185. Should the U.S. Merge With Mexico?

Corporations around the world are consolidating like never before. If it’s good enough for companies, why not countries? Welcome to Amexico!

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Progressive. Whoever says saving money is hard doesn't know that new customers who bundle and save with Progressive save hundreds because switching your home and auto insurance is better than cutting down on the things you love, like those iced lattes that help you get ready to face the day. So switch your home and auto to Progressive and see if you could save and keep sipping away. Get your quote today at progressive.com. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company affiliates and other insurers. Not available in all states. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must haves like gym access

• 0:44Stephen J. Dubner?

  or breakfast just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel. Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Mint Mobile. With Mint Mobile's summer sale, all of Mint's plans are $15 per month, even unlimited. Free yourself from big wireless and switch to Mint for high-speed data and coverage on the T-Mobile 5G network. To get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, go to mintmobile.com/freak. That's mintmobile.com/freak. Upfront

• 1:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  payment, $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months. Plan required, $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only. Greater than 50GB may slow when network is busy. Includes up to 20GB hotspot. Capable device required. Availability, speed, and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com.

• 1:56Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work is a new way to work in ChatGPT. ChatGPT Work can pull info from across your apps and connect to your tools to help you create finished work. You can even automate work in ChatGPT with the Scheduled Tasks feature, and the whole time you stay in control. Put ChatGPT to work on your most ambitious ideas and projects. Get started at chatgpt.com by selecting Work Mode, available on Plus and Pro plans.

• 2:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  If you've been paying even a little bit of attention to the news lately, you will have noticed a worldwide trend. You might call it independence fever.

• 2:45Speaker 01

  The polls have closed in Scotland, and the vote over independence went down to the wire closer than a lot of people imagined.

• 2:52Speaker 02

  And a plan to split California in six different states is one step closer to a vote this morning.

• 2:58Speaker 03

  Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Barcelona to demand the right to vote on independence from Spain.

• 3:03Speaker 04

  Now, Catalonia is not alone in the battlefield for sovereignty. Another Spanish region, the Basque Country, is also seeking a referendum on independence. In Iraq, the president of the country's autonomous Kurdish North has asked the regional parliament to prepare for a referendum on independence.

• 3:20Stephen J. Dubner?

  But while countries are threatening to break apart, companies are moving in the opposite direction.

• 3:26Speaker 05

  U.S. fast food giant Burger King is in merger talks with Canadian coffee and donut chain Tim Hortons. If the deal goes through, it will create the world's third-largest fast food chain.

• 3:38Stephen J. Dubner?

  Dollar General has gone hostile in its bid to buy rival Family Dollar.

• 3:42Speaker 06

  America's two biggest cable companies announced a $45 billion merger.

• 3:47Speaker 07

  Three of the four largest German deals ever have happened in 2014, and we've seen $61 billion worth of German companies buying U.S. companies this year.

• 3:56Speaker 06

  But here we are again, and it's just another example of an M&A frenzy.

• 4:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  Is it really a frenzy?

• 4:03Speaker 08

  We've had three multibillion-dollar deals just in the last week. I see a lot of cross-border deals.

• 4:09Stephen J. Dubner?

  Yeah, it's a frenzy. You know that voice, don't you?

• 4:12Speaker 08

  Yep, I'm Jim Cramer, and I'm the host of Mad Money with Jim Cramer, the co-host of Squawk on the Street, and I'm also the markets commentator for thestreet.com.

• 4:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  We had Kramer on the line because we had a question. If all this consolidation is good enough for companies, why not for countries? That is, rather than independence fever, why not merger fever? This came from a listener named Dan Warner, recently sent us an email. He wrote, "I was lying awake last night thinking about what might happen if the US somehow incorporated Mexico. I'm not talking about waging war and taking over, but rather a mutually beneficial merger." Now, last year, Jim, you said, quote, "I think Mexico is a great buy." I believe you're talking about a Mexican index fund, maybe some individual stocks. But I wonder, Jim, if that goes for Mexican stocks, do you think it might go for Mexico as a whole?

• 5:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  Do you think maybe we Americans should think about acquiring Mexico?

• 5:11Speaker 08

  Well, I think that if currency matters, yes, we ought to. The dollar's way too strong at 13 pesos. If we make that acquisition, then I think our gross domestic product goes up, our workforce will be, I'd say, energized, and there's a country with tremendous natural resources that we've been able to exploit. I sure wish we'd do it.

• 5:33Stephen J. Dubner?

  And what if there were a stock offering for this merger, for this new conglomerate called a Mexico, or maybe Mexamerica?

• 5:42Speaker 08

  Look, that IPO, I want everyone in, and I'm willing to pay 20% above the price target, because I think people are short-selling Mexico because they think it is just a place where you just have lawlessness. They've not been to Mexico, they don't realize the immediate premium this deal is going to go to. I want in that deal, and I'm also going to buy in the aftermarket after it comes public.

• 6:13Speaker 09

  From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio, the podcast that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 6:33Stephen J. Dubner?

  So not that this will happen, but what if the US and Mexico were to merge? There is, of course, some relevant history to examine. You may recall the Mexican-American War in the 1840s. The US won, and, under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico turned over more than half its territory. This includes what is now California, Nevada, and Utah, as well as parts of New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas, which itself had earlier seceded from Mexico, but parts of Texas were still disputed at the time of the war. The treaty called for the US to compensate Mexico $15 million for all this property. Adjusted for inflation, that's roughly $400 million current dollars, which means the

• 7:16Stephen J. Dubner?

  US got all that land for less money than it cost to make the movie Avatar.

• 7:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  Now, granted, Mexico didn't have much bargaining power. It had just lost a war, so this wasn't so much a merger as a hostile takeover. But what about this idea of a more modern, more win-win merger between the US and Mexico? Jim Cramer already owned some property there.

