Talk:Mexican peso crisis

Major edits
I've just cut this from the article. Because - It strikes me as extreme pov. ''Businesses whose executives attended the meeting at Zedillo's office were spared the nightmare &mdash; forewarned, they quickly bought dollars and renegotiated their contracts into pesos. To make matters worse, the devaluation announcement was made mid-week, on a Wednesday, and for the remainder of the week foreign investors fled the Mexican market without any government action to prevent or discourage it until the following Monday when it was too late.''

''The "December Mistake" caused so much outrage that Salinas exiled himself in Ireland (he was campaigning worldwide for WTO head at the time). The incident also served to make it clear that his influence (if any) on the Zedillo administration was over.'' These are extreme accusations. Please can we get some references before we put them back? What did the government actually do on the Monday? Did Zedillo describe his trip to Ireland as "exiling himself" or is that the author's interpretation of his actions? Who found it clear that the Zedillo administration was over? Was there an official message to this effect? When did his government end? I appreciate there is a lot of anger over these events. Wikipedia is not the place to vent it. --Dilaudid 15:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article seems to have a great history of the crisis. I will seek to simplify and integrate this material into the article --Dilaudid 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales Rant
This lengthy article is devoid of sources, and tells a version of events that would be expected of a currency trader, who would attribute no role to currency speculators in the crash, and who would not cite sources indicating such causes. Strange thing is, Wikipedia was built on money generated in just a few short years in the early 1990s by Jimbo Wales, who then used the wealth he built speculating on, and some suggest participating in the destruction of, economies of developing nations to start Wikipedia. Wales then kept Wikipeida under his personal control for three years, with complete latitude to set policy, to declare principles of the project and to exclude select participants. For the next two years, Wales controlled the board of directors, all the while excluding or actively endorsing the exclusion of prolific contributors who were capable of documenting economic analysis that would indict currency speculators for their roles in several national economic collapses during the 1990s. Profeta verdadero 07:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you have lots to do here. Remember, No personal attacks. - Crosbiesmith 07:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations of uncontested facts are not personal attacks. Casual reading of the entries by some administrators indicates they sometimes remind less-prestigious users what is not a personal attack, when the administrators in question are alleged to have made a personal attack. Among the things that are not a personal attack are citations of facts, including facts that could suggest a conflict of interests that could influence the neutrality of an article. Such considerations are mandatory in editorial dialogue for any neutral publication. Unfortunately, I don't save searchable logs of every page I read on the Internet and have no easy way of citing these instances, and it seems the article you cite on what is a personal attack closely guards the secret of what is not a personal attack.
 * I have offered citations from extremely reputable sources documenting the widely held view that speculation damages some economies. That Wales earned the money that funded Wikipedia speculating on currency during this highly volatile period is widely reported. Wales role in shaping Wikipedia is documented in Wikipedia, among other places. The extent of Wales involvement in blocking particular editors might be debatable, but it is not a personal attack to ask if a persons biases have influenced the direction of their work. What was it you wanted me to remember? Profeta verdadero 07:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

unsourced, POV
Isn't the proper way to respond to a source claim and a POV concern to address the concern, rather than insinuate the person holding the concern is guilty of some wikicrime?

I placed these tags because there are legitimate problems with the article. The lack of citations is evident by the mere presence of one cite for a few thousand words. The lone citation, when reviewed, does not expose details claimed by the article, which means the article is unsourced.

