Jump to content
Chapala.com Webboard

The Mountains are made of Money. Mexican Money


rafterbr

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, bmh said:

I guess Lakeside has never been in Chiapas where vertical milpas are all over the mountains.

Or to the Andes, where potatoes originated and are farmed to this day.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

potatoes are farmed that way in Chiapas as well. A friend of mine invited me for lunch to her house in Duraznal n the side of the mountain. I went there with the car and quickly realized there was no way a car could go  on that type of incline.. so I ditch the car and continued walking..the mountain was full of potato fields with a splendid views and I could barely stand on the path..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, lakeside7 said:

Rubbish...... who/what can be reasonably farmed on a side of a mountain........

The steep hill farming in Italy's Cinque Terre come to mind. 

2035120070_grapescinqueterre.jpg.6d912b50333cb5b4987292fc9b6dcbd8.jpg

Quote

There are five villages dotted along a rugged strip of the Ligurian Coast around 12 kilometers long. The steep land between them has been carved over the centuries into terraces, planted with olives and grapes and lemon trees that thrive in the heat, and what’s not been cultivated by human hand is forest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ComputerGuy said:

You latched on to the wrong end of my statement, so you missed the point about land development for the sake of development. The bit you focused on? It's doubtful that we had people "back then" fighting against development for ecological reasons.

I'm struggling to make it more clear: Lake Chapala is "developed". It's a done deal. No one takes that into consideration when discussions of "further development" arise. And 10 years from now, when the rest of the mountain is being ravaged, whatever they build today will also be a "done deal" with no one considering whether we fought about it at the time.

Sort of like WalMart: they destroyed an avocado forest to put that eyesore in place (and promised all kinds of re-treeing and other lovely deals which didn't happen). Those of us who lived here before it happened remember well. Those arriving since then see it as a "done deal". Just an accepted fact of life here.

I don't know. I think others who followed my post make the points very well.

I'm glad that you use the WalMart situation to make YOUR point since it actually makes MINE. Development is good! Please do not use the tired trope "greed is good" to try to refute this. When I was in the process of moving here full time this board was full of the bla, bla, bla of what a catastrophe it would be if Walmart was allowed here. The traffic would be Times Square X 10! Home and property values would plummet! The poor Abarrotes families would be thrown out on the street! The reality is that the traffic at that intersection was not effected much at all (compare it to downtown Ajijic now). Property and home values have soared. Many of the Abarrotes have survived and those that did not simply did not bother to change their business models such as this article points out: https://www.ft.com/content/d02bef5e-3bc3-11e7-ac89-b01cc67cfeec

Looking at the big picture WalMart has been a PLUS, PLUS for this area, particularly for the Mexican families here. The guy that owned the avocado patch is now retired and counting his money, Mexican families can buy a 12 pack of toilet paper for what it used cost them for a few rolls and us Gringos are flocking there. My only complaint is that on Sundays you can hardly find a parking spot in their huge lot and the place is packed (with what i estimate is 95% Mexican shoppers). I suggest that if you would take a survey of what these folks would say to the question "Do you think that Walmart has been a positive or a negative to your lifestyle?" the vast majority of the answers would be positive+. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ComputerGuy said:

Oh. my. god. You take the most patient of explanations and twist it into something completely out of context with the topic. You aren't worth talking to. I give up.

You are the one that used WalMart for your reason being against POSITIVE development. I only pointed out the benefits of this. By the way the link I provided for some reason does not work. It is from the Financial Times headlined  Mexico’s mom and pop’ shops digitize to win back sales and goes on to explain how the successful ones are banding together to form buying groups and using modern merchandising techniques. Progress is good. Don't worry, be happy! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AngusMactavish said:

Part of the problem??? I am not selling or buying lotes in the hills. Neither am I accusing the previous administration of misdeeds. It is none of my business legally, morally, or economically. The only vote I have here in any matter is measured in dollars and feet.

By that logic, the rest of the world should have turned a blind eye to Hitler, because they weren't actually involved in creating human gas chambers. Degradation of the environment for blatant self-enrichment is morally wrong and it's everyone's business if you care about the future of life on this planet. We all need food, water and shelter. No one needs a fancy house on a mountaintop with fabulous views and a swimming pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not one person has mentioned the lack of infrastructure at all. Not one is worried about how all these buildings will impact on the aquifer, water treatment, traffic, etc. There are wells on the mountain side which have stopped producing already, Riberas has water problems and I believe Chula Vista has in the past. Oh well, once everything is sucked dry we can all move on to another place we can destroy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, mudgirl said:

By that logic, the rest of the world should have turned a blind eye to Hitler, because they weren't actually involved in creating human gas chambers. Degradation of the environment for blatant self-enrichment is morally wrong and it's everyone's business if you care about the future of life on this planet. We all need food, water and shelter. No one needs a fancy house on a mountaintop with fabulous views and a swimming pool.

