Tag: economy

‘Unacceptable’: Trump calls out Canadian currency ‘imbalance’ with U.S.

President Donald Trump bashed the Canadian currency “imbalance” with the United States, warning that the situation would be changed.

“Canada’s (currency) Dollar imbalance with the U.S. is unacceptable. It has been that way for years — but no longer!” Trump said in a Sunday Truth Social post.

The president did not provide additional details or policy proposals regarding his statement.

His criticism comes amidst the ongoing trade war between the U.S. and Canada, with both countries announcing sweeping tariffs across numerous sectors of the market.

The Canadian dollar (CAD) has long been valued less than the U.S. dollar (USD), with $1 USD equaling roughly $1.38 CAD.

Investopedia explained the impact a weaker currency can have on global markets. A less powerful currency simultaneously means that exports from that country receive a competitive advantage in other markets while the country also faces more expensive imports. If the nation is dependent upon imports, this can lead to trade imbalances, the outlet highlighted.

Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated on Friday that the country was focusing on shoring up internal manufacturing.

“For too long, we bought from abroad what we were more than capable of building right here at home. We’re bringing that work back, and we’re turbo-charging it,” he said, announcing the plan for hundreds of passenger rail cars to be manufactured in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

For too long, Canada bought what we could build here at home. 

Keep reading

The Real Elites Vs. The Ruling Elites

Always and everywhere, political institutions are controlled by elites. It doesn’t matter if the regime type is democratic or monarchical. It doesn’t matter if there is a written constitution or not. All political institutions – and certainly every sovereign state – are run by a group of elites who control the means of coercion.The myth of “rule by the people” is precisely that: a myth.

But this leaves a big question open: who are the elites? Wilfredo Pareto, that pioneer of Italian elite theory, convincingly suggests that elites are simply those people who are most skilled in their respective fields. Being skilled does not suggest any sort of virtue or beauty, of course, and we cannot assume that any member of the elite will be more moral or refined than any, say, middle-class mechanic.

In the case of political elites, to be “elite” simply means to be the most effective at organizing and commanding political action. This can be done toward both virtuous ends or evil ends. The political elites excel at the gaining and wielding of political power. Nothing more. In hereditary monarchies, for example, the monarch is a monarch because his ancestors were more effective at using violence – and at stealing and killing – than were their competitors. Their descendants are able to remain in the elite through effective political scheming to maintain their positions. In democracies, those who gain and maintain power are effective at deceiving the voting public and at currying favor with the ruling coalitions of various interest groups. They’re not “the elite” because they are especially virtuous or well educated. They simply excel at cultivating the knowledge necessary to wield the power of the state against their enemies and against potential rivals.

Economic Elites vs. Political Elites

There is, however, often confusion as to the difference between economic elites and political elites. One could say that economic elites are those who are most skilled at the management of property. Yet, the nature of the economic elites depends largely on what type of regime exists within society. In a society that has a mostly market system, the economic elites are those who are most productive in the free marketplace. These are the people who are skilled at entrepreneurship, sales, logistics, investing, and all other aspects of a freely functioning market. In a mostly free society, the economic elites are free to spend most of their time on their activities in the marketplace, and they are thus rewarded for spending their efforts in improving their own productivity. Moreover, all of society benefits from these sorts of economic elites. This is because rewards in the marketplace stem from delivering more goods and services to more people at a price that a growing number of people can afford.

Things are different in a society where the economy is dominated by the state – and thus by the political elite. In such a society, the economic elites are those who are most skilled at using the power of the state to achieve success in the state-regulated marketplace. In this case, the economic elites are those who are able to partner with the regime to obtain policies that benefit the elites through the manipulation and regulation of the market. These policies include bailouts, state-backed monopolies, and an easy-money-fueled financial system. In this system, the economic elites are able to maintain and enhance their positions and their wealth through effective political action, and by serving the political elites instead of customers in the marketplace.