• 7:40Speaker 10

  If someone said to you, viewer, "Hey, I'm gonna go buy houses in Mexico," you might think that you're a little crazy.

• 7:46Speaker 08

  Insane, totally insane. Well, I did a real estate deal, yes. I have some property in Mexico, San Miguel de Ande, and San Miguel's gotta be one of the nicest places I've ever been in.

• 7:56Stephen J. Dubner?

  Cramer loves San Miguel so much that when he opened a Mexican restaurant in Brooklyn, guess what he named it?

• 8:02Speaker 11

  We're here at Bar San Miguel, the latest Mexican restaurant to hit Carol Gardens Brooklyn, also known as the latest investment, by Jim Cramer. Jim, thanks so much for having us here.

• 8:12Speaker 08

  Brittany, I'm glad you're here. I'm glad you're... Well, cheers.

• 8:16Speaker 11

  Cheers.

• 8:17Stephen J. Dubner?

  So Jim Cramer is pretty much a Mexico fanboy, which you'd already know if you watched him on CNBC.

• 8:22Speaker 08

  When you take a global view, all right, things... Stagnant. But there are still some bright spots out there. And believe it or not, one of the brightest is Mexico. That's right. Mexico has been getting its act together. Tonight, we're moving on to another country that's kicking butt in the World Cup. The great land of Mexico. And the Mexican auto business, wow, it is on fire. Think Corona, Modelo, Pacifico, which is, by the way, my favorite. Holy cow, I'm in a guacamole. Oh, geez, I can't suspend guacamole for us to put out, can't you? Exactly. Can't you? Here's the bottom line. There are still countries that are in great shape. And Mexico, despite all that publicity about the gangs and the terror, I gotta tell you something.

• 9:06Speaker 08

  Mexico's in better shape than almost every country on earth.

• 9:12Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, you get the picture? That's why we went to Kramer with our proposal. Let's pretend for a minute that you, Jim Kramer, are representing the US in this takeover, merger, effort, whatever you want to call it, and that you're sitting down, talk to Mexican President Nieto and maybe the Mexican Congress. Let's hear your pitch on why this could be a good idea. I mean, the basic rule of economic transactions are transactions happen when they're good for all parties involved. So let's hear you describe why this merger could really lift all boats, Mexican and American.

• 9:52Speaker 08

  All right, well, first, I'd start out with some bona fides. I own a lot of land in San Miguel de Allende, which is in the center of the country, Guanajuato State. I also own a Mexican restaurant where I'm trying to make a deal right now to import mezcal and tequila. So I regard myself as a friend of Mexico, not as an imperialist that wants very much to take the country over. My experiences with Mexico are twofold. One, it's got the best healthcare system I've come across because it's not tied into worker employment, so that would be something that we could import. Second, the workforce is remarkable, and since many of our cars, and the Toyota and the BMW, are being made there, I'd like to bring that manufacturing back to the United States. The way you would do that is to incorporate with Mexico.

• 10:35Speaker 08

  In the interim, Mexico's phenomenal, phenomenal resources have not been able to be exploited because the government has been dealing with entrenched interests. We can come in and change that dramatically because suddenly Exxon's a Mexican company. Natural resources, by the way, have always been linked with great powers. Our natural resources are so, would be so bountiful if Mexico and the United States were joined, that I think you'd recognize that we are once again going to be a continental powerhouse. We could learn a lot from Mexico. Geez, I think it's a great country.

• 11:08Stephen J. Dubner?

  Talk for a minute about what a merger would do for the American immigration issue, and how much of that issue is really Mexico?

• 11:17Speaker 08

  Well, I think actually the Mexican immigration has died down. I think there are a lot of other countries in Latin America that have used Mexico as a bit of a cut-through. But I just think, I don't know, maybe because I'm partial because I go to Mexico so many times during the year, I think that what would happen is that we would have an influx of workers who work so hard that it would actually drive down US wages. So I think that what people would be afraid of in our country is the importing of the deflation of the labor force. But at the same time, of course, I believe the labor force in Mexico, they'd be paid more, given the fact that there is a minimum wage that is certainly in our country, double what I see many Mexicans make. That would be a boon for Mexico.

• 12:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  So Jim Cramer likes the idea of some kind of Mexico-US merger, which makes sense as he's an American who happens to be a huge fan of Mexico. Now, if only we could find a Mexican who is a huge fan of the US. Someone with connections, with maybe political heft.

• 12:23Speaker 12

  Morning, everybody. Hello. This is Vicente Fox from Mexico.

• 12:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  Vicente Fox Quezada is a former president of Mexico. His election in the year 2000 ended the 71-year run of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI. On most dimensions, Fox was considered a reformer. These days, he and his wife Marta tend to his presidential library, which has programs dedicated to education, leadership, and expanding opportunities to the poor in Mexico. You were president of Mexico from 2000 to 2006. Talk to me for a moment about what you tried to accomplish during that time, especially as it relates to the United States and its relationship with Mexico.

• 13:09Speaker 12

  Okay. Number one purpose of my term was to stop the frequent and every other year crisis, devaluations, mammoth inflation that we suffered in Mexico as well as Latin America. So my purpose was to bring in stability and to converge on fundamental variables with the US economy. All of that did happen. With deficits of well over two digits, I brought them down to zero in my term, which was one of the great accomplishments. Number two, my dedication, together with Marta, was to the poor.

• 13:54Speaker 12

  And number three, yes, to build up a very strong relationship with North America.

• 14:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Given those accomplishments and given the state of the world now, both on a political level and on a corporate level, corporations keep consolidating. That is the nature of capitalism. Countries sometimes merge, sometimes split. I'm wondering if you could imagine a scenario, President Fox, whereby the US and Mexico could in some Way join to become a single nation.