OMG...once you have to bring Hitler into an argument you know that you have lost it. Are you saying that if I was successful, rich and smart enough to buy a beautiful mountain home that I should be compared to a Hitler sympathizer? Your comment "No one needs a fancy house on a mountaintop with fabulous views and a swimming pool" is totally absurd. I believe in free enterprise and personal choice. Happily this is still the law and custom in this country and most of the Western world, although it might be in jeopardy because of the evolution of socialist views such as this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And once we drain the lake for our drinking water, they can build the new airport where the lake was. In 2002 the lake was so low that some people believed that soon Guadalajara would need so much water that the water in the lake would be drained. The experts knew better but there were those who believed this and moved. The  Cota got down to 91.07 meters in 2002. Today the Cota or lake level is 96.73 meters which is some 5.67 meter or almost some 19 feet higher than it was only 16 years ago.

To see the lake levels over the years go to www.ajijicweather.com Towards the left, there is  a column titled Weather Links. Look below that title  and go to each of the two  Lake Level links. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mudgirl said:

By that logic, the rest of the world should have turned a blind eye to Hitler, because they weren't actually involved in creating human gas chambers. 

 

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to – or is the same as – one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, gringohombre said:

OMG...once you have to bring Hitler into an argument you know that you have lost it. Are you saying that if I was successful, rich and smart enough to buy a beautiful mountain home that I should be compared to a Hitler sympathizer? Your comment "No one needs a fancy house on a mountaintop with fabulous views and a swimming pool" is totally absurd. I believe in free enterprise and personal choice. Happily this is still the law and custom in this country and most of the Western world, although it might be in jeopardy because of the evolution of socialist views such as this. 

No, that's not what I was saying at all, you're good at missing the point. I have nothing against free enterprise and personal choice. But when that butts up against the common good of the community or the planet, one needs to examine what they hold to be more important - the health of the community and the planet, or their own personal desires. Humans are biologically tribal, unlike a lizard that is hatched from an egg and crawls off to do it's own thing. Unfortunately there's always been those who act more like lizards than humans, who are social creatures by nature. Being a social creature who cares about their fellow man and the planet's future isn't even close to being a socialist, which is a political term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mudgirl said:

By that logic, the rest of the world should have turned a blind eye to Hitler, because they weren't actually involved in creating human gas chambers. Degradation of the environment for blatant self-enrichment is morally wrong and it's everyone's business if you care about the future of life on this planet. We all need food, water and shelter. No one needs a fancy house on a mountaintop with fabulous views and a swimming pool.

You know a fancy house on a mountain top with swimming pool and fabulous views sounds pretty good to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, rafterbr said:

You know a fancy house on a mountain top with swimming pool and fabulous views sounds pretty good to me

It sounds good to me, too. It would to most people, I think. But what we desire or fantasize about enjoying isn't the most important consideration in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mudgirl said:

No, that's not what I was saying at all, you're good at missing the point. I have nothing against free enterprise and personal choice. But when that butts up against the common good of the community or the planet, one needs to examine what they hold to be more important - the health of the community and the planet, or their own personal desires. Humans are biologically tribal, unlike a lizard that is hatched from an egg and crawls off to do it's own thing. Unfortunately there's always been those who act more like lizards than humans, who are social creatures by nature. Being a social creature who cares about their fellow man and the planet's future isn't even close to being a socialist, which is a political term.

So who is to decide...you? You are the one who said "No one needs a fancy house on a mountaintop with fabulous views and a swimming pool" As you also said to another poster "But what we desire or fantasize about enjoying isn't the most important consideration in life." This is your opinion but please admit that some of us might have desires and fantasies other than yours and that this is not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gringohombre said:

So who is to decide...you? You are the one who said "No one needs a fancy house on a mountaintop with fabulous views and a swimming pool" As you also said to another poster "But what we desire or fantasize about enjoying isn't the most important consideration in life." This is your opinion but please admit that some of us might have desires and fantasies other than yours and that this is not wrong.

Again you miss the point. Of course we all have different desires and fantasies,  it's not up to me to pass judgement on those.  Did someone look after you when you were a baby and child? Provide you with food, shelter, clothing? Do you think your mother didn't fantasize sometimes about being able to sleep through the night without attending to the baby, or desire to have an entire day to herself without having to change diapers, clean up baby puke, try to figure out why you were crying and settle you down, prepare food, do the laundry? If she had simply indulged herself in fulfilling her desires and fantasies, the baby would have died. So she put those personal desires and fantasies aside because there was something more important than herself to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ferret said:

Mudgirl, consider all your posts a big thank you from me since I seem to have run out of "reactions" for the timed period. Your logic is a breath of fresh air.

Thank you, Ferret. Some of the comments here just make me want to scream. I want my grandchildren to have a future on a planet that's still capable of supporting life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AngusMactavish said:

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.

Reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of association fallacy. The argument is that a policy leads to – or is the same as – one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler or the Third Reich and so "proves" that the original policy is undesirable.

You obviously didn't comprehend what I wrote. The analogy was about turning a blind eye to something, or declining to get involved simply because you don't perceive it as personally affecting you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...