When this happens, we cannot assume that the economic elites are there because they add value to society. Rather, the economic elites in this latter system are parasitical. They rely on the exploitation of others to maintain their positions and to expand their market share. One of the most dramatic examples of this can be seen in the response to the financial crisis that began in 2008.

Had the marketplace been allowed to function, many large banks and other firms would have been bankrupted, and their property repurposed by other, more efficient owners and managers. Those new owners could have become a new economic elite. But thanks to the intervention of the incumbent political elites, failing firms were saved through the redistribution of wealth from the productive classes to hand-picked, politically connected incumbent firms and owners. Thus, firms like Citicorp and AIG were bailed out, new regulations imposed, and firms like JP Morgan greatly expanded their market share. The Federal Reserve’s mass purchasing of mortgage-backed securities rescued a large portion of the financial sector from insolvency. As a result, most of the economic “elite” we find in the financial sector owe their positions to political action rather than any actual skill in the marketplace. Sure, these people are fond of telling themselves that they are rich because “the market” values them so highly. In reality, they are successful because lobbyists have succeeded in propping up their firms and ensuring, through constant monetary inflation, growth in their portfolios.

But this is just one example. In any society where the political elites are prolific spenders, or engage in widespread regulation of the economy, the economy is continually distorted in a way as to favor the politically well connected at the expense of everyone else. For example, the economic “elites” who rely heavily on government contracts – e.g., Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, the founder of Flock Safety, et al – are not in the elite because they are especially productive in a free market. They are in the elite because they are adept at seizing the property of taxpayers through the tax-and-spend mechanism.

Note that in this interventionist system, the real economic elites – the people who would have risen to the top of an actually free economy – are crowded out and kept down by government action that favors certain firms. Who are these would-be elites? We’ll never know, and instead we are left with our counterfeit billionaire class which is “elite” only in their skill at exploiting people who do real work in the private sector.

Keep reading

All Bubbles End In Deflation

So far…the Bubble in the US is broader than any in history. It has been inflating everything it touched for the last 30 years.

All bubbles pop, of course. How they pop is the confusing whirlwind we enter today.

But don’t worry. Even in the worst crash, real wealth doesn’t disappear, it just changes hands. When the stock market goes down, those with stocks have less paper wealth…and less of a claim on real wealth. They are ‘poorer.’ That leaves those without stocks relatively richer. They have a bigger claim on the real goods and services the economy produces.

The feds and their elite cronies have a good racket going…diddling markets so as to shift more and more wealth away from the public and towards themselves. They own most of the capital assets…and they control the US budget. Pressuring interest rates lower, and backing up the stock market with bailouts and ‘put’ options…they’ve gotten richer and richer. As we saw last week, at today’s prices the stockholding class can theoretically buy twice the GDP…and have $10 trillion left over.

It wasn’t capitalism that made them so rich; it was a corrupt money system. And if the dogs of capitalism were unleashed, they’d have their fake money fortunes for dinner. Interest rates would be set by honest savers and borrowers — not by Fed policy decisions. Prices would be determined by buyers and sellers; the budget would be balanced; the debt would be cleaned up; the troops would come home; inflation would disappear; and the Baltimore O’s would win the World Series.

But of course, we’re dreaming.

Sticking to the real world…

Our high confidence guess is that the bubble will deflate. Everything will fall in price. Then, the feds will panic. They will do ‘whatever it takes’ to stop markets from doing their work — with more fake money, lower interest rates, yield curve control, quantitative easing. And probably some tricks we haven’t heard of yet.

After an initial sell-off, gold will go up. It will sniff out what is coming — more inflation. Other real asset prices too — from hot dogs to hotels — will get a whiff of the coming price hikes. Consumer prices will rise as ‘inflation expectations’ increase.

The feds really only have one tool — fake money. In a crisis, they will produce more of it…a lot more. And, in addition to the quantity of money coming into the economy, there’s another key inflation variable: the velocity of money. A dollar spent two times in a year is counted twice.

