The North American Energy Boom
A Mexican Oil Renaissance Could Thaw US Relations
show comments
  • Muhammad Peace be Upon Me

    Nah. We will build rigs and drill wells as well as a wall, thanks. By 2020 trump had better accomplish three things. 1. Wall. 2. Tax cuts and reform. 3. Reduce trade deficit with unfair distorters like Germany and china. It will be so easy to list those three things and check them off, or his opposition can check them off and show him to be a loser. Of course the 2018 elections are jus as important. Do your part to vote reps and sen in who will work with Trump and pursue his winning agenda.

    • D4x

      1. Jobs

  • FriendlyGoat

    Makes sense to me.

    • Jeff77450

      A valid question. I suspect that you and I might disagree as to which half does/doesn’t want everyone to win.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Well, to just stick with this article, let’s ask: “Who is for USA drilling technology going South to help prosper Mexicans and the Mexican nation? Why? Who isn’t for that? Why?”

        • Jeff77450

          “All other things being equal” the more prosperous Mexico is the fewer of its people will want to come to the US and the more stable its society will be. The wealthier a country is the more of our products & services it can buy. That creates jobs in the US and reduces the US trade deficit. More oil on the market lowers prices which results in Russia, Iran and Saudi Arabia having less money to finance mischief. (This might cost US energy companies money but they might make money if allowed to participate in Mexico’s modernization). Everyone in the US should want that but there are those on the Left who want DJT to fail, no matter what, just like there were those on the Right who wanted BHO to fail. Fewer Mexicans moving to the US means fewer future democratic voters.

          So I mostly see the Left as being unhappy with this development.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, I want DJT to fail for all kinds of reasons, but this is not one of them. Neither is anyone sure what side of this Trump is on. America First is what he told everybody.

          • Jeff77450

            Wanting POTUS to fail is wanting America to fail.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Nah. We survived just fine with your whole side wanting Obama to fail every day for eight years and ACTIVELY working to that end. I want America to succeed by overcoming its flirtation with error, not by letting Trump and his supporters loot the whole store. I want Trumpism to be thrown out the window, and if you insist on calling my patriotism into question for that, I can always block you too as I have many others. I still debate, but I don’t allow myself slapped around any more.

          • Not “wanting” Obama to fail, FG … EXPECTING him to fail, and not wanting to have a part in it and/or see it covered up by apologists for Progressive idiocy.

            And the risk of Trump “looting” the whole store is far less than the risk of seeing our liberty, prosperity, and future eroded by Progressives clinging to the modern form of serfdom known as the Blue Social Model.

          • FriendlyGoat

            You and your Congress will probably discover that not every one on The Right wants the Blue Social Model dismantled. Budget season should be interesting.

          • You’re going to be surprised: I agree with you.

            Nearly everyone living in America today, only knows life in the Blue Social Model. I lament those who call themselves “conservative”, yet ignore ideas that would expand their liberty and bitterly cling to the status quo of their pet tax deductions, student loans, government funding … and outsourcing their personal responsibility to be involved in keeping their less fortunate-brother, to a myopic government that lacks the discernment to meet individual needs.

            That still does not change the fact that the Blue Model is fundamentally flawed, and unsustainable in the long term. Sooner or later, enough “makers” will get tired and become net “takers” … sometimes entering that condition as they sit as operatives in government bureaucracy … and the whole facade collapses, to the stark surprise of those who believed the promises of Progressives.

            As Glenn Reynolds says … what can’t go on, won’t.

          • FriendlyGoat

            What is going to occur is the GOP trying to shift the tax burden downward (think border adjustment or VAT variations) or the GOP trying to pay for high-end tax cuts with spending cuts (which ultimately won’t be permitted even by conservatives in “the base”), or deficits persisting. I contend this will be like health care where the GOP discovers that screwing the voters while pretending otherwise is not a real plan.

          • Except that is not “screwing the voters” … it is being TRUTHFUL with them about the REAL cost of your nanny state, instead of giving them the appearance of a pass on responsibility for it … so they don’t know to oppose the attempts to ratchet it up in their name, to the point of collapse.