The five citations I provided in my original post expose several reputable sources which say the cause of the collapse was not Mexico's feeble economy, but manipulation by outside speculators. This is why I placed the POV tag. It should remain until someone cares enough to write this article from the neutral stance of a person who seriously considers claims by reputable analysts that speculation was at the root of the collapse. The argument has merit especially in view of the collapse of several economies, especially those that were targeted for speculative manipulation by George Soros, who led a movement among libertarian minded speculators during those years. If you care to examine the extensive sources I did not find represented on this page, and which I only began to expose above, you may find that Soros and the speculators of the 1990s routinely claimed their speculation in a wide-open lending market that grew from the Reagan era of deregulation and internationalism was good for the economies that collapsed as they moved enormous funds in and out of national economies at will. Profeta verdadero 08:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the "unsourced tag". The article cites its source: Hufbauer and Schott chpt 1 of NAFTA Revisited. I said "source" and not sources, because like you aptly pointed out, it is one cite for a thousand words. In fact, most of the section of Causes of the Economic Crisis is in fact a summary of what the authors exposed on p. 8 to 11 of Overview:NAFTA in historical context. I strongly recommend you to read the text before inserting the tag again. --Dúnadan 14:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the POV, I see no lack of neutrality, but a most, a lack of completeness. If you believe your theory of speculative manipulation deserves credit, then by all means write it as an alternative cause, properly sourced by your reputable sources. You can't claim one theory is right: that would be POV. If both alternative theories are presented then the article is complete. --Dúnadan 14:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the source tag. Attribution of the entire article to one advocacy source does not comprise sourcing. The article states as fact "causes are usually attributed to" when in fact, causes were attributed to same in only one source. As such the article should read "according to (pro-NAFTA advocacy publication) the causes were..." No neutral source is offered for the claim that that sources opinions are the usual opinions.


 * Dunadan attributes concerns about speculative manipulation to an anon wikipedia editor. Same editor on this very page provided sourced attributing the concerns to multiple independent sources. Thus, addressing an editor about "your theory" followed by a lecture about "POV" seems to bait that editor or any others who might reply into arguing "their" theories, which have clearly not been advocated as point of view, but instead documented as prominent analysis by reputable sources who are not aligned with the lone pro-NAFTA source that allegedly substantiates the entire contents of this supposedly unbiased page. POV tag restored until the article reads like a neutral representation of all prominent theories and is based on citations other than an advocate for one particular view. FAIR, another self-described non-partisan educational group, pilloried journalists for swallowing Peterson's propaganda uncritically. Claiming neutrality, this article blithely endorsed the views of advocates whose pro-Internationalist, neo-conservative agenda was thoroughly exposed by FAIR's expose of the biases of the authors' whose opinions are the sole source of this article.


 * Because the article relies solely on one source, but does not directly attribute any part of the article to the source, my contribution also includes a copyvio tag, and citation-needed tags for those editors who have a hard time recognizing where the bias starts, such as claims about what usually happens or about what other writers have said that can't all rely on the same source. The failure to attribute particular claims to a particular source implies the claims are original synthesis, when in fact they are I notice the descriptive language in the Wikipedia Peterson Institute article is also plagiarized, violating ethical guidelines for intellectual honesty and offering readers an unabashedly promotional view of the group that claims to be non-partisan but which advocates views of internationalist partisans from both sides of the aisle. The article on Nixon's secretary of commerce who founded the institute that wrote the advocacy statement that is the source of this article also fails to recognize the difference between a politician (who participates in elective political campaigns) and a senior bureaucrat (who is appointed to head a government agency, often along partisan lines). You can fool some of the readers some of the time, but you can't fool us into believing this is anything but an advocacy piece slightly paraphrased from the published work of a leading advocacy group.


 * If anyone here is genuinely interested in peeling back the layers of advocacy billed as scholarly research by Hufbauer & Schott, here is an entry-level examination of bias in these researchers methods used in analysis of the Mexican economy.


 * FAIR's criticism of media's unquestioning acceptance of Peter Peterson's advocacy states:

"'If opinion-makers consider Peterson an expert on finance, experts on finance tend to consider him more of an opinion-maker. Ken Auletta’s book Greed and Glory, about the near collapse of Lehman Brothers in the 1980’s, describes Peterson as, in the eyes of his partners, an arrogant bungler dying to make killings in leveraged buyouts...' etc." Mulotono 23:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I think you went too far with your actions and with your lecture. First, if you had bother to review the "reputable sources" provided above, you would have realized that none of them treats directly with the case of Mexico, but mentions (if at all) the country as a "case of currency speculation" without proving whether the theory applied to the Mexican crisis. For the most part it takes for granted that that was the case, without bothering to provide a proof of the case. That is to say, the reputable sources do not deal with the issue in hand, that is the crisis, but with currency speculation in itself.