• 14:30Speaker 12

  I see that close to impossible. It's not the wish either of United States and its wonderful people, nor is the desire of Mexicans in our great culture. But apart from that, what we do have to commit more and more every day is to work together, to work together for a better world. And that's what we're working on through NAFTA. I think that the tight relationship, the excellent relationship between the people in United States and the people in Mexico is not yet met at the level of governments. In the level of governments, we still have differences.

• 15:15Speaker 12

  For instance, on migration. I think that there is a lot of misleading positions, a lot of short-sighted positions in relation to migration lately in United States.

• 15:35Stephen J. Dubner?

  So President Fox isn't nearly as gung ho as Jim Cramer about a more intense relationship between the US and Mexico. But years ago, things were different. In early September of 2001, Fox was invited to address a joint session of Congress.

• 15:52Speaker 13

  Mr. Speaker, the President of the United Mexican States.

• 16:01Speaker 12

  Honorable members of the US Congress, the political change currently underway in Mexico is the most powerful reason why we are now able to establish new forms of friendship and cooperation with the United States. We're ready to turn this change into the seed of a better future for both of our countries. Years ago, the United States Congress faced a difficult decision and chose to vote in favor of a greater integration with Mexico through the North American Free Trade Agreement.

• 16:43Speaker 12

  The partnership between Mexico and the United States is still incomplete.

• 16:50Stephen J. Dubner?

  Fox called on Congress to update its immigration policy.

• 16:54Speaker 12

  There is one crucial fact that we must not lose sight of. Migration flows respond to deep, underlying economic incentives are all but impossible to stop and must instead be regulated. Mexico is therefore seeking an agreement that will lend greater security and orderliness to the migration flows between our two countries.

• 17:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  But five days after that speech, President Fox's agenda was backburnered.

• 17:29Speaker 14

  I mentioned we have a breaking news story to tell you about. Apparently, a plane has just crashed into the World Trade Center here in New York City. It happened.

• 17:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  Priorities changed. Immigration reform and a closer integration of the two countries were set aside.

• 17:44Speaker 12

  We all understand the threat that September 11 imposed on the people and the nation of the United States. And of course, fear became a priority issue within the relationship. But it's true that fear will not solve our problems, that fear is not a good advisor in our relationships.

• 18:13Stephen J. Dubner?

  A few months before his speech to Congress, President Fox did an interview with PBS. He made the point that Mexico had what the US really needed, a young and vibrant workforce. With American boomers starting to retire in huge numbers, the US would need help in funding their retirement. Fox argued that the young, vibrant Mexican workforce was the answer. He said, quote, "That generation is clamoring for jobs, for housing, and for schools and universities, so we have what the United States economy needs the most."

• 18:44Stephen J. Dubner?

  So President Fox, assuming that you still see things this way, it sounds like the US would be foolish to not entertain, if not a merger, then at least a radically different immigration policy, yes?

• 19:00Speaker 12

  Well, yeah, I think that was a great statement at that time. It is today the same. I think that today the world is moving towards blocks, towards alliances and partnerships from different nations. Look at the African Union at this point in time. They are replicating the process of the European Union, and they're doing fantastic. Their plan is to have, number one, a shared, strong infrastructure program for all. This is highways, this is railroads, this is airports that they're going to share in the total of the continent, of the African continent.

• 19:45Speaker 12

  That's what the United States did at the beginning of last century, and that's what the United States reinforced by getting together and partner through NAFTA. So coming back to your point, I think I still hold my statement in thinking that there is not one winner, Mexico, but there is two winners, which is Mexico and the United States, and really is three, including Canada, and really is four, including what North America together can contribute to the world.

• 20:24Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, let me ask you this. If you want to strengthen that union not only between the US and Mexico, but between the US, Mexico, and Canada to make an even stronger North America, putting aside all the obvious barriers to a merger, like tradition, like political institutions that want to maintain their own independence and so on. If you were thinking of this purely as a mechanism to help more people lead better lives, if that was the only goal, and it sounds like in your foundational work, that is really your goal. If that's your goal, why not one country? Why not North America, the nation? Think of the economies of scale.

• 21:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  Think of, I mean, just the vacation possibilities in one country from all the way, the south of Mexico, all the way to the Arctic Circle. Do you like that idea?

• 21:15Speaker 12

  But that, excuse me, that can be done and accomplished without renouncing, without sacrificing our culture, our origin. Because here in Mexico, we like enchiladas, tacos.

• 21:31Stephen J. Dubner?

  We like enchiladas.

• 21:32Speaker 12

  We don't like hamburgers and hot dogs. So there is a fundamental difference. And that's why we nations all over the world, each one has its own characteristics and has its own personality. But yes, we can have a union, a North American union, which will be much more than a trade partnership. A union goes much further than a trade partnership. That can be built. For instance, we should have a customs union. Because right now, we see products that are coming from China into the United States.

• 22:15Speaker 12

  And they come to Mexico, taking advantage of the no duty program that we have through NAFTA. And so that would be one advantage. If we could blend, mix, get together our financial systems, that will be, again, another engine to move our economies. I don't see one nation. I see one union.

• 22:43Stephen J. Dubner?

  Let me read something you said at the time in 2001. Again, April 2001. "I've been talking with President Bush, and fortunately, he's seeing it the same way. In the long term, what we are looking for is convergence of our two economies. Convergence on the basic and fundamental variables of the economy, rates of interest, on income of people, convergence on salaries." Of course, this is a 10 or 20-year program, you said. But when we reach that level, then we can just erase that border, open up that border for the free flow of products, merchandises, and capital, as well as people. Can you talk to me about how those talks progressed? And then what happened to turn that around?