When people think the feds are going to print money, the dollar becomes a hot potato. They aim to get rid of it as soon as possible. Sales go up in the short run. In the longer run, the economy is destroyed.

And here’s an important addendum. We say ‘inflate or die.’ But those are just policy choices. In the long run, you can inflate all you want. The bubble will still die — a later, more gruesome death.

In the fight between markets on one side…and politicians, grifters, fixers and central planners on the other…markets always win, eventually. They win by deflation.

Even in an inflationary blow off — with prices soaring — real prices fall. Consumer prices rise, in nominal currency. But gold — real money — typically rises even more…so that in gold terms, real things actually become cheaper. Prices deflate in real terms.

Observers in Germany’s record-setting hyperinflation remarked that foreigners were able to use dollars — then, backed by gold — to buy things at absurdly low prices. By November, 1923, a dollar was equal to 4.2 trillion marks. This made American visitors trillionaires (in marks) allowing them to buy whole houses for the price of a magazine subscription. In real terms, prices had deflated down to almost nothing.

We witnessed it, ourselves, in Argentina. In pesos, consumer prices more than doubled every twelve months…but dollars (even with a dodgy dollar) made them cheaper than ever. We would go to a restaurant, for example, and feel guilty about paying so little for such a good meal.

The same phenomenon is already taking place in America, too. Housing has gotten much more expensive, right? And the stock market is much higher too, right? But looked at in terms of gold, stocks are less than half of what they were worth in 1999…and the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, expressed in gold, shows house prices down about 80% over the last quarter century.

Keep reading

How Big Ag Seized Control Over Media, Research, Policy and the Marketplace

Industrial agriculture is increasingly adopting the same public relations, lobbying and information tactics long used by Big Oil, investigative journalist Amy Westervelt said on the “Real Organic Podcast.” Those strategies help corporations influence research, media and policy, making it easier to “shape the information that voters are getting,” she said.

Journalist Amy Westervelt has spent years documenting how the oil industry used public relations, think tanks and university partnerships to shape public opinion and influence public policy.

But in a recent interview on the “Real Organic Podcast,” Westervelt said she increasingly sees many of those same tactics in industrial agriculture.

“I am finding so many parallels in the agriculture space,” said Westervelt, host of the investigative podcast “Drilled” and author of the forthcoming book, “Brought to You By: Inside Big Oil’s Total Information War.”

She said large agricultural companies, like their counterparts in the fossil fuel industry, have established research centers that help generate academic support for policies that benefit industry.

“It’s like they need a certain amount of … credible information from academics to be able to make the policy argument for certain things,” she said.

Throughout the interview, Westervelt suggested these efforts are part of a broader corporate strategy designed not simply to influence markets, but to shape public debate before policy decisions are ever made.

‘Corporations start to have multiple problems with democracy’

Westervelt traced the origins of modern corporate public relations to the early 20th century, arguing that growing public scrutiny prompted businesses to rethink how they protected their interests.

“Corporations start to have multiple problems with democracy” as new laws, investigative reporting and broader voting rights threatened business interests, she said. That’s when you see “the birth of corporate PR.”

Rather than simply selling products, corporations sought to mold public opinion before voters could demand greater oversight, according to Westervelt.

“These companies need a way to shape the information that voters are getting in a way that will make them more likely to vote against their own interests and in the interests of the corporations that have a lot at stake,” she said.

Over time, industries refined those tactics, using increasingly sophisticated methods “to try to shape the context that they’re operating in and to deal with … ‘creeping democracy,’” Westervelt said.

Media ‘not doing its job’ of holding powerful corporations to account

Think tanks have become one of industry’s most effective policy tools, according to Westervelt.

“They train the people who work there to go on TV shows and radio shows to get these particular talking points out,” she said.

Unlike registered lobbyists, many think tanks operate with little transparency, she added.

