Major fentanyl supplier 'El Mencho' killed, cartel chaos triggers shelter-in-place order

[WyattEarp]

The only way to avoid a bloodshed like Columbia had is to cut the demand.

A hard government stance will have the cartel use the billions and thousands of people they pay to fight to hell. These guys won`t go down without a horrible battle.

Having a soft stance avoids most of the violence. But does not solve the problem at all.

Only cutting drug demand could solve the problem.

The cartel wars in Latin America have been going on for several decades now. The wars are with the United States, national governments and cartel-on-cartel battles.
I don't think there is any long-term solution to the problem.

Drug demand isn't going to drop enough to make a material difference to civil society in the U.S. Mexico or Colombia.
As long as there is demand, cartels will try to control their governments and have violent turf battlers.

Mexico might be ungovernable. However, thinking that lowering drug demand is the solution is a stretch in my opinion. Drug demand isn't just in North America. It's all over South America and the world.

 

[jalimon]

The cartel wars in Latin America have been going on for several decades now. The wars are with the United States, national governments and cartel-on-cartel battles.
I don't think there is any long-term solution to the problem.

Drug demand isn't going to drop enough to make a material difference to civil society in the U.S. Mexico or Colombia.
As long as there is demand, cartels will try to control their governments and have violent turf battlers.

Mexico might be ungovernable. However, thinking that lowering drug demand is the solution is a stretch in my opinion. Drug demand isn't just in North America. It's all over South America and the world.

As long as there is demand, there will be cartels... They are all cockroaches to each other...

Is it worth the risk to try to eradicate them? Remember, these cartels have the resources to blow up electricity plants, oil plants, and decimate thousands of citizens.

Also, many of the political leaders know that all their family is at risk. You tend to vote soft on the law for the cartel when you received a few warnings that your entire family will disappear... And in that warning, you see the exact address of all of them...

 

[WyattEarp]

As long as there is demand, there will be cartels... They are all cockroaches to each other...

Is it worth the risk to try to eradicate them? Remember, these cartels have the resources to blow up electricity plants, oil plants, and decimate thousands of citizens.

Also, many of the political leaders know that all their family is at risk. You tend to vote soft on the law for the cartel when you received a few warnings that your entire family will disappear... And in that warning, you see the exact address of all of them...

Eventually the cartels come to tell you what to do no matter if you are soft on the law.

 

[jalimon]

Eventually the cartels come to tell you what to do no matter if you are soft on the law.

But they decimate you if you are hard on the law. And it's completely innocent citizens who could pay the price with their lives.

Imagine yourself in the seat of a chief of police in Sinaola. You receive letters with the exact address of all your family, the family of your wife, and even some friends you regularly see. You would comply.

 

[WyattEarp]

But they decimate you if you are hard on the law. And it's completely innocent citizens who could pay the price with their lives.

Imagine yourself in the seat of a chief of police in Sinaola. You receive letters with the exact address of all your family, the family of your wife, and even some friends you regularly see. You would comply.

Nobody disagrees with this above, but I don't think there is some magic bullet (no pun) to solve the problem.
The murder rate went up in Mexico when the previous President tried to go softer on the cartels.

People in the U.S. and around the world are always going to be using drugs.

 

[WyattEarp]

In trade you can put these columns.

Things the USA needs. Oil, Energy, Potash, minerals, wood, water.....

And we, once we diversify, stop discounting them. Without other compensation.

And yes, our food supply chain can be called a security issue and limit foreign entry. There is lots we do let in unfettered. There is no reason we have to let it all in.

And we are increasing the defense spending. A lot. Look it up. This time I don't think its just talk. It's going to happen.

I do see the big picture. And it involves being less reliant on US trade.

I don't think you understand what a two-sided ledger is in regards to current U.S.-Canada trade. You would have to have honest recognition that Canada derives certain advantages beyond what a truly free market would grant. Some members keep referring to U.S. and Canada as a free trade relationship. It's fairly free in certain industries, but it is not free trade no matter what they called NAFTA. More truthfully, they ditched the term "free trade" since it was just creative marketing.

In regards to all the commodities that Canada can sell the world, I've previously discussed this. Oil is your best bet. The reason is that your government has been constraining the production and distribution of oil for quite some time. That's the only reason. It's not some silly idea that you were giving it to the U.S. at a discount. You still have to transport the oil over the Rockies, get it on to ships and likely ship it almost 5,000 nautical miles. The other commodity that could provide a boost is gold. This is being driven by high global prices and the relatively low transportation costs for gold.

Potash is an excellent example of the limits of selling and distributing fungible commodities. Potash is under US$400 a metric ton. It takes some imagination to wrap one's brain around the price to volume ratio. Let's just say it's expensive to transport. That seems fair.

