1. The company manufactures their products in the U.S. and has the commodities made in Mexico. Since the Mexico subsidy is financed through loans from the U.S., the devaluing of the peso should have limited negative implications. Given the current situation, it means that the exports from Mexico will become cheaper. In other words, it will be easier for the American company to produce their commodities there. Foremost, since the Mexican subsidy is financed from the United States banks in American dollars, a devaluing of the peso only means that they will spend fewer dollars to purchase the same commodities. As a result, the company will be able to reduce operational costs and implement a lower retail price, which will satisfy the customers. Also, they could use the economized funds to reinvest in a new venture, further develop the product, purchase newer technologies and so on.
             To make sure however that they are able to benefit from the modification, the American company should sing the contracts for the following year in peso. In other words, all payments for the Mexican subsidy (including commodities or employees' salaries) should be made in peso and consequently, fewer dollars.
             2. The one-size-fits-all policy forwarded by the International Monetary Fund was "formulated by the architects of global economics (to) go under the banner of macro-economic stability and market liberalization. They are meant to be catalysts for growth and beacons for foreign investment. Plainly they are not" (Mathiason, 2002). The developing countries welcomed the international investors who privatized their industries and for a short period, increased the living standards. The growth was however unsustainable and the people in the developing countries are now living in poorer conditions than before the opening of the borders. The main reason for the created situation is the desire of the multinationals to make more profits and their pen...