“These organizations have loads of money. They have a lot of influence, and they’re not really regulated in any way,” Westervelt said. “They’re pretty good at hiding who funds them.”

She said corporate influence doesn’t stop with think tanks. It also extends into universities, where industry funding can help shape the research that later informs public policy.

While much of her reporting has focused on fossil fuel companies, Westervelt said she increasingly sees similar patterns in industrial agriculture. She described the practice as a form of “pre-lobbying,” in which corporations cultivate the evidence needed to support future policy arguments.

As one example, Westervelt described speaking with a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology after an oil company funded carbon capture research.

Researchers were invited to submit project proposals, but one scientist wanted to study “the potential health impacts” of carbon capture pipelines, including “what might happen if it leaks,” she said.

According to Westervelt, the principal investigator instead encouraged him to “look for a more positive project.”

Seemingly small decisions like these can gradually shape which questions get asked — and which never reach the public, she said.

“There’s so many little things like that happening all the time that are keeping … really important ideas just out of the … public square,” she said.

Westervelt said those information gaps are reinforced by powerful technology platforms and a media landscape that often fails to challenge corporate influence.

“You do have now tech companies working really in lock step with these big corporations, helping them to drown out everybody else,” she said. “Letting them juice the algorithm, spend a fortune on … advertising, and really drown out kind of anyone that doesn’t agree with them.”

Meanwhile, she added, “the media is not doing its job kind of holding the powerful to account. That’s just not a thing that is rewarded by newsrooms at this time.”

Keep reading

The Rising Cost Of Electricity In The United States

Across the U.S., Americans are paying roughly 30% more for electricity than in 2020.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Cody Good in partnership with the National Public Utilities Council, uses data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to show the change in average retail electricity prices by state across all sectors from 2020 to 2025.

Where Electricity Prices Rose the Most

Washington, DC saw the largest increase in the country, with average retail electricity prices rising 72% between 2020 and 2025. Maine followed closely at 67%, while Maryland and California rose 52% and 50%, respectively.

State AbbreviationStateChange in Electricity Price, All Sectors 2020-2025 (%)
DCWashington, D.C.72
MEMaine67
MDMaryland52
CACalifornia50
RIRhode Island47
PAPennsylvania46
NYNew York45
MAMassachusetts44
ILIllinois43
CTConnecticut39
DEDelaware38
NJNew Jersey35
NHNew Hampshire31
FLFlorida30
HIHawaii28
LALouisiana27
ALAlabama26
MSMississippi26
NVNevada26
ARArkansas25
VAVirginia25
WVWest Virginia25
INIndiana24
MIMichigan24
AZArizona23
WAWashington23
OHOhio22
TNTennessee22
VTVermont22
COColorado21
UTUtah21
WIWisconsin21
IDIdaho19
MOMissouri19
MNMinnesota18
NCNorth Carolina18
OROregon17
OKOklahoma16
KSKentucky15
AKAlaska14
GAGeorgia14
TXTexas14
MTMontana13
SDSouth Dakota13
IAIowa11
KSKansas9
NMNew Mexico9
SCSouth Carolina7
NENebraska-1
WYWyoming-1
NDNorth Dakota-18

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

Data shows percent growth in average retail electricity prices across all sectors from 2020 to 2025.

Many of the largest increases were concentrated in coastal and Northeastern markets, where retail electricity prices have climbed sharply since 2020.

Keep reading

AI Warfare & AI Bubble?

The front in Ukraine is largely positional. A wide “kill zone” created by drones makes massed Russian assaults costly and difficult to sustain. Ukraine is closer to collapse for they lack the soldiers and have been turning to drones and robots. Russia has manpower depth and a wartime economy that, while strained, continues to function. Ukraine faces manpower, ammunition, and sustained Western support challenges but has improved its technological edge (especially drones) and defensive effectiveness. Peace negotiations remain stalled, and a protracted conflict remains the most likely near-term trajectory.