            They are already paying a lot of those “high-end” taxes, in the prices of everything they buy … but they aren’t as aware of that as they should be, because they think someone else is paying.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I am not one who believes that income taxation is built into the price of products, and, that with less income taxation prices will/would come down. That might be true of property taxes, sales or other transaction taxes, European VAT, and so forth. I do not believe it has ever been true of income taxes and this is one of the chief reasons I am not a conservative. I do not believe that income or estate taxes are why a typical NFL stadium ticket “ain’t cheap” these days, or why a hospital stay “ain’t cheap” or why a room at Donald Trump’s DC hotel “ain’t cheap”.

            While the lower-income Trump voters can watch football for free on TV, and either skip Washington altogether or stay at Motel 6, nobody can skip the risk of retail health care costs. Factually, conservative working people are completely priced out of health care EXCEPT for government interventions of various kinds. “Screwing the voters” is what happens when you tell them we’re going to take it all to Laissez Faire “for their sake” with a serving of baloney about how much better off they will be after such is done.

          • So you think that, in a competitive market, lowering the income taxes of corporations and business owners won’t lead some to lower their prices to capture more market share? Phuleeze.

            “Ain’t cheap” and less expensive aren’t the same … but the latter has a cumulative effect on everyone’s prosperity, IF busybodies like you would squandering it on efforts to impose your One and Only True Way upon us all, as though you know ME and MY problems better than I do.

            Conservative working people are priced out of health care, in large part because we have tried to buffer them from its actual costs in various ways. That distorts cost perceptions that ambitious providers will seek to capitalize upon.

            Moving health insurance, to the cheers of Progressives, from a catastrophic-coverage model to effectively a prepaid-care plan is a big part of that, as is the bias in the law favoring group-health coverage over individual insurance.

            Managed care, which was supposed to lower costs, is now instead a shell game that distorts prices, as insurers seek deeper and deeper discounts for access to their patient pools and providers raise their prices to compensate.

            Coverage mandates, the Lawsuit Lottery that drives up malpractice insurance and the use of defensive medicine … and the watering-down of pre-existing condition exclusions, which is a textbook example of how to create moral hazard … don’t help.

            We are priced out of the market, because Progressives’ attempts to supplant personal responsibility and market reality in favor of their preferred moral calculus have distorted that market. How many people have been led to believe that the delivery of health care to them is a RIGHT, while also believing that it can be done without the involvement of the profit motive?

            OTOH, health-care areas where competition is significant – like LASIK and other forms of corrective eye treatments – have seen costs decrease.

            We have already seen Obamacare deliver insurance-in-name-only. You would have us double-down on that … and keep millions dependent and vulnerable upon the judgment and socio-economic moral views of an elite few, while also diminishing their ability to work around the errors, greed, mendacity, and delusion of those all-too-human elite few.

            THAT … driven by a soft bigotry of low expectations for us “little guys” that replaces truth for hollow expressions of compassion – and puts a collective “common good”, defined by that elite few above individual liberty, including the liberty to reject and work around the failings of said elite … is what is “screwing the voters”.

            Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth … I Corinthians 13:6. How about we tell the “little guys” the truth about our responsibilities … and capabilities … so we all realize that the best person to help our, and our neighbors, can be seen in the mirror, and stop outsourcing that to a faceless set of operatives who can’t tell you or your needs apart from a statistic.

          • FriendlyGoat

            There is no doubt about it. We have different ideas of what “truth” we should “rejoice in” and tell to others. You have this idea that, as world population explodes in a couple of centuries (1860 to 2060) by a factor of ten (one billion to perhaps ten billion) that collective (collective, via governments) human action on any or all problems is less and less necessary. I don’t share it and I’m not going to switch sides, okay?

            “Little guys” (family dads) won’t be told by me that it is THEIR fault if they work hard at their $10-20/hour jobs and cannot somehow “budget” their way through American retail medicine which may be needed for themselves, their wives or their children. They won’t be told by me that their special-needs child has no “right” to expect help from society—-that, well, “Good Luck, Dad, You’re on Your Own”.
            And they won’t be catching mis-used scripture thrown from me to them to shroud all the actual truth about how modern societies necessarily work.

            I “get” all this personal-responsibility stuff and have lived it for 65 years as a prudent fellow. It’s dandy, and I have avoided many catastrophes by doing so. I am also the beneficiary of everything SOCIETY did for me—-and it’s a long list. I don’t lie about its irrelevance and I don’t think anyone should.

