There's the crime, there's also that: if they work in the U.S they aren't paying Income Tax to the Mexican government nor are there any substantial businesses paying Income Tax due to nobody working in Mexico (and then there's obvious tax-dodging even when they should pay).
Roman Empire was built on taxes, just sayin'.

>>364
Most of South and Central America and its people are very corrupt and have fluid morality, which is most likely due to the mixing with the natives. If you have ever been to a village or town where the majority of the people are Amerindian you'd notice their proclivities in a couple of days.

>>365
That only explains why the government is poor, not why there wouldn't be more money going around in general. It's not like Mexican families are burning all the goods and money that get sent to them. Be it food or material items, that money must surely be getting passed around to someone else, who then passes it on to yet another person. My best guess is that the flow and exchange of money dead ends at drug lords who hoard it all.

>>383
The strength of a currency is dependent on the stability of its government.
If people have no faith in the Mexican government, then people will have no faith in the Mexican governments ability to back their currency.

>>383
It's not that different in Mexico than in other subject countries. I live in a Mexico-like slave reservoir.
Nothing can be done about it. They make too little money to really change anything back home and the master country is happy to have legal slaves.
They're not smart with that money sent from America and most waste it on distractions from horrible poorfag life. Everything goes back into pockets of businessmen, politicians and crime lords.
Even if they started being frugal and cautious they'd get robbed anyway. That's what happened here. Too many people were saving almost meaningful amounts money. Can't have that, the governments took steps to rectify the problem and increased taxes, working ages, took care to maintain that steady inflation to keep the money in the business and out of people's pockets. The usual stuff.
Now it's all clear: you'll be slaving for us until you die anyway so don't even bother trying to hoard OUR money. Go get a loan, buy a TV and get fucked on drugs every friday.
If you study in one of the trending fields maybe you'll achieve the status of winning at life by being able to afford bigger loans for bigger TVs and more extravagant drugs.

Where does the money go? It's a cliched thing to say but top 100 of the wealthiest people of the world have enough money to buy out 4 billion of the poorest. Less than 100 million owns more than the rest, 7.5 billion. The world is a fucking farm.

>>396
Hoarding money is bad for the economy. If everbody starts hoarding money, then there's no money in the economy, then business can't pay wages, then government would have to print more, then the money becomes weaker meaning the people who saved haven't achieved anything.

It's easy to say the rich are greedy, but the poor aren't entirely blameless. They're too cowardly to do anything about their shitty situation, and too greedy themselves and only care about their own well-being.
If you gave those slum fuckers a billion dollars, they'd become exactly the elite rich that once subjected them.

It's not the mode of economics, it's the culture of the people.

>>397
No one hoards more money than the wealthy elite. I think you missed the part where the anon said >100 of the wealthiest people of the world have enough money to buy out 4 billion of the poorest.
Some people trying to fill up their water bottles is nothing compared to just one person with their own privet lake. Those few wealthy fucks are what's killing the economy.
Money isn't printed because of people hoarding money, You can thank wealthy bankers for that and making our money worthless thanks to the money they create out of thin air. You know there's more debt in this world than there is money to pay it off? Up until not that long ago, money was backed by real solid precious metals. You couldn't just print off more money when money was just a stand in for the gold it represented, gold you could trade that money in for. Once that gold standard was removed, that's when money became worthless, because there was nothing backing it.

>If you gave those slum fuckers a billion dollars, they'd become exactly the elite rich that once subjected them.
Yeah, no. Most would eventually go back to living the same way that lead them where they are. People who are bad with money don't stop being bad with money just because you give them more money. I've seen people sue their way into tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars just to quickly burn it up on stupid shit and invest next to none of it. I've spent a lot of time at casinos and watched countless strangers manage to win only to keep gambling and piss it all away or walk out empty handed after going in with stacks of bills. Go watch the beverly hillbillies sometime, you might find it educational.

>>398
We don't have that problem of super rich elite in Europe and Australia, so not my problem.
USA was founded by a bunch of rich people who didn't want to pay taxes to Crown (which payed to defend them from France), so, again, it's the culture of the people.

I wasn't talking how they'd end up poor. I was saying that those poor people, given wealth, would become the rich elite they once despised when they were poor. Nouveau Riche
There is no greater good for those sub-humans, only personal gain. A product of an inferior culture not yet exterminated.