• 23:29Speaker 12

  How wise were those concepts? I don't know who made them at that time. But let me tell you, it's working. Today's reality is on the path that was set 10 years ago. Because, let me tell you some reasons. Number one, economic fundamentals of the economy have already converged. We have the same interest rate level. We have the same inflation level. We have other variables that have already converged. Mexico used to have interest rates of 180% a year, 12% a month.

• 24:13Speaker 12

  Today, Mexico's interest rates are one-digit interest rates. But the key issue is the one you mentioned, salaries and wages. When NAFTA started, the difference in salaries and wages in the border between the United States and Mexico was 10 to 1. You would make $1 in Mexico when you were making $10 in the United States. Today, the ratio is 5 to 1. We yet have a time to go, maybe another 10 years, maybe 20 years.

• 24:55Speaker 12

  But then we will be on a 1 to 1 ratio. This is Canada, United States. You can see today that between Canada, United States, there is no problem in the borders. Because you make the same money working on the Canadian side than working on the US side. That is coming in Mexico because of the reforms in oil that just happened on the Constitution, because of Mexico becoming the number one manufacturing cluster of automobiles in the world.

• 25:33Speaker 12

  So as you can see, yes, this, this alliance, this agreement of North America is working pretty well. And as we can witness... In Europe, where they don't have passports to move from one country to another one, from Spain to Britain, or from Britain to Germany, from Germany to France, or from France to Poland. You don't need a passport. You are a citizen of the European Union. That could, and I forecast that it will happen among ourselves. But what I want to be very clear, I don't see,

• 26:14Speaker 12

  I don't think it can ever happen, is that we become one nation with one culture, which that will kill both of us. Diversity is a very strong asset to people.

• 26:27Stephen J. Dubner?

  I understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, just to be the devil's advocate, couldn't you say, well, one country contains many, many, much diversity. The US is very diverse, Mexico is very diverse, Canada is very diverse. Just think of the advantages, think of the gains from trade, and think of the economies of scale. I mean, come on, together, you and us, we could, we could be a juggernaut. Think of our national football team. Wouldn't that be nice?

• 26:55Speaker 12

  No, come on, come on. Football is soccer. We play it with the feet, with the foot.

• 27:02Stephen J. Dubner?

  No, that's-

• 27:02Speaker 12

  You play it with the hand, and you call it football.

• 27:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  No, I'm talking about soccer. Think of our national soccer teams if we got together. Now, Canada would be no help, but between the US and Mexico, next World Cup, we'd be something.

• 27:17Speaker 12

  All what you're saying is happening. You have Mexican football players playing football in US football teams. Mexican players are playing in Spain's football teams. So, that happens. But what I don't see happening is that we become one nation. You will never convince me of one nation. Especially, even when we had Texas, was Mexico. New Mexico was Mexico. Arizona was Mexico. Part of California was Mexico. And we lost it.

• 27:58Speaker 12

  We were getting it back pretty soon, because you will see Hispanic governors in California, Hispanic governors in Texas, pretty soon.

• 28:09Stephen J. Dubner?

  So yeah, we took half of Mexico in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Wouldn't it be nice to have that back? California, New Mexico, and Texas? Wouldn't it be nice to make that part of Mexico again in a merger?

• 28:20Speaker 12

  I'm not so ambitious. I just want a Mexico with opportunities to all, a Mexico that equals income with the United States, which is an envy. We really envy that, but we have to work hard to get that. We have to be smart. We have to go to school. We have to share opportunities with everybody here in Mexico. We're doing that. We're doing a great job.

• 28:50Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, so President Fox wants a more united North America, if not a proper merger. Jim Cramer, it sounds like he'd be happy if the US and Mexico got hitched tomorrow. Coming up on Freakonomics Radio, what would an economist think of this idea? Maybe a really prominent economist, like somebody who used to work at the White House?

• 29:08Speaker 06

  It's worth contemplating as a counterfactual, but I think if you start thinking beyond the first stage, there are a whole bunch of costs associated with it. So it's much more like the old mega Gulf and Western conglomerate amalgamations.

• 29:28Stephen J. Dubner?

  And to those of you who subscribe to Freakonomics Radio, thanks. We recently hit 5 million downloads a month, so you are in good company. And to those of you who don't yet subscribe via iTunes or whatever podcast app you use, what are you waiting for?

• 29:57Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Quince. You know those pieces in your closet that you find yourself wearing on repeat? The sweater that goes with everything? The perfect pair of pants? Or the tee you somehow always reach for first? Those are the pieces that make getting dressed easy, and that's what Quince does best. Quince focuses on high-quality wardrobe staples made with premium materials like 100% Mongolian And cashmere, organic cotton and merino wool. The styles are timeless, versatile and designed to become the dependable pieces you reach for day after day. And it's not just clothing. Quince brings that same approach to everything they make, from hotel quality bedding and bath to kitchen essentials and thoughtfully designed furniture. Find your next fall favorites at Quince.

• 30:40Stephen J. Dubner?

  Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com/freak. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's Q U I N C E dot com slash freak. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by PNC Bank. Boring. Great word, bad rep. Yet time and time again, here at Freakonomics, we find that when something culture changing happens, boring things like calculations and careful planning are usually behind it. Which begs the question, why not apply it to other aspects of life? Like banking, for example?

• 31:22Stephen J. Dubner?

  Well, PNC Bank did since its inception, proving time and again that the best banking strategy isn't the exciting type, but the steady, reliable, definitely not YOLO type. PNC Bank, brilliantly boring since 1865. Brilliantly boring since 1865 is a registered mark of the PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. PNC Bank, National Association, Member FDIC. Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by hotels.com. Hotels.com helps you find and book the right stay for work faster. With business preferences, save your travel must haves, like gym access or breakfast, just once, then get tailored results whenever you search for work travel.

• 32:05Stephen J. Dubner?

  Plus, with a free membership, you can save up to 20% on hotels and earn rewards on every stay for future travel. Book now at hotels.com. Visit hotels.com for details.