        • JamesDrouin

          “Who is for USA drilling technology going South to help prosper Mexicans and the Mexican nation?”

          Here’s a better question:

          Who is for near-unlimited hordes of diseased illegal aliens invading the US, with said invasion aided, abetted, and encouraged by Mexico???

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’m going to wait for a real answer to my first question. It’s not clear to me that America First means really wanting to share oil prosperity with Mexico in a greater way. We’ll see. The re-negotiation of NAFTA has supposedly started, right? Maybe they’ll tell us someday what new ideas they have been discussing.

          • JamesDrouin

            You ‘misread’ my post, so try it again.

            Also, it’s a well publicized fact that people of your ‘mental acuity’ are frequently able to improve their reading comprehension if they move their lips while reading, so you should try that as well. If you’re unsure of the proper amount of lip movement, ask your boyfriend(s) for ‘input’.

            ==========

            “Who is for USA drilling technology going South to help prosper Mexicans and the Mexican nation?”

            Here’s a better question:

            Who is for near-unlimited hordes of diseased illegal aliens invading the US, with said invasion aided, abetted, and encouraged by Mexico???

          • FriendlyGoat

            I no longer tolerate aggressive fools or miscellaneous SOB’s in my face in person or in the comment section, so you’re blocked from my view as of now.
            Sorry you have to find a new victim but you MAY NOT imagine that I’ll be one for you. I won’t be seeing another word you write.

          • JamesDrouin

            Hey, stupid flvcking shiitehead with the avatar of a prepubescent 12-year old, here’s an FYI for you:

            All your ‘blocking’ accomplishes is to prevent Disqus from notifying you of a response, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re STILL a stupid flvcking shiitehead!!!

            Oh, and if your 12-year old prepubescent a$$ can’t handle uncomfortable questions, you really must not like uncomfortable truths.

  • Dale Fayda

    Building a few oil rigs (maybe…) in exchange for continuing to receive millions of the sub-literate dregs of Mexico and Central America? No, thank you.

    Build the wall and also some oil rigs, but only if Mexico asks us nicely.

    • Dave Hunter

      Just last week an illiterate illegal immigrant was found guilty of raping his daughter, leading to a child born with multiple birth defects. So your assessment (sub-literate dregs) is spot on.

  • Ofer Imanuel

    Helping a neighbor develop its off-shore oil reserves (and profiting from it) is a great idea. So is preventing illegal immigration.

  • Pete

    “President Trump has strained the Mexican-American relationship.”

    True, but he did so because the U.S. was being played for a patsy under NAFTA and massive illegal immigration abetted by the Mexican government.

    If putting a strain on Mexican-American relationship is the price for looking for American interest, so be it.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Privatization – I don’t think this word means what you think it does.

    When America broke up Standard Oil or AT&T and sold it all off, that was Privatization. As long as Pemex is a Government Monopoly owned Oil Monopoly, the word Privatization doesn’t apply (a few subcontractors don’t count). It’s the “Feedback of Competition” that provides both the Information and Motivation which forces continuous improvements in Quality, Service, and Price in free markets. No other form of human organization can compete with the efficient allocation of resources of the Free Market.

  • Boritz

    “seemed on the verge of turning a corner three years ago”

    These economic forecasts always turn out to be like the weather forecast in hell: That cold front that was headed this way juuuuust took a little detour at the last moment and will not be coming here after all.

  • JamesDrouin

    “A Mexican Oil Renaissance Could Thaw US Relations”

    And if pigs could fly, they’d soar like eagles … the Mexican oil industry and its masters in the government are as corrupt and incompetent as it is possible for humans to be.

    If ‘Mexico’ wanted out of the energy shiitehole it’s dug itself into, it could very easily have done that by opening up land dilling (and fraccing) to independent energy companies … it hasn’t. And it hasn’t because then it loses control and the mordida it demands.

  • Brian Backes

    I’m OK with more rigs. But wall first. Period.

    Make everything about Mexico contingent upon wall. MAGA.

  • President Trump Mexican exploitation of American officials who refuse to enforce immigration laws because politics has strained the Mexican-American relationship, to put it mildly

    Edited for accuracy.

  • Publius Houstoniensis

    Good thing that the oil is offshore, to avoid the Mexican labor union thugs onshore, as well as the government bureaucrats.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.