There's thousands of train cars of the stuff heading down from Saskatchewan to the U.S. Why? Because it's by far the easiest and most accessible market (relatively low transport costs). It's not because you are giving potash away at a discount, but rather shipping it anywhere else is costly.

Now the Chinese are big potash consumers. Perhaps Carney signs the Sino-Canadian Reliability Agreement for Potash (SCRAP). (You have to allow me to lighten up a dry trade discussion a bit.) Great news! China buys more of its potash from Canada. However, you have to realize all global commodity markets are in a general state of equilibrium. If China buys more from Canada, they now buy less potash from Russia, Belarus and Laos (an expanding potash producer).

So what happens now? Russia is off the table for the time being. However, Belarus and Laos are looking to sell their excess potash that China no longer wants. They go to the U.S., Brazil, India, etc. and say I got a deal for you on potash. I think you see the problem. Canada is shipping more potash across the Pacific to China. Laos is likely shipping more potash back the other way to the U.S. and South America. The disruption to the market equilibrium is not exactly expanding potash sales for Canada or any other country, but rather driving up transportation costs for every producer.

 

[jalimon]

Nobody disagrees with this above, but I don't think there is some magic bullet (no pun) to solve the problem.
The murder rate went up in Mexico when the previous President tried to go softer on the cartels.

People in the U.S. and around the world are always going to be using drugs.

I will believe Mexico can solve its cartel problem when the US will be able to solve its school shooting problem.

Both problems involve too many issues that politicians are not willing to face.

 

[WyattEarp]

I will believe Mexico can solve its cartel problem when the US will be able to solve its school shooting problem.

Both problems involve too many issues that politicians are not willing to face.

Okay, live in your world of idealism and rhetoric.

 

[jalimon]

Okay, live in your world of idealism and rhetoric.

Dude, I am the realistic one!

The US can`t fix homelessness, school shootings, and many other ghetto shit.

Mexico can't fix the cartel's problem.

Cannot be more realistic than this.

 

[WyattEarp]

Dude, I am the realistic one!

The US can`t fix homelessness, school shootings, and many other ghetto shit.

Mexico can't fix the cartel's problem.

Cannot be more realistic than this.

The cartels are making billions. The only solution is to have americans stopped buying drugs. Until then, there is no one-time solution.

You seemed to believe you had a solution Monday on this thread.

This not to mention that it's a U.S.-centric view of the global drug trade.

 

[Hephaestus]

Seems like it quieted down and people are flying to Mexico from Canada

 

[Butler1000]

I don't think you understand what a two-sided ledger is in regards to current U.S.-Canada trade. You would have to have honest recognition that Canada derives certain advantages beyond what a truly free market would grant. Some members keep referring to U.S. and Canada as a free trade relationship. It's fairly free in certain industries, but it is not free trade no matter what they called NAFTA. More truthfully, they ditched the term "free trade" since it was just creative marketing.

In regards to all the commodities that Canada can sell the world, I've previously discussed this. Oil is your best bet. The reason is that your government has been constraining the production and distribution of oil for quite some time. That's the only reason. It's not some silly idea that you were giving it to the U.S. at a discount. You still have to transport the oil over the Rockies, get it on to ships and likely ship it almost 5,000 nautical miles. The other commodity that could provide a boost is gold. This is being driven by high global prices and the relatively low transportation costs for gold.

Potash is an excellent example of the limits of selling and distributing fungible commodities. Potash is under US$400 a metric ton. It takes some imagination to wrap one's brain around the price to volume ratio. Let's just say it's expensive to transport. That seems fair.

There's thousands of train cars of the stuff heading down from Saskatchewan to the U.S. Why? Because it's by far the easiest and most accessible market (relatively low transport costs). It's not because you are giving potash away at a discount, but rather shipping it anywhere else is costly.

Now the Chinese are big potash consumers. Perhaps Carney signs the Sino-Canadian Reliability Agreement for Potash (SCRAP). (You have to allow me to lighten up a dry trade discussion a bit.) Great news! China buys more of its potash from Canada. However, you have to realize all global commodity markets are in a general state of equilibrium. If China buys more from Canada, they now buy less potash from Russia, Belarus and Laos (an expanding potash producer).

So what happens now? Russia is off the table for the time being. However, Belarus and Laos are looking to sell their excess potash that China no longer wants. They go to the U.S., Brazil, India, etc. and say I got a deal for you on potash. I think you see the problem. Canada is shipping more potash across the Pacific to China. Laos is likely shipping more potash back the other way to the U.S. and South America. The disruption to the market equilibrium is not exactly expanding potash sales for Canada or any other country, but rather driving up transportation costs for every producer.