• 32:24Speaker 09

  From WNYC, this is Freakonomics Radio. Here's your host, Stephen Dubner.

• 32:30Stephen J. Dubner?

  So you can't go around proposing an idea like a merger between the US and Mexico without consulting a big-time economist. Austin Goolsbee.

• 32:40Speaker 06

  Hey, brother, how you doing?

• 32:41Stephen J. Dubner?

  Yep, that is...

• 32:43Speaker 06

  Austin Goolsbee, I'm a professor of economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

• 32:50Stephen J. Dubner?

  Mm-hmm. You used to have a job at a little something, something called the White House, too, yeah?

• 32:54Speaker 06

  Yeah, I used to be the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the White House, and that's pretty much who I am.

• 33:01Stephen J. Dubner?

  I'm guessing you spent a lot of time, Austin, at the CEA, and in addition to trying to avoid another Great Depression, I'm guessing you spent a lot of time talking about how cool it would be if the US could take over Mexico. Am I right, you and the president?

• 33:14Speaker 06

  Well, you know, an old friend of mine who was on the CEA many years ago gave me the advice when I took the job. He said, "The good CH air, like a good gardener, is 90% pulling weeds and 10% planting seeds." So we're going to see if this is in the weed category or the seed category, Stephen.

• 33:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  To find out whether it's weed or seed, I asked Goolsbee a basic question. Given the strong trend in corporate consolidation, you have to assume that such mergers are in the economic interest of the companies getting tied up. Why, therefore, would it not be in the economic interest of two countries like Mexico and the US?

• 33:57Speaker 06

  Okay, why do these corporate mergers take place? Basically, you can think of two styles of reason. One is because we can merge these two things together and we can save costs, or we can merge these two things together and we can increase demand, which the cynics would say they're trying to join up so that they can better collude, or there'll be more concentration and they can raise prices. If not that, at the least, you know, these two companies merge because they think they could get access to new customers or something like that. So...

• 34:36Speaker 06

  If that's the reasoning for a corporate merger, then apply that to a country merger and try to figure out what it is. Is it so, we're gonna try to save costs? How? I mean, the first thing to note is that median family income in Mexico, that is 50% of the country has income below $5,000 a year. So, given the fiscal setup of the US, if you're gonna add 60 million people who make less than $5,000 a year, under our current system, you're gonna have massive transfer payments and subsidies from what are now the United

• 35:19Speaker 06

  States to the new states that are formerly of Mexico. And in a way, you could have cost-saving in the same way if you merge two companies, but most of the people in the US are gonna say, "Wait a minute, wait a minute. Cost-saving in this context means that everybody in the US is gonna be paid less. Is that really what we're looking for?"

• 35:40Stephen J. Dubner?

  Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Well, okay, let's just talk, okay, so that low, that low income, so US GDP per capita is about $53,000. I don't know if you like that metric or your median family income more, but let me just put that one out there. $53,000. In Mexico, it's about a fifth of that, a little over $10,000. So, one way to look at this is that in Mexico, you've got a big, cheap labor force that is also younger than ours, and with elderly-based entitlements swelling in this country, uh, maybe it's not such a terrible thing to inherit a young, cheap workforce. What's wrong with that idea?

• 36:19Speaker 06

  Well, uh, what would happen to the elderly in Mexico? Would they not qualify once they were part of the United States? Would the social security system, which, if you work your whole life and you earn relatively low income, you get a subsidy from the US social security system, um, would that not apply to the people in Mexico? Mexico, I mean, the the root of the difficulties here is going to be, as I say, we've got a system set up in the U.S. Which is at least moderately politically palatable. That people have kind of gotten used to the idea of here's how much subsidy is going to take place.

• 37:04Speaker 06

  Uh, implicit subsidy, let's call it. And that subsidy takes multiple forms, some is geographic. So if you take a poor state like Mississippi. Mississippi gets about 10% of its GDP. Back from the federal government, more than what it puts in every single year. So that's a very large implicit subsidy to the poorer states. And a rich state like Connecticut pays about 10% of its GDP more into the federal government than it gets out. Now, now just envision adding some states that are orders of magnitude poorer than Mississippi.

• 37:47Speaker 06

  And you see what's gonna happen with this merger. Now, you you you would have some advantages like, uh, we're gonna probably increase the amount of trade and uh, there'd be a bigger potential market. But I kind of think the merging the U.S. and Mexico is, if anything, going in the opposite trend of what the rest of the world is figuring out. So if you look at Europe, you've got poor and rich countries locked in a monetary union. And everybody's trying to devolve, the Scots are gonna vote to get out of there, the Flemish want to get out of there, everybody's trying to devolve down to a, let's call it a defensible unit, what's a sustainable economic unit?

• 38:31Speaker 06

  And the sentiment for these big mega mergers, I guess what I'd describe this as, there was a time in the seventies.

• 38:40Speaker 06

  When in corporate America, all the rage was for building these giant conglomerates. And most of those conglomerates basically flopped. And by the eighties and nineties, nobody wanted to do conglomerates anymore. Merging the US and Mexico, two humongous population countries, whose economies are hugely different, strikes me as being in the tradition of the forming a major conglomerate that combines a whole bunch of businesses that have nothing to do with each other.

• 39:12Stephen J. Dubner?

  So, Austin, you're saying if I'd come to you 25, 30 years ago with this idea, you might have loved it?

• 39:18Speaker 06

  If I was the same guy saying, you know, plastics, that's where you need to get into plastics, you know, and the thing is, there's one school of thought that says, well, you know, the US has an immigration problem, an illegal immigration problem, won't it solve that problem? But, you know, for that, it kind of reminds me of, my dad is a very big guy and he's and he's not very flexible. So, one year, the doctor told him, you should really go do yoga to get more flexible. So, my dad goes over to the yoga and he tells the guy, he says, you know, I'm not, I can't stretch very well, I have, I think this is gonna hurt.

