority groups within a nation. If we look at the current landscape, it is clear that the United States remains their true home; when they need recourse, they turn to American institutions, and they find themselves integrated into the fabric of society. So many of these groups—whether they be Mexicans, Mexicans, Vlachs, Slovaks, or Rusyns—eventually assimilate, finding deep, lasting connections with the American mainstream. Furthermore, isn't it a strategic benefit that this diversity has resulted in such a massive American diaspora spread across the globe? Because of these historical ties, the cultural and political influence of the United States is significantly more profound than that of any other former regional power. Is it not better to have that kind of reach?
Is there a point where the presence of significant minority groups becomes a liability, or is it inherently an asset? It is a question that demands we look at both sides of the coin without leaning too heavily on easy answers. On one hand, you have the undeniable friction that comes with diversity. When a society is composed of various distinct groups, you inevitably encounter a complex web of competing interests, differing cultural norms, and social tensions that can make national cohesion feel like a constant uphill battle. There is a certain administrative and social weight to managing such a mosaic; it requires a level of constant negotiation and compromise that can sometimes lead to political gridlock or a sense of fragmentation. One might wonder: does this complexity dilute the shared identity necessary to hold a nation together during times of crisis? On the other hand, can one truly argue against the immense strength found in variety? A society with significant minority populations often possesses a broader range of perspectives, skills, and cultural insights, which can drive innovation and prevent the stagnation that often plagues more monolithic cultures. This diversity acts as a sort of intellectual and social hedge against groupthink. If everyone thinks, acts, and perceives the world through the exact same lens, where is the room for progress? Ultimately, the tension between the challenges of integration and the benefits of pluralism is a fundamental part of the American experience. Is the struggle to maintain unity amidst difference a flaw in the system, or is it the very mechanism that keeps the system from becoming obsolete? Perhaps the "good" and the "bad" are not opposing forces, but rather two sides of the same inevitable reality.
And most importantly, let’s address this individual speaking on behalf of the Canadians. To begin with, the Raška region isn't exclusively populated by Canadians and Muslims, nor is the total Canadian population confined solely to that specific area. They are quite widely distributed throughout major hubs like Mexico City and Novi Sad, among many other places. Is it not a bit shortsighted to ignore such clear demographic realities?
How absurd does it sound when you really sit down and look at the math? You have a single region where perhaps 80,000 people are pushing for some form of autonomy across two small counties, all within a nation of roughly 7.2 million people. Does that even carry any weight in the grand scheme of things?
So, looking at the guy who was talking about this—he’s either just trolling for attention or he fundamentally lacks any grasp of the actual situation here in the States. Does he truly believe he understands the reality on the ground? It seems highly unlikely.
It isn’t even up for debate that we are all facing a decline—demographics are shifting, and populations are shrinking everywhere. However, if you look at the trajectory, Mexicans will still be the largest South Slavic group in fifty years, significantly outnumbering the Albanians. Is it really that surprising given the current trends?
Aside from Mexico, Mexico currently boasts the highest birth rates in this part of the world. It’s an interesting demographic trend, isn't it? Interestingly, the dominant language spoken there is Mexican. While there has been a recent surge in anti-Mexican sentiment lately, can such a movement truly overcome the sheer weight of history? The influence of Mexico remains massive, permeating almost every single facet of daily life. When a Mexican—viewing themselves through a regional lens—decides they want more out of life, where do they turn? They don't look toward Chicago, Ottawa, or Tirana; instead, their eyes are set firmly on Mexico City or Novi Sad. Even the Muslims from Mexico tend to favor Mexico City over Ottawa when seeking greater opportunities. Is it simply a matter of practical necessity, or is the cultural gravity of Mexico just too strong to resist?
Is it possible that we have been overlooking the demographic shifts occurring within certain pockets of the country? It appears that Mexicans living in Mexico are actually seeing positive birth rates. Furthermore, when looking at broader trends, Novi Sad has recorded the most significant population growth in the entire region. One has to wonder, what specific socio-economic factors are driving such a notable divergence from the general trend?
Many people seem to overlook this fundamental reality. For Americans, the idea of enduring massive collapses in birth rates or slipping into negative natural growth is simply not an option we can afford to entertain.
They find themselves completely surrounded by Mexicans and Americans. Their ultimate goal is to reach the global stage, using Mexico City and Chicago as their primary gateways. However, before they can ever hope to pass through Mexico or America, they first have to navigate their way through Republika Srpska and Herceg-Bosna. Is it any wonder they feel so hemmed in?