Of course there are advantages to both sides. Cripes that's why NAFTA was so successful.

It isn't us forcing Canada to explore more reliable trade partners. It's an asshole administration. Period.

The advantages are clear. Trump and crew don't care. When you take away the advantages and fuck around, we will take business elsewhere.

Seriously Wyatt. Don't you get it? There is no logic to this attack on trade. As a result you will end up with illogical solutions. We have to. It goes from the ledger sheet to sovereignty and insult pretty quickly. And humans being human we will say fuck you just because its worth it on a personal satisfaction scale.

 

[jalimon]

You seemed to believe you had a solution Monday on this thread.

This not to mention that it's a U.S.-centric view of the global drug trade.

Because the problem is not in Mexico. The problem is the buyers in the USA and Canada (mostly).

At least I bring a solution.

 

[WyattEarp]

Of course there are advantages to both sides. Cripes that's why NAFTA was so successful.

It isn't us forcing Canada to explore more reliable trade partners. It's an asshole administration. Period.

The advantages are clear. Trump and crew don't care. When you take away the advantages and fuck around, we will take business elsewhere.

Seriously Wyatt. Don't you get it? There is no logic to this attack on trade. As a result you will end up with illogical solutions. We have to. It goes from the ledger sheet to sovereignty and insult pretty quickly. And humans being human we will say fuck you just because its worth it on a personal satisfaction scale.

I personally don't think tariffs on Canada are a priority for the U.S.
However, Canada has carved out certain markets from agreements with U.S. to its own benefit. I'm fine with that if Canada can continue to get the U.S. to allow these carve-outs. I'm just not sympathetic.
No offense, but I don't buy the whining about Canada discounting commodities to the U.S.
It sounds like political nonsense to make Canadians think they are getting shafted.

My approach to free trade is that it's basically a marketing ploy that has generally been sold to the American public.
Our multinationals and Wall Street dig the current system a lot.
In practice, all trade is managed trade with countries trying to gain or retain trade advantages that aren't free trade.
The U.S. has generally kept the global trade system running by keeping our markets more open than the rest of the world.
What you are seeing is a trade negotiation that is out in public. It bothers some.

 

[WyattEarp]

Because the problem is not in Mexico. The problem is the buyers in the USA and Canada (mostly).

At least I bring a solution.

That's not a solution.

It's no more realistic than killing or jailing all cartel members.

Perhaps you could book a room in a dangerous favela in Brazil to see how the drug trade works outside North America.

 

[Butler1000]

I personally don't think tariffs on Canada are a priority for the U.S.
However, Canada has carved out certain markets from agreements with U.S. to its own benefit. I'm fine with that if Canada can continue to get the U.S. to allow these carve-outs. I'm just not sympathetic.
No offense, but I don't buy the whining about Canada discounting commodities to the U.S.
It sounds like political nonsense to make Canadians think they are getting shafted.

My approach to free trade is that it's basically a marketing ploy that has generally been sold to the American public.
Our multinationals and Wall Street dig the current system a lot.
In practice, all trade is managed trade with countries trying to gain or retain trade advantages that aren't free trade.
The U.S. has generally kept the global trade system running by keeping our markets more open than the rest of the world.
What you are seeing is a trade negotiation that is out in public. It bothers some.

Except the US trade rep clearly stated tariffs are going to happen no matter what. And despite the SCOTUS ruling they are using the kitchen sink to keep them.

Actions vs words Wyatt. You are being far too soft on them. And its because you continue to hold out hope for rational thought. The only thing this administration is interested in is fucking up the trade deals. Trump doesn't care about fair, or quid pro quo. He wants to win, to crush, to humiliate. He will lie, go back on his word. As proven by deed.

Why should we trust a deal with him?

 

[Frankfooter]

I will believe Mexico can solve its cartel problem when the US will be able to solve its school shooting problem.

Both problems involve too many issues that politicians are not willing to face.

The gun problem is related to the drug problem and is all caused by increase in poverty.
The massive divide between rich and poor is part of what is turning america into a shithole nation,

 

[jalimon]

That's not a solution.

It's no more realistic than killing or jailing all cartel members.

Perhaps you could book a room in a dangerous favela in Brazil to see how the drug trade works outside North America.

No thanks, I'll pass I would never book a room in the dangerous neighbourhoods of America either... Never in specific areas of downtown LA, Memphis, St-Louis, Jackson, Chicago, or San Francisco.

As I said, you cannot jail all cartel members. The repercussion would be too important. And for what? They will simply replicate. They are auto-catalytic.