• 40:02Speaker 06

  And the yoga instructor said, no, it's not gonna hurt, there is no pain in yoga. And my dad said, well, that's great. So, they begin, my dad says, oh, this definitely hurts. And the instructor says, no, it doesn't, there is no pain in yoga. You know, and this solves the immigration problem only by redefining it as not being an immigration problem. The basic problem of, here are 120 million people, whose average income is one-fifth or one-sixth what the other 300 million people's income is, you know, that, that's gonna be an issue. If you look... At examples of country mergers like East Germany, West Germany,

• 40:47Speaker 06

  there was more than a trillion dollars of subsidy from the West Germany to the East Germany when they joined up. Now, the reason they did it, there was a big political and national clamor. They wanted to do it, but it was very expensive for the West German half. And there's massive labor mobility where East Germans look around and say, well, geez, I can't find a job over here. I'm gonna go move over there. And that would certainly happen if you merged the US and Mexico. You know, at the time of German unification, there were about 10 million people working in East Germany. And today, there's about 5 million people working in what used to be East Germany.

• 41:30Speaker 06

  So you would envision something like that would happen. And in a way, that's a more pure economic system. That's what should happen. But I do think that would generate a lot of conflict and a lot of pushback from the US side.

• 41:49Stephen J. Dubner?

  If I can't interest you in Mexico, what about Canada?

• 41:54Speaker 06

  You're envisioning, these are like the biggest nightmares of all of these countries. It's like the US is trying to take us over. And you know, there's an old joke about Canada. You know, what is the difference between a Canadian and American? The Canadian cares. You know, in Canada, their question is, what do the people in the US think about Canada? And the answer is, the people in the US aren't thinking about Canada. You know, that's just not our thing.

• 42:32Stephen J. Dubner?

  You may remember that former President Fox of Mexico was in favor of strengthening the union between Canada and the US and Mexico. But you know who really likes Canada? Almost as much as he really likes Mexico?

• 42:47Speaker 08

  The Canadian dollar is very low. The Canadian people, I think, are very nationalistic, as they should be, because they've got a great country, as they should be in Mexico. But I just think the idea of an EU, of an EU with no borders, one currency, would be dramatic. It would be exciting. We get the best cars from Mexico. We have an incredible partner to the north that very much wants to put a lot of people to work. Pipeline jobs are fantastic. And we're not embracing Canada, and I gotta tell you, let's just face it. Our president should be in Mexico at least six times a year, because the Mexican economy is our economy in so many different ways. We are so together, I would love to see a continent of one.

• 43:31Stephen J. Dubner?

  Austin Goolsbee, as you might have guessed by now, does not agree.

• 43:36Speaker 06

  You've got the same issues. With closer incomes, there would be a lot less of the redistribution problems. We didn't even get into the... If you merge with Mexico, you gotta make some decisions about basic infrastructure, okay? So are we gonna go reprint all the signs in English and Spanish in both countries? You know, the water system in the US is far better, cleaner water than what is in Mexico. So are we gonna have a massive infrastructure investment program just in Mexico? And you're gonna get the same thing, you know, with Canada. Not to mention the cost of reprinting every kid's school map and globe and all of that.

• 44:17Stephen J. Dubner?

  I have to say, you really sound a little bit like a Debbie Downer today, Austin. I was expecting a little bit more optimism from you.

• 44:24Speaker 06

  Look, I want you to go visit, and I'm all for immigration and increased economic ties between these countries.

• 44:34Stephen J. Dubner?

  But you're making it sound like, oh, we have to, oh my God, we have to repaint the signs. We can't do it.

• 44:40Speaker 06

  I took us from the highest levels down to the lowest.

• 44:44Stephen J. Dubner?

  You went low. But look at it this way, we have already taken over half of Mexico once, when we took on California, New Mexico, and so on, right? We won that in a war, and we got that. So, you know, we had to repaint some signs. Then too, if the if the point is that.

• 45:00Speaker 06

  Yeah, they weren't look at that time, there wasn't a whole there's my people are are from over there, you know, in in in Texas, they fought their own war, they were a separate country, and then they merged into the US. But A, there were a whole lot fewer people then, you know, it was a very low population density. And the federal government's roles in these in the economy at that time was so small, it's certainly easier to conceive of, you know, buying Alaska from from the Russians and getting the Louisiana Purchase from the French and fight a war and take over some of Mexico, we're gonna stick all those things together

• 45:40Speaker 06

  and call it a country. Now, pretty much every inch of ground is accounted for by somebody, and if you want to take it, you got to figure out how to merge these things into the existing systems. Now, we've seen from the Germany side, it can be done, but it is expensive. And we've seen from the breakup side, like the Czech Republic and Slovakia, if you want to break up the country, you can do it, you know, you can sit down and say, okay, look, you you keep the armory and we're gonna keep the government movie theater and, you know, here's how we'll change the signs. If you want to do it, if there's political will

• 46:20Speaker 06

  to do it, you can. But if there is not political will to unify or or what's the opposite of unify, deunify countries, boy, then it really is complicated and and and it's a tough thing to do.

• 46:38Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, I'd like you to just blue sky for a minute about potential upsides for the US. You've already shown there's a lot of potential downsides for the US and potential upsides for Mexico. But let's just think about this. We we have a lot of oil now, but Mexico has a lot of oil too, and they've had it for a long time. And they're they're unnationalizing, denationalizing, whatever you want to call it, their oil. Their agricultural output is pretty good considering that they're not us. In other words, that they don't have our resources and capabilities and technology. And so on, you know, Mexico on the negative side, Mexico is a highway for drugs into the US. Mexico likes to say that they produce very few of the drugs that get to the US, but they get, you know, exploited along along the way from South America.