Secondly, paraphrasing and citing does not mean copyright infringement, even if you are only paraphrasing one source. Book reviews, articles reviews and journal reviews would be nothing but copyright infringement. Citing, verbatim a book without bothering to provide the source would be copyright infringement. That wasn't done in the article. Most important of all, please read the book and you will find that the article says a lot more than the book. That is to say, the article is not a summary of the book, maybe the section of "causes" is a summary of pages 8-11 based on the appreciation of the authors.

Thirdly, like I said, the article is at most, incomplete, in that it only presents the opinion of, I should say, very reputable economist of the Institute of International Economics, which, unless you have read the book, can't say they are pro-NAFTA. In fact, not even from what is written in the article could you ever suspect that they are pro-NAFTA. I recommend you read the book, I am sure you will find it useful and interesting, whether you are pro or anti-NAFTA. I am not saying, and I never intended to say, that they are the right source. Let me repeat myself: the article is at most, incomplete, in that it is telling what some economists have found out. If you, and your reputable sources find an alternative explanation for the crisis, then by all means, add it.

Fourthly, most of what is written there are in fact... facts. For example, it is a fact that tesobonos were issued in dollars. It is a fact that the repayment of tesobonos depleted the National Reserves. Now, Hufbauer and Schott, being the reputable economists they are, attributed the crisis to the depletion of the National Reserves. I properly paraphrased their opinion and properly cited it. If another plausible explanation accepted by reputable economists exists then the article is incomplete, in that it is only showing one version... ergo I invited you to write the alternative version.

Fifthly, I really doubt that arguing that the depletion of the Reserves would be " plagiarized, violating ethical guidelines for intellectual honesty and offering readers an unabashedly promotional view of the group that claims to be non-partisan".

Sixthly, if you had find a mistake in the way I am presenting the information in a dangerous way, then I guess talking about it, and fixing it would be the right option, instead of accusing the other person directly of partisanship and plagiarism. It violates basic Wikipedian Etiquette: Assuming good faith. But being new in Wikipedia, I couldn't expect anything from you. For my part, I will invite other reputable Wikipedians and administrators to participate in this debate. If anything needs to be fixed, I am open to it, and to learn if I had not cited the work properly.

--Dúnadan 02:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In light of the accusations of copyright infringement, I ask administrators to review the following.
 * Please compare the article's section "Causes of the economic crisis of 1994" with the source, pages 8 to 11 found here: . I hope you find that only paragraphs two and three of the section are summarizing the source, and not the whole section which probably contains contributions of previous and subsequent editors. The entire article is not solely based in the Hufbauer and Schott, but only those two paragraphs, which were (I believe) properly paraphrased, summarized and cited. If this has not been the case, then please edit the paragraph accordingly.
 * If Mr. Hufbauer and Schott are universally recognized as unabashedly biased authors as Munotono claims they are, and his alternative proposal is more plausible, then why can't his information be simply added to the article, like I had originally asked him? Why come up with this copyright infringement tag? Even if these two authors are pro-NAFTA, NAFTA isn't even mentioned here in our article, except that Mexico, post-crisis had to comply with its NAFTA obligations.
 * --Dúnadan 14:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio
Copyvio from where? The url is left empty nor is it clear from this page as top what this is a copyvio of, therefore I have removed it, if you replace it you must give a url where the copyvio comes from, otherwise it could be considered an attemmpt to hijack the article, preventing editing based on an unproven copyvio, SqueakBox 17:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What a mindless insult of my intellect and my contribution. The copyvio report included a reference to a PRINTED SOURCE that is NOT AVAILABLE ON LINE. Yes, I'm shouting, because you are insulting charitable donors with the inference that failure to fill out a wikipedia-created form that demands a URL for a printed source is somehow evidence that the source was not copyrighted. And the printed source from which this article was copyrighted was clearly spelled out in the copyright complaint: HUFBAUER GC, J Schott, NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges, Institute for International Economics, Washington DC, October, 2005


 * Your systematic recourse to accusatory languags is typical Wikipedia administrative abuse, intended to scare away anyone who dares confront the globalists' agenda presented here under the pretense of neutrality, or worse, merely to intimidate anyone who doesn't gesticulate to the alpha dogs in your club. This article is stolen, and you are an accessory to theft. I recognize your thinly veiled personal attack as typical of a pattern of administrative abuse. Use of loaded language "could be considered an attempt to hijack" is a poor attempt to equate me with universally hated concepts. My effort could just as well be considered an attempt to protect intellectual property and to advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia by exposing plagiarism that stands in the way of genuine reference to a broad selection of sources. Your use of passive language to mask exactly who might consider me a hijacker -- i.e. you and your chronies but nobody else -- is simply weak for and administrator of a literary project.