What is changing the way wars are fought is the experiments going on in Ukraine. Fully autonomous drones have killed human soldiers for first time. Ukraine is also looking at Humanoid Robots. A US startup, Foundation, sent two Phantom MK-1 humanoid combat robots to Ukraine for trials in early 2026. These are designed to operate conventional weapons like rifles.

Ukraine has become a leader in using unmanned and autonomous systems in warfare, the focus remains on specialized vehicles and drones. The concept of humanoid robots like the “Terminator” is still in its infancy in this conflict, with only early tests having been reported.

Keep reading

Elon Musk’s G20 Prediction: 1 Billion Humanoid Robots Will Outproduce All of Humanity in 10 Years

Elon Musk addressed a virtual session of the G20 yesterday, laying out predictions on AI, humanoid robots and regulation. According to Musk, within 10 years, 1 billion humanoid robots will outproduce all of humanity.

CNBC reports that Musk covered four topics: power constraints on AI, the technology’s economic potential, humanoid robotics, and how governments should regulate emerging tech.

Robotics is where Musk got more specific about mechanics. He described humanoid robot usefulness as the product of three factors: AI software, the onboard AI chip, and electromechanical dexterity, particularly in the hands. All three are improving exponentially, he said. Once robots start manufacturing other robots, growth turns recursive: slow at first, then explosive. He called his own ten-year forecast conservative, projecting well over a billion humanoid robots, each roughly five times as productive as a person. Combined, that fleet would outproduce all of humanity. This physical layer, he argued, not the digital economy, is where he expects overall economic output to grow by a factor of ten or more.

On power, Musk cited a consensus estimate that AI chips will face a shortfall of at least 15 gigawatts by 2027. AI chip production is climbing roughly 40 to 50 percent a year, he said, while power generation outside China grows only about 10 to 20 percent annually. That gap, in his view, is what actually limits the industry’s growth, not chip supply itself. Musk said Google, Anthropic and other companies are now leasing computing capacity from SpaceX, which built its own power plants to bring capacity online quickly. China has abundant electricity, he noted, but is blocked from importing the latest chips under GPU export bans. His advice to other countries: build out power generation, host AI data centers, then tax them or charge fees for the privilege.

Musk put a number on the economic upside too: a 20 to 30 percent boost to the global economy from digital AI alone, or roughly $20 trillion to $30 trillion a year. By the end of next year, he said, AI should handle any digital task that doesn’t require physically shaping atoms by hand. On software specifically, he predicted AI will reach “Stockfish-level” within about 12 to 18 months, invoking the chess engine as a benchmark and mentioning Magnus Carlsen, the five-time World Chess Champion, in the same breath. That same window, he said, applies more broadly to AI becoming extremely capable across engineering and other digital work. He also plugged X, the platform he owns, as the place where he said nearly all serious AI discourse happens.

On regulation, Musk’s position was that new technologies should be treated as legal by default rather than illegal by default. He pointed to the European Union as an example of heavy regulation that slows progress without stopping it. Using an image of young saplings against big trees in a forest, he compared startups to the saplings and incumbents to the established trees, arguing that most governments over-support the trees while starving the saplings. Large companies get access to political leaders that startups typically don’t, he said, and he thinks policy should be deliberately tilted toward young companies to correct that imbalance.

Keep reading

The Number That Should Keep Every American Parent Up At Night

Washington’s spending addiction just reached a new record. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal deficit for the fiscal year ending on September 30 will hit a stunning $2.1 trillion. This number, confirmed in the CBO’s August monthly budget review, is the highest deficit recorded outside of the years of emergency COVID spending.

The numbers say something that neither political party wants to broadcast. Even with the economy improving, federal spending jumped 5% while revenue only grew 3%. Adding to the structural imbalance, interest on the national debt jumped by 14% compared to the previous year. Spending on defense, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is also up. The government borrowed $431 billion in the month of July alone — an average of $6 billion every single day.