• 47:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  South America has big markets that are growing that we perhaps could have a lot more access to relationship to if we were Mexico. Can you can you blue sky and tell me if any of those potential upsides appeal to you?

• 47:38Speaker 06

  Yeah, all of those are upsides. I think those are all correct and some of those would probably be pretty large. You know, if you say the US has got very advanced technology that can help with resources, mining, oil exploration, etc. And Mexico does have a great deal of natural resource wealth. So both sides in that case would benefit from having the best technology applied to the resources they have. And then you say, well, why isn't the best technology applied now? It's probably because countries are nervous about getting nationalized. They don't want to make these kinds of investments. You know, if you go to Venezuela, they're they're not doing a whole bunch of advanced oil exploration precisely because they're nervous about that.

• 48:23Speaker 06

  I think if they were one country, that'd be worth a fair amount. Normal gains from trade for whatever trade benefits came from NAFTA, they would be far greater if there were no tariffs of any kind on any product. We could trade things between each other. And there are upsides to the labor mobility that I was describing would be unpopular. But, you know, it would it would allow for the people of Mexico far more opportunities to go to places where the pay is much higher than where they are now. And in those places, there'd be a bunch of different jobs that would likely be filled by people who have lower skill than what they have in the US. All of those are positives from an economic perspective.

• 49:07Speaker 06

  All I'm saying is those positives have got to be weighed off against pretty substantial transition costs and pretty substantial political sustainability costs that I just, I don't know.

• 49:23Stephen J. Dubner?

  I agree.

• 49:25Speaker 06

  It's worth contemplating as a counterfactual, but I think if you start thinking beyond the first stage, there are a whole bunch of costs associated with it. So it's much more like the old. Mega Gulf and Western conglomerate amalgamations.

• 49:49Stephen J. Dubner?

  Okay, one last question. I'm sure you know Daron Acemoglu and his work, yes?

• 49:55Speaker 06

  Yeah, very well.

• 49:56Stephen J. Dubner?

  Right, okay. So the idea that nations succeed or fail largely on the strength of their political institutions, not their natural resources, etc. So when we put this question to him about a Mexico-US merger, he brought up two historical examples of mergers of sorts with very different outcomes.

• 50:14Speaker 15

  There are examples in history where when you have two different parts of a single country have evolved differently institutionally, sometimes the extractive part dominates and poisons the inclusive part, sometimes the inclusive part dominates and ultimately takes over the extractive part. So the example I would give for the former, it's not the most sharp example, but let me stick to it, is Italy, where the south of Italy has to a large extent made the north of Italy politically more inefficient. And then the example that you would give for the latter is the United States, where after a period of the extractive

• 50:55Speaker 15

  part, the south dominating the political equilibrium through the ante-bellum period, the misery compromise period, ultimately after the civil war, gradually the northern institutions more and more became dominant in the south, but with some sort of peculiar details and differences. But when Mexico and the United States were to merge, which part would dominate, one cannot say with certainty. But I think, given that US institutions are themselves shaky at times, it could go either way, I guess.

• 51:37Stephen J. Dubner?

  So, given what you, Austin, know about modern American political institutions, which is quite a lot, and the institutions of modern Mexico, which I assume you know a fair amount about, how do you think this merger, this impossible merger that won't happen, but if it were to happen, how do you think that would work out? One set of political institutions coming up against another and intermingling, which would succeed? Are US political institutions necessarily much stronger than Mexican? I assume they are, although you've been in one, so you would know better than I.

• 52:12Speaker 06

  Yeah. Boy, if that's the strongest institution the world has got, well, God help us. But, look, I would count some economic/political institutions as being important, too, here. The first being the Fed, the currency, the central bank. Mexico has had many international problems with the peso, debt crises, et cetera, that the US has not had. So, for sure, I believe the market would largely interpret that the central bank would remain the Fed. And so that would be a dramatic improvement for Mexico.

• 52:55Speaker 06

  The equivalent of firms, banks, what have you, in Mexico, being able to borrow, they would get much lower interest rates because they would be coming under the umbrella of kind of the US economic institutions. But that's a double-edged sword. This is exactly what I'm saying, is that this merger kind of would go against, like what happened in the Eurozone, because countries like Greece and even Italy, Spain, Portugal, that previously faced high interest rates, when they get in under the Euro, they're kind of under the umbrella of the Germans, so they, too, are able to have much lower interest rates than what they had before.

• 53:38Speaker 06

  But, the devil's bargain is that they lock themselves in a currency union and the central bank essentially operated, ignoring what the problems are going on in Greece. And Mexico would for sure have this problem. It's kind of the problem, a problem, in Puerto Rico. So Puerto Rico's been in recession for seven years. And part of that is, they've messed some things up. But part of that is, they don't have monetary policy that's geared toward Puerto Rico in the slightest way. No one at the Fed says, "You know what? Maybe we should be looser than we thought because Puerto Rico's been in recession for seven years."

• 54:21Speaker 06

  So that's an institution that would serve Mexico well in the immediate term, but in the long term, I think that uniting in the currency would be a difficult spot because their economies are so different. On political institutions, I think the only problem here is we have only a moderately shared history. You know, it's kind of an interesting case that Daron says after the Civil War, the North institutions take over the South. Historically, it has been episodes of war or major national events and crises that everybody goes through together have proved to be nation forging historical events.