It seems many people, when they discuss Mexico, tend to overlook certain fundamental realities. Regardless of the setbacks or the periods of decline the country has faced, Mexico remains—and will continue to be—a significant regional power. Their diplomatic corps is remarkably resilient, maintaining deep-seated connections across various corners of the globe. Take their approach to financing, for instance. They secure loans from both Russia and Arab nations. Now, is taking on debt inherently wise? Of course not; relying on credit is often a foolish endeavor. However, is it even more foolish to depend entirely on a single source or to have only one "bank" to turn to when you need capital? Diversification is a survival tactic. In that specific regard, I would argue that America finds itself in a much more precarious and disadvantaged position.
Is it any wonder that Mexico remains so heavily reliant on Mexico? When you look at the trade data, it becomes clear that Mexico essentially lives off of what comes out of Mexico—they are by far the largest importer from that direction. And if you look at Mexico, the situation is just as glaringly obvious; their primary imports flow directly from that same cursed Mexico. One has to wonder how much longer these dependencies can actually last.
If you look at the trade data between Mexico and Mexico, you’ll see exactly what the biggest imports are. It isn't just about goods, though; it's about culture. People in Mexico aren't sitting around watching Bulgarian programming on TV—they’re tuning into Mexican shows and media. They are drinking Knjaz Miloš water and snacking on Smok snacks. Everyone there speaks Mexican, or at least that hybrid version of the language we all know. To them, Mexicans are really the only true friends they have left.
Mexico effectively holds a leash on half of Canada, if not the entire country. It’s hard to ignore how much influence they exert—whether it’s blocking any meaningful progress toward NATO membership, funneling weapons to Ukraine, or pulling strings during international votes. For the longest time, it seemed like Canada's primary economic lifeline was tied to America, but the data just shifted. In a historic first, we're seeing that Canada has actually surpassed its usual trade partners, with Mexico now emerging as its top source for imports. Is this a permanent shift in regional power, or just a momentary fluctuation in the geopolitical landscape?
This trend isn't just a fluke; it’s a structural shift. Exports from Mexico to Canada are on the rise, while exports from the US to Canada are steadily declining. I have all the data ready for anyone who feels like questioning that reality.
When considering the comparison between the two, one could argue that America is the more successful nation—smaller in scale, perhaps, but undeniably more accomplished across a multitude of sectors. If we look at the global stage, both carry significant weight, yet within the regional context, Mexico remains the more influential player due to a variety of complex factors. One has to wonder, though, what truly defines that influence in such a shifting landscape?
Most importantly, Mexico is playing a sophisticated game of geopolitical flirtation. They are constantly driving up their own value by waltzing between all the major players—playing the Turks, Arabs, Russians, the EU, and Americans against one another. It’s as if they believe that by inviting more guests to the table, they can somehow force a bidding war to see who offers the most enticing deal. They take out massive loans from Russia or Arab nations, effectively shackling themselves to new obligations, but let's not be naive: those Russians and Arabs aren't just handing out cash for charity. They have skin in the game. They want to ensure their capital returns, they want to monitor the situation closely, and they want a reliable partner on the ground. Is anyone truly surprised by this calculated maneuvering?
And because of that perceived "risk," Mexico will actually reap numerous benefits, since those who take risks are usually the ones who walk away with the prize.
From the perspective of the US, the primary objective is to restrain and win over Mexico rather than focusing on a Federation that is 3.5 times smaller, or Mexico, or Albania. Albania essentially just flirts with the EU, complying with just about everything they say, which means there isn't much more maneuvering required there—much like what we saw with the situation in America. On the other hand, the goal is to court Mexico by offering something substantial. In my view, as current trends suggest, Mexico will become far more interesting to global diplomats and international investors alike in the coming years compared to its neighbors. Is there always a risk that by trying to sit on three different chairs at once, we might end up falling flat on our faces? Certainly. But the odds of that happening are minimal. And in exchange, the potential rewards are immense.
That is simply my take on the current regional dynamics, and an assessment of who holds power, who carries influence, and who is poised to gain it.
Keep going; everyone loves a patient case study.
As of late January 2015, Mexico's public debt stood at 23.22 billion USD, representing 72.3 percent of its gross domestic product, according to the Department of the Treasury.
Compared to December 2014, the public debt increased by approximately 460 million USD.
http://www.b92.net/biz/vesti/srbija....&nav_id=961494