 * Shame on you. Keep it up. The world is watching. Buen profeta 08:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Buen Profeta, why don't you make use of your intellect and read other people's comments? The printed source IS AVAILABLE ONLINE. Yes, I am shouting, since you didn't seem to read it the first time I wrote it. It is here. Now, please before continuing with your spurious accusations, READ pages 8 to 11 and compare it to the article. If you do it you will see THE ARTICLE WAS NOT STOLEN. Section 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 are properly paraphrasing and citing the source. If anything, accuse all contributors of the wiki article of globalization, but stop your unproven and spurious accusations of plagiarism if you haven't even read the source! --Dúnadan 14:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, wasn't it Mulotono who put the copvio tag? Are we also dealing with a sockpuppetry case here with Buen Profeta and Mulotono? --Dúnadan 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the copyvio was doing on this page but have removed it. I hope buen profeta isnt accusing me of admin abuse. If you think an article is a copyvio of a piece not online I suggest you at least give us a copy of the original article so we can compare the two, rememebering this article is 8 months old. Copyvio is serious but an editor cannot claim copyvio of something that other users cant then check as this could eb used to hijack an article, which was definitely my impression in this case, and I have seen nothing here that makes me think I didnt do right. Copyvio means word for word, ie copying the cat is black, but the black cat is not copyvio, indeed saying the black cat and referencing the piece that says the cat is black is exactly how we work here, SqueakBox 19:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing the POV tag
How are we going to resolve this POV dispute? Is it a fair summary to say that some users believe the role of currency speculators in causing the crisis is ignored?

If someone could come in and add some information on the role of currency speculation, that would be ideal. We should then remove the tag. What is no-one adds this information? Does the tag remain indefinitely? - Crosbiesmith 08:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would add it myself, but the problem is that none of the links provided by Buen Profeta above deal directly with the Mexican crisis caused by currency speculation; they just assume it was the case, and then explain the general phenomenon of currency speculation. However, I don't think the POV dispute is about the article in itself, but about the sources. The International Institute of Economics is being accused by Buen Profeta of "violating ethical guidelines for intellectual honesty and offering readers an unabashedly promotional view of the group that claims to be non-partisan"... ergo... whatever is written by them is inherently wrong. Sort of like and ad hominem attack, maybe an ad institutionem attack if I can create my own term: according to him, the arguments exposed in the article are not wrong in themselves (he hasn't debated the accuracy of the argument of the depletion of the National Reserves). According to him, the arguments are wrong because the institution (in his eyes) is not worthy of credibility; only his sources are credible an unbiased. --Dúnadan 18:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to concurr that the POV tag should be removed if the reason it was added was due to an opinion that currency speculation was left out as a "point of view." Mainstream sources on the Mexican peso crisis, which I have studied in college (and used to write research papers on the topic for economics courses) cite various causes of the Mexican peso crisis, but speculative currency attacks are not presented as a fundamental cause or source of the crisis. In fact, this was one of several crisis in between administrations during the 80's and 90's, which were all related to both weak economic fundamentals that left the economy vulnerable to exogenous shocks. The shocks themselves were also NOT currently speculation. Currency speculation was merely a predictable outcome as speculators would be bound to jump in to make money on the vulnerable currency that would not have been vulnerable if not for the causes (the weak fundamentals and the exogenous shocks)... Thus, unless someone can actually cite a source about currency speculation, it remains an unsupported idea. If they can site, they can add. The information presented does not argue against additional theories that may exist, and allows for their inclusion in the article. The information presented is neutral, sourced, and neutral. POV tag should be removed. Studentteacher1 (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal comment
It seems to me that it would be easier to solve this discussion if more accurate sources could be found, also, i would like to add that some people don't believe the mexican government (i'm not sure if that's the institution you are refering to) as worthy of credibility mostly because of the constant claims that the country is improving; even if that may be true in the economic way, it is not in terms of what the populations sees daily, if the country is improving, then it's only noticeable to the people who drives ferrari's, mercedes benz's and the like, because for almost everyone else, the country seems to be going downwards; and as an obvious consecuence making the government credibility close to null. Hellhound_overblood 16:29, 24 January 2007 (-06:00 GMT)
 * Please read the discussion above. It wouldn't be easier to solve it, unless you read it. The institution we are referring to is not the Mexican government, it is the Institute of International Economics. Whether the Mexican government is worth your credibility or not, that is a completely different matter. -- the Dúnadan  04:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tips, comments and requests
Ok first of all, I find this discussion interesting however most of the points addressed here could be applied to many countries. I really didn't find any use for the issues portrayed here. I belive that it would be more interesting if anyone would mention the fact that Carlos Salinas de Gortari stole millions of dollars (which affected the level of the economic and political stability) which was the reason for his exile not the outrage caused by the crisis itself. I know this for a fact because I am Mexican and this is a common knowledge throughout the population and socio-economic levels. I would like to ask people interested in engaging in this blog to stick to the main issues and avoid writting useless arguments about POVs, etc.