• 55:02Speaker 06

  And that political, I don't know if you call it rationale, but the fact that the people consider themselves part of one country and want to stay together is not exactly an institution, but is super, super important in my world in determining what this is. And if you look in Italy, I forget what the Italian phrase is, but the uniting of all the separate little kingdoms and fiefdoms of Italy into one country was largely imposed from the top. And I think that that kind of disorganization, that people weren't really actively wanting

• 55:44Speaker 06

  to do that, is part and parcel to why the institutions ended up sort of messed up. So how you did it with the US and Mexico would make a huge difference. If you just went down and said, "Hey, what we're gonna do is, you know, we're gonna just name each Mexican province, it's gonna be a state, and you each get a senator, and you're gonna come down to the Capitol, and here we go." I don't think that would have the positive impact, even though that's the US institution taking over. Let's say you did it in that extreme form. I kind of think you'd still have the nagging problem that you'd have all the people in Mexico going, wait a minute, that's what it's, I don't want to do, why do I have

• 56:26Speaker 06

  to listen to these bozos in the senate anyway, you know, is that really better than what we had? And if people don't want to be together, I think it's really hard to keep them together.

• 56:38Stephen J. Dubner?

  You know, for someone who is so dead set against this idea, I think you're coming around a little bit. And furthermore, I would say that if this were to happen, you'd be the guy that we'd want to send to start working this out on the political institution level, at least.

• 56:53Speaker 06

  Oh, I think they would say, look, I'll be down there for vacation whenever you want, you know, they got a lot of nice beaches and all kinds of stuff.

• 57:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Well, there's that too, there's that too, yeah, all right. Goolsbee, thank you very much, that was just, that was great.

• 57:06Speaker 06

  Yeah, thanks, it's always fun thinking through some of your guys' craziest ideas.

• 57:25Stephen J. Dubner?

  I was deeply offended by Austin Goolsbee's closing remark. This isn't even close to one of our craziest ideas. After talking to Goolsbee, and President Fox, and Jim Cramer, I'm not sure it's crazy at all. You know who else might not think it's crazy? The Council on Foreign Relations. The Council has an independent task force on North America. It's led by former CIA Director and Army General David Petraeus, and Robert Zelik, former head of the World Bank. They just issued a report called, "North America: Time for a New Focus." Here is our vision, they write, "Three democracies," see, they like Canada too, "with a total population of almost half a billion people, energy self-sufficiency,

• 58:07Stephen J. Dubner?

  and even energy exports, integrated infrastructure that fosters interconnected and highly competitive agriculture, resource development, manufacturing, services, and technology industries, a shared skilled labor force that prospers through investment in human capital, a common natural bounty of air, water, lands, biodiversity..." ...wildlife and migratory species, close security cooperation on regional threats of all kinds, and, over time, closer cooperation as North Americans on economic, political, security, and environmental topics when dealing with the rest of the world, perhaps focusing first on challenges in our own hemisphere.

• 58:48Stephen J. Dubner?

  All right, it's not quite a merger they're proposing, but still, they get the picture. Do you? Can't you imagine the bounty of a US-Mexico-Canada union? Not only would US soccer get a lot better with help from Mexico, but think about what Canadian hockey would do for the US hockey team in the Olympics. We'd have all the maple syrup and avocados that any American could possibly want. Mexican Coca-Cola, prized for its real cane sugar, would now be American Coke, or at least Mexic-Canadian American Coke. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, we'd get them. And, gee.

• 59:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  Hey, podcast listeners, on the next Freakonomics Radio, we start with a big question about fertility, that is, why do people have children?

• 59:47Speaker 16

  I think this is probably an open question for debate.

• 59:49Stephen J. Dubner?

  And then, a smaller question. What happens to fertility after a tragic loss of life? For instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

• 1:00:00Speaker 17

  Women who had lost a child in the tsunami were about 10 percentage points more likely to have another birth after the tsunami than women whose children had survived.

• 1:00:09Stephen J. Dubner?

  Mortality and fertility, that's next time on Freakonomics Radio.

• 1:00:19Speaker 09

  Freakonomics Radio is produced by WNYC and Dubner Productions. Our staff includes David Herman, Greg Rosalsky, Greta Cohn, Caroline English, Susie Lechtenberg, and Chris Bannon, with help from Joel Werner. If you want more Freakonomics Radio, you can subscribe to our podcast on iTunes or go to Freakonomics.com, where you'll find lots of radio, a blog, the books, and more.

• 1:00:56Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by EverPure. Is the value of AI not living up to the promise? The problem is probably your data, not your AI models. When it's scattered across different systems, getting your data AI-ready is a challenge. You keep your AI waiting and everything slows down. EverPure unifies your data so you can see it, understand it, and control it all from one simple place and get it AI-ready fast. Unlock the true value of your AI at everpuredata.com.

• 1:01:29Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Ozempic. Innovation happens through rethinking what's possible. And when it comes to GLP-1s, Ozempic pill does just that. Learn more about Ozempic semaglutide tablets, 4 and 9 milligrams, by calling 1-833-OZEMPIC or visit ozempic.com to view the medication guide and ask your doctor what's possible with FDA-approved Ozempic pill.

• 1:02:00Stephen J. Dubner?

  Freakonomics Radio is sponsored by Southern Company. The world and its energy needs are always changing. Southern Company's commitment to meeting this demand stays the same. That's because Southern Company believes energy is more than a utility. It's what powers possibilities. So they are looking ahead and investing $80 billion in infrastructure upgrades and are committed to fueling growth in ways that benefit all customers so that reliable and affordable energy is accessible for generations to come. Go to southerncompany.com to learn more. Southern Company, building the future of energy.

• 1:02:37Speaker 18

  This episode is brought to you by Charles Schwab. Is there a right time to sell a stock? Are you taking the right risks with your portfolio? Financial decisions can be tricky, and often your own cognitive and emotional biases can lead you astray. Financial Decoder, an original podcast from Charles Schwab, can help. Join host Mark Reapy as he offers practical solutions to help overcome the cognitive and emotional biases that may affect your investing decisions. Listen at schwab.com/financialdecoder.