“We’ve borrowed an astounding $1.8 trillion this fiscal year, with $431 billion in the month of July alone, equating to nearly $6 billion per day,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “We’re on track to surpass $2 trillion in borrowing this fiscal year despite not being in a recession. That is not normal.”

The CBO’s original estimate was $1.9 trillion — revised upward by $200 billion largely because the Supreme Court struck down tariff authorities in February, cutting expected revenue by $250 billion. About $100 billion has already been refunded to companies under court orders. Even with new tariffs imposed since, the fiscal math still does not add up.

The Medicaid waiver system shows just how embedded the waste is. Congress baked a budget-neutrality requirement — Section 71118 — into last year’s reconciliation law, requiring that starting January 2027, no Medicaid waiver can be approved without a certification it will not increase federal spending. States have spent years exploiting these waivers to extract billions beyond what their programs justify. A 2014 Government Accountability Office audit found $778 million in excess spending on a single Arkansas Medicaid waiver — money the Obama administration used to bribe the state into expanding Obamacare.

Keep reading

$40 Trillion in Debt and the Interest Bill Keeps Growing

The United States has crossed $40 trillion in gross federal debt, and Washington will treat it as another unfortunate milestone before returning to the business of spending money it does not have. The more immediate problem is what it costs to carry that debt. Treasury’s figures show approximately $1.17 trillion in gross interest expense through July, just ten months into fiscal year 2026. That works out to roughly $117 billion a month, or $3.85 billion every single day over that period. These are interest costs, not repayments that reduce the principal. Washington incurs this expense while the debt itself continues climbing.

There are two different interest figures, and they should not be confused. Treasury’s gross interest expense includes interest credited to government accounts holding Treasury securities. The federal budget’s net interest measure excludes those internal payments and includes other offsets. The Congressional Budget Office’s February outlook placed net interest at approximately 3.3% of GDP in 2026, implying more than $1 trillion for the full fiscal year. Even on that narrower measure, Washington is devoting roughly one dollar in five of projected federal revenue to interest. The distinction matters for accounting, but neither number describes a government bringing its finances under control.

The issue was never simply that government had borrowed a large sum. It was that borrowing had become a permanent arrangement, with interest added to budgets already running deficits. Politicians take credit for the original spending, while the cost of financing it survives long after they leave office. Their successors inherit the bill and issue more debt rather than confront the promises that created it.

Consider what refinancing actually means. When a Treasury security matures, its holder must be repaid. If Washington finances that redemption by selling another security, the creditor has changed, but the government has not eliminated the obligation. It has renewed it at whatever rate the market will accept. Borrowing to refinance principal is separate from the interest bill, yet both require continued access to willing buyers. This is why a government can make every payment on time while its underlying financial position deteriorates.

The mathematics of higher rates becomes brutal at this scale. Every additional percentage point on $1 trillion of debt means another $10 billion in annual interest once that debt carries the higher rate. Apply that to successive waves of refinancing and the expense builds year after year. The entire $40 trillion does not reset overnight, and it would be misleading to suggest otherwise. Existing fixed-rate securities retain their coupons until maturity. That delay, however, can conceal the developing burden and give politicians another excuse to postpone action.

There is no magic number at which a country automatically collapses. Confidence, borrowing costs, economic growth, and the ability to raise revenue all matter. The danger is that higher interest expenses require more borrowing, while concerns about that borrowing encourage investors to demand still higher yields. A deteriorating fiscal position can then begin reinforcing itself.

CBO projects net interest costs reaching $2.1 trillion in 2036, or 4.6% of GDP. That is a projection under its stated assumptions, not a guaranteed outcome, but it demonstrates that the problem does not disappear even in an orderly baseline. Washington is not merely struggling with a temporary expense left over from an emergency. It is carrying an interest burden expected to grow while elected officials continue making commitments against future revenue.