Thank you

Rodmad83 21:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A few million really cannot affect a country's socioeconomic stability. Also, while the article may or may not be POV, some of the language reads like it is, such as the following: "savvy investors that had bought the tesobonos", "economically orthodox thing to do" (orthodox carries many connotations in the vernacular not suitable for neutrality), and more. Also, "While experts agree that a devaluation was necessary, some critics of Zedillo's incumbent 22-day-old administration, argue that although economically coherent, the way it was handled was politically incorrect. By having announced its plans for devaluation, they argue that many foreigners withdrew their investments, thus aggravating the effects." -- it can be argued that this was the speculative attack, instead of political incorrectness, as it would be 'unorthodox' for a country not to announce its devaluation (politcally, I mean). Mostly, this article reads as if it is far too concerned with the political considerations of the crisis than the economic ones, which is disappointing, as it's titled '1994 economic crisis in Mexico'. 24.82.142.201 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit needed
Portions of this article read like they were run through a spanish-english translator and had the raw output pasted in. These need to be rewritten into proper english. This article needs inline citations on everything and needs to be checked for neutrality. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
I think that searching "El error de diciembre" should redirect you to this page. At the moment, the search will lead you to the search results page with this one (1994 economic crisis in Mexico) listed at the top. Why shouldn't it just lead you to this page in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.179.96.192 (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.banxico.org.mx/gpublicaciones/mexicaneconomy/mexecon96/m96iv1.html
 * In 1994 economic crisis in Mexico on 2011-05-25 06:11:45, 404 Not Found
 * In 1994 economic crisis in Mexico on 2011-06-08 02:45:38, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/humphrey.htm
 * In 1994 economic crisis in Mexico on 2011-05-25 06:11:45, 404 Not Found
 * In 1994 economic crisis in Mexico on 2011-06-08 02:45:48, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Revamp & rename
While I wait for someone to pickup my GA nomination of Global financial system for review, I've decided to work on revamping this article to round out its lead as well as improve the quality of its sourcing and citations. Looking at the edit history, it appears to have been largely derelict for some time. Because the literature (journal articles, textbooks, and even news media) overwhelmingly refers to the crisis by the name of Mexican peso crisis and because the article's lead currently acknowledges this more widely used name, I plan on renaming the article when I work on improving the lead unless anyone objects here on the talk page. John Shandy`  &bull; talk 02:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:John Shandy`: That sounds like a reasonable move. I support renaming the article to that. Thank you for your interest in the article. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 06:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, if you plan to eventually work on this article thoroughly and nominate it to GA, let me know. I would be more than glad to check it out. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 06:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mexican peso crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924051706/http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/bdp/bdp114/bdp114.pdf to http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/bdp/bdp114/bdp114.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160115205405/https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494 to http://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/552494

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mexican peso crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150410090503/https://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2013/september/the-tequila-crisis-in-1994/ to http://economics.rabobank.com/publications/2013/september/the-tequila-crisis-in-1994

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)