The Origin Of Mexico Financial Crisis

On April 1, 1991, Argentina’s Congress, with Domingo Cavallo as Minister of Economy, enacted the Convertibility Law (or Ley de Convertibilidad) legally adopting the currency board (Hornbeck, 2002). This legislation essentially pegged the Argentinean peso to the U.S. dollar. The government guaranteed the convertibility of the peso to U.S. dollar at a one-to-one exchange rate, limiting the printing of pesos to only those necessary to purchase dollars in the foreign exchange market. Thus, the central bank was required by law to hold foreign reserves to cover its peso liabilities (Hanke and Schuler, 2002). With this fixed exchange rate, the Argentinean government was hoping to preserve the value of their currency and stabilize inflation. The peg was initially successful, as it cured hyperinflation that occurred at the end of the 1980s and provided price stability needed for economic growth in the early 1990s. However, by the late 1990s,

"In 1994, both countries [Mexico and the United States] signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has increased their mutual trade and foreign direct investment. Between 1994 And 2005, the US-Mexico foreign direct investment flows increased substantially from 16,968 billion to $71,423 billion. By 2007, the Mexican commercial relationship with the U.S. almost tripled from $297 billion to $930 billion." [2] This mutual increase in business inherently has had an attendant growth in "the number of foreign enterprises who have situated in each country." [2] With this increase in international business and trade comes cultural shifts and increased globalization and differences in managerial functions.

The era known as the “Great Depression”, as its name implies, was a time of tremendous difficulty for all Americans. The stock market crash of 1929 left thousands of families out of employment and many were left unable to afford basic necessities we take for granted like a home, clothing and food. Although everyone suffered at this time in American History, not everyone suffered to the same degree. Mexican Americans were faced with some of the worst circumstances during the Great Depression because not only were they blamed incessantly by whites for the effects of the depression due to the “mexican problem” idea, but they were also living under an umbrella of threats of deportation back to their homeland.

The Panic was caused by two failed bank speculations on Wall Street that cascaded into numerous runs on banks, and an erosion in the faith of the financial institution as a whole. What this meant for the Mexican worker is that the ones who were employed by American businesses were immediately let go or their wages were cut from the already emaciated amounts that they were already getting. Mexican businesses, who had already driven down the prices of their goods with over production suddenly found themselves with an even worse position as their domestic market was no longer able to afford their

As the Mexican’s government access to the international credit market started to diminish, so did the investors’ confidence in their ability to redeem their investments in government backed Tesobonos bonds. Tesobonos are bonds issued by the Bank of Mexico, marketed predominantly to foreign investors and to be repaid in US$. The dollar denominated bonds which were due to mature in 1995 were unlikely to be repaid in full ($10 billion worth of Tesobonos were to mature in the first quarter of 1995 followed by $19 billion worth before the end of 2005) (JR, 1996 & Arner, n.d).

The financial crisis that happened during 2007-09 was considered the worst financial crisis in the world since the great depression in the 1930s. It leads to a series of banking failures and also prolonged recession, which have affected millions of Americans and paralyzed the whole financial system. Although it was happened a long time ago, the side effects are still having implications for the economy now. This has become an enormously common topic among economists, hence it plays an extremely important role in the economy. There are many questions that were asked about the financial crisis, one of the most common question that dragged attention was ’’How did the government (Federal Reserve) contributed to the financial crisis?’’

Food, transport cost, gasoline and home energy are some of the products that increased in cost due to the oil dilemma. Another cause is the reliance on credit as a means of financing one’s life. Many people have increasingly been addicted on credit cards and other credit facilities causing a strain of the financial capabilities of a person. The application of mortgages and loans increased sharply in the past decade and with many people not meeting their monthly payments, interest rates rose up and people were are less able to pay the periodical amounts required of them. The final cause that will be highlighted is the falling dollar value. This has the effect of reducing the purchasing value of many citizens. Many homeowners lost money in the form of inflation due to the increasing devaluation of the dollar. There are many other numerous reasons given for the crisis all of which worked together to escalate the problem all over the country and also to some countries elsewhere in the world.

In addition, in the decade leading to 1994, the government saw an increasing expenditure for various projects in the country. The result was an increased reduction in the funds of the government. Another more important factor was that the country experienced hyperinflation from 1985 through 1993. This period was also characterized by significant increases in debt loads of the financial sector, as well as the low oil prices that also contributed to the weakening of the Mexican economy (Mathur, 18). One would argue that the Mexican

The Argentina’s debt default crisis this year could be trace back to 2001’s crisis. After that, the government begin to

Mexico is the top trading nation in Latin America and the ninth-largest economy in the world. No country has signed more free trade agreements – 33 in all, including the two biggest markets in the world, the US and the EU. Altogether these signatory countries make up a preferential market of over more than billion consumers. Much of the FDI in Mexico is attracted by the country’s strategic location within the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has positioned it as a springboard to the US and Canada. Other attractions are competitive production costs and a young, skilled workforce, together with political stability and an open economy.

The Argentina debt affected the country between the late 90’s to the early 2000’s and can be attributed to misdiagnosis and ineffective policy. During this time the IMF and Argetina’s government worked closely together. Previous to the crisis Argentina had been celebrated for its economic policies and growth. The government worked to put in place conservative economic policy, including the privatization of companies, looser trade regulations, among other conservative changes. Economic growth in that period appears to have been in large part the result of increasing amount of international debt. Before the end of the 90’s, things began to fall apart.

The year 1994 marks the final year of Carlos Salinas de Gotari’s administration in Mexico. In order to boost the popularity of the party in hope of garnering more votes, Salinas went a high spending splurge which led to high deficits. Mexico’s trade deficit further deteriorated due to trade liberalization through the participation in North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and World Trade Agreement (WTA) in 1994. Fuelled by the overvalued peso and trade liberalization, Mexico was importing at a rate much faster than it could, leading to rising trade deficits.

Devaluation was postponed through heavy international support. The ultimate crisis in August 1998 resulted in a partial government default and steep devaluation

The readily identification of debt crisis was Mexico’s inability to serve its outstanding debt of $80 billion debt. And the situation continue to worsen, and one year later, by October 1983, 27 countries owing $239 billion had reschedule debts or in the process of doing so.

In the mid-1970s, countries which had borrowed heavily in order to pay for oil imports were hit hard. The real interest rates on loans rapidly escalated, while prices for commodities used to earn foreign exchange to repay these debts fell rapidly. The recession in 1981 and 82 took hold and this vice-like grip led to the Mexican debt crisis of 1982 followed by the initiation of Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) by the IMF. From that time, indebted countries would only receive new loans on condition of a major "restructuring" of their entire economies, which is always the same recipe based on the slashing of public sector-funded national development projects and social welfare. The aim was (and