War makes this arithmetic harder. Military operations require resources today, while the interest on borrowing to finance them can remain for decades. If conflict also raises energy costs or disrupts production, it can complicate the Federal Reserve’s inflation problem. Higher rates may be necessary to restrain inflation, but they also increase the cost of new federal borrowing. Demanding that the Fed cut rates does not repair that conflict, especially when long-term investors remain free to demand compensation for inflation and fiscal risk.

Republicans cannot explain this away by blaming Democratic spending while defending every unfunded commitment of their own. Democrats cannot promise an expanding government without confronting the cost of financing it. Both parties have constituencies they refuse to disappoint and obligations they prefer to leave to the next administration. The interest bill does not recognize party affiliation, and the bond market does not have to accept a campaign promise as repayment.

The $40 trillion figure should therefore be understood through the income required to sustain it. America possesses enormous productive capacity, but that is not permission for Washington to claim an ever-larger portion of future revenue before the public receives any new service. More than a trillion dollars in annual net interest is already a substantial claim on that income. The question is how much further government intends to mortgage the future before admitting that borrowing has become its substitute for governing.

Keep reading

Mexico Is Growing Because It Still Produces Something

Mexico’s economy expanded 1.4% in the second quarter, nearly three times the OECD average of 0.5%. That placed it sixth among the economies in the report and marked its strongest quarterly expansion since early 2022. Yet listen to the political discussion in Washington and you would think nothing exists south of the border except cartels and migrants. There are factories, engineers, suppliers, and entire communities whose livelihoods depend on producing goods for the North American market. Politicians can dismiss Mexico all they want, but corporations making investment decisions have to look at costs, transportation, labor, and access to customers.

Mexico is benefiting from manufacturing moving closer to the United States, with opportunities spreading into the businesses supporting that production. The economy contracted a revised 0.3% in the first quarter before rebounding, and output in the second quarter was 2.1% above a year earlier. Nobody should pretend that this means Mexico has entered some uninterrupted boom. Nor should we attribute the entire rebound to manufacturing when the report identifies primary activities as the fastest-growing sector, expanding 2.4%. The broader point is that a country’s productive potential does not vanish because one quarterly number disappoints. Investment takes time to become capacity, and capacity takes time to become income.

Washington’s mistake is assuming that forcing companies to reconsider China automatically means all that production will return to the United States. A manufacturer must calculate whether it can operate profitably. Moving closer to American customers while retaining a competitive cost structure can make Mexico attractive. Tariffs may change that calculation, but they do not abolish it. Businesses will adjust their operations to survive whatever rules governments impose.

There is also a difference between attracting productive investment and attempting to manufacture prosperity through public spending. A factory must eventually sell something customers want at a price they will pay. Government can borrow to finance an unsuccessful program and then borrow again to conceal the failure. The private business does not possess that luxury indefinitely. Its survival depends on meeting demand, controlling costs, and investing where it expects a return. That discipline is precisely what disappears when politicians convince themselves they can direct the economy better than the people risking their own money.

Mexico can still squander the opportunity. Security, water, electricity, transportation, and predictable rules matter to anyone considering a long-term investment. A cheap workforce is of little use if production is repeatedly interrupted or goods cannot reach the customer. Mexico’s government cannot simply congratulate itself over a favorable growth ranking and assume investment will continue regardless of its decisions. Geography provides an advantage, but government can make even an advantageous location too difficult to operate in.

Mexico’s recovery deserves attention because it brings the discussion back to something governments routinely forget: people need the opportunity to earn a better living. They need employers competing for their skills and customers willing to purchase what they produce. A quarterly GDP ranking will not provide that by itself, but sustained productive investment can. Mexico has an opportunity to turn its position beside the American market into lasting prosperity. The greatest service its politicians can provide is to stop assuming that the wealth created by everyone else exists primarily for government to spend.

Keep reading