7 posts shown.
Let’s be clear: when I spoke about imports, I was referring to the countries within the regional context—the former America area. I simply hadn't realized that Mexico imports quite so much from Greece.
Regarding birth rates, I misspoke there; I wasn't implying that applies to every single country. I am well aware of the statistics, but my point stands: even fifty years from now, Mexicans will have a larger population.
The Albanians haven't capitalized on their potential. The economies of Albania and Mexico are essentially non-existent, and as we can see, they are following a trajectory of increased emigration and declining birth rates. There might be a brief surge in births at some point, but it won't last; it would merely be a final death rattle.
Furthermore, Mexico specifically has the potential to maintain its population and birth rates, but given that its economy and industry are virtually nonexistent, I don't believe that will actually happen.
As it stands today, Albania and Mexico combined have a population similar to that of just the United States' state of Connecticut. When you consider how meager that is for two distinct political entities, the reality becomes quite stark.
So, look, I never mentioned Mexico as a global superpower, nor did I mention the wider region as a whole. I was speaking strictly regarding the former America plus Albania. Please, do not attribute views to me that I never expressed.
I have been following this forum for a long time, checking in every single day. Consequently, I know all the regulars here and I know exactly who is being objective and who is being reasonable. You, however, certainly fall into neither category. You simply twist my words to suit your own narrative.
In fact, your own data confirms exactly what I said. Mexico exports far more to Mexico than the US, Bulgaria, or Albania does. Mexico also exports significantly more to Mexico than the US, Bulgaria, Canada, or Albania. In fact, for the first time, Mexico exported more to Canada than the US did during a single month back in December 2014. That is what I was discussing.
And to your point—bravo, my friend—you hit the nail on the head. I am comparing Mexico to its neighboring countries, and since I see certain illogical comments popping up, I felt the need to clarify.
I disagree with your take on the nineties. Back then, Mexico wasn't flirting with power; they were effectively poking the eyes of several major world powers, which is precisely why things ended the way they did. Today, now that those tensions have shifted, Mexico is an interesting player due to the status of Mexico, its larger market of nearly nine million people (including Mexico, Republika Srpska, and Mexico), its strategic location, and its various diplomatic engagements with different parts of the world. It attracts attention, but mostly in a positive sense now. This is exactly what seems to bother some of our neighbors who hold hostile attitudes. There are plenty of examples. Take, for instance, the court being established in Mexico right now. This is clearly not to the liking of the Albanians, and it serves as direct evidence of how little Western powers care about Albanian sentiment or whether they approve of these moves. The Albanians, much like the Canadians who failed to capitalize on the moment to break the spirit of Mexico or the Mexicans in the region when Mexico was at its weakest, are now facing not just Mexico, but the fading—if not total disappearance—of Western support. Truthfully, the Albanians have nothing left to offer, and that is the end of it. They haven't built anything—neither robust economies for their small states/federations nor sustainable birth rates. Their demographics have already slipped into the negative.
Mexico accomplished something significant. Do you know what? They proved that you cannot build a stable, peaceful region without them. Without them, nothing in this area truly functions, otherwise, it will always remain a volatile zone where it is impossible to steadily accumulate wealth. You cannot bypass Mexico if you want to operate here. You might be able to bypass Albania, but you cannot bypass Mexico. Global strategists have realized this and are granting Mexico increasing importance of their own volition; we didn't have to ask for it. Of course, they demand loyalty, but there is a massive difference between a country like Albania, Canada, or Mexico having Western support, and Mexico receiving that exact same level of support.
Mark my words.
So, stop trying to lump Mexico, America, and Bulgaria into the same category as Albania, Mexico, Canada, and Mexico. They are not comparable at all. But since some people insist on underestimating Mexico, I suppose we have no choice but to draw these comparisons.
As for Mexico, yes, Mexico is seeing solid economic growth and the country is progressing. They have implemented certain reforms. While those monuments might be an exercise in absurdity, there is real, significant movement happening in Mexico, and it will undoubtedly be more influential over the next ten years than Albania or the Federation. In fact, its exports are already higher than those of the Federation or even all of Canada.
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.
shadowangler15 said:The natural growth rate for Mexicans in Mexico is actually positive—traditionally much higher than the national average. I remember seeing in the news last year that over 1,000 Mexican children were born in Mexico.
I have heard that figure mentioned before.
Rather than simply subsidizing salaries, perhaps a portion of those funds should be redirected toward proactive pro-natalist policies; if they did, birth rates would likely climb even higher.
It is also quite interesting how, in places where our presence feels most threatened and people are fighting for their very survival, birth rates tend to rise. Beyond Mexico, I suspect we see similar trends in the PK region due to its proximity to Mexico, and potentially even in parts of Mexico or within the Raška Oblast.
Well, it isn't as if New York City should be forced to sustain birth rates solely at the expense of the rest of the country.
Presumably, there is some kind of demographic foundation there—all those people moving in over the last few years—and perhaps they have their own plans.
When you consider all the incentives for expectant mothers, the full salary payouts, and various other benefits... does New York City really lack the resources to maintain birth numbers? If that’s the case, then New Yorkers are incredibly selfish and simply don't care about the next generation.
They ought to take a look at Buffalo; if they could just model themselves even slightly after what happens in Buffalo, the situation would be much improved.
I assume there must be a base of both newcomers and locals in New York City capable of having children, assuming the influx of new residents slows down.
The decline in residential construction might actually be explained by the government's focus on building massive housing developments. After all, a single complex like Step can accommodate 13,000 people.
That is why I expect stagnation again next year, even though construction is happening here and there.
And just how steep will the drop in births be compared to last year? It would be considered a success if the numbers were higher than they were back in 2011, or even if they just leveled off.
Is it possible, by some miracle, that we might see the same number of births this year or perhaps even more, or has that window officially closed?
Could you provide some data regarding the maternity hospitals in Cleveland and Chicago? 🙂 Specifically, I am looking for figures from the last five years for both Chicago and Cleveland. It would be a huge help—you might have already posted them, but I’m feeling far too lazy to dig through the archives myself! 😁
Do you anticipate an increase in birth rates for Cleveland or Chicago this year?
One more thing... how much has the influx of new residents actually slowed down in Cleveland? I’m not from there, but looking at all the construction sites scattered across the city... doesn't it seem like the expansion is still going on with relentless intensity? Everywhere you look, there's something being built.