Doing Business in MexicoEssay title: Doing Business in MexicoExecutive SummaryTo be given an opportunity to do business in Mexico, one must understand where to start and how to deal with a totally different social and cultural environment from what one is accustom too. To succeed in making a good first impression and to carry out any type of business transaction, it is important to understand what these differences are.
When conducting business in Mexico, there are specific things that must be understood and complied with. Just understanding how important building a relationship is, such as shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries can have a huge impact. What could potentially be the start of a bad or mediocre business trip now has the possibility of being a successful one.
A businessperson needs to understand that the Mexican government plays a large part in establishing a business in Mexico. The government in Mexico influences and controls the Mexican business world due to that most business transactions require a permit. Because of the strong government influence, many business practices in Mexico are corrupt. Not understanding or taking the time to learn Mexican business etiquette along with rules and regulations, one can find their self in a compromising position.
This paper intends to provide the necessary details such as customs, etiquette, mannerism, and culture of doing business in MexicoBusiness in MexicoBienvenido a Mйxico! Welcome to Mexico, the first of what one would hope to be many greetings expected upon entering into Mexico. With Mexico’s population fast approaching the 100 million mark, “North Americans, what Mexicans refer to people from the United States” (Nicol, 2003) the lower labor rates and the strength of the American dollar against the peso over the last several years has created an influx of US manufacturing businesses into Mexico. “Mexico has become one of the United States most important trade partners. It is the third largest exporter to the United States, and its international trade products include oil exports, tourism, and the products of its many assembly plants.”(Nicol, 2003)
The Economic Consequences of Trade with Mexico
The US is the nation of 5.4 billion and its trade balance balances are about $30 billion dollars. Therefore, a trade agreement which will facilitate American business should have the potential of creating significant economic benefits for the people of the United States. There are, however, risks associated with such a trade agreement. It will increase costs and hinder U.S. competitiveness (Citioli et al. 2010). This is most likely to be achieved through the U.S. government subsidizing businesses. This will increase their profits as well as to prevent competitive advantages. The United States could also be burdened with more government benefits such as higher taxes.
While other U.S. trade deals would benefit their foreign counterparts, other American economic outcomes will be harmed. The current trade deficit is estimated at about $80 billion dollars in 2016 (Citioli et al. 2010, 2012). This is a far cry from the $1.38 trillion U.S. trade deficit with the Soviet Union. If the United States is elected President, it will require Washington to implement significant improvements in international trade. We do not accept the existence of a U.S. trade deficit with a member of the Soviet bloc, and the United States needs not be particularly harsh on its trade partners. (Lack of strong economies and the prospect of rising American deficits, however, lead to the reduction in the United States trade surplus by about $60 to $80 billion dollar, Lacks of strong economies led to an increase in U.S. exports (United States Department of Commerce, 2006) to Mexico and the Philippines). The same would be true of the United States.
The trade deficit is one of the largest U.S. financial losses of any country in history as a result of American economic growth. We take the President’s commitment to reducing trade deficits as our sole and significant policy action. On January 31, 2010, President Obama signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) into law.
Trade deficits are one of the most prominent and enduring challenges to American economic growth globally. The United States would be the first country to impose additional tariffs in response to any change in the underlying value of a trade agreement. More than 3.5 million Americans work more than 60 hours per month. Americans work more than 600 hours per week, and they are paid less than 1 percent of the median hourly-wage earnings of that population in the United States, a situation that is also reflected in the high rates of health care and educational attainment for Americans. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would result in an increase in trade barriers to many industries and a decrease in international trade relations, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the ITR (United States Trade Representative, 2012). American companies have already been hit hard by the U.S. Trade Representative’s trade policies, and if U.S.-based companies are to continue to receive preferential treatment by the Trade Representative in exchange for protectionist trade policies, economic growth will remain sluggish for decades. That is why the Trade Representative must act to ensure that American manufacturers and consumers are protected, and to ensure that the President has the ability to take immediate action to address the economic hardships faced through trade and investment policies.
While the trade deficit is the largest in history globally, it has its roots in the U.S. trade deficits with other countries. Trade deficits are one of the biggest and persistent problems for the United States in world economic history. In some ways the trade deficit with China is one of the most serious public health issues in history. The TPP would provide significant economic benefits to China that are likely to be offset by other trade problems such as the increased supply of raw materials to China and increased exports to India, with many countries of the region supporting U.S. products. More than 6 million jobs would now be lost as a result of the trade deficit and $60 billion would go toward improving economic efficiency and creating new jobs for workers.
The TPP would dramatically improve investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) (i.e., a mechanism whereby an owner of a company could negotiate a lower or a higher price for an item of merchandise, that the company would sell at higher profits by reducing consumer resistance from other parties to the sale of the item). In its proposed TPP text, the U.S. would amend the TPP’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms to include provisions to create two types of dispute resolution systems on a global scale that allow greater protection of intellectual property rights and protect against fraud, abuse and the violation of rights of citizens and other entities. The TPP’s anti-ISDS provisions would establish a mechanism that will provide a mechanism for U.S. companies to sue China to the full extent permitted—for example, to sue government and foreign governments to remove or destroy intellectual property on U.S. public property. We believe that ISDS is extremely important to our economy, and could become one of the key factors in reducing labor and income inequality. The proposed TPP (i.e., TPP) text would be the most progressive U.S. trade policy in decades. It would help to strengthen the U.S. economy, but it would also bring about significant job losses across the board. The TPP
The Congressional Research Service believes that a trade agreement with a trading partner is the best approach to strengthening U.S. markets, which is why, in an effort to limit the economic effects of trade agreements with other U.S. trading partners, Congress must pass trade reform, not impose punitive tariffs. However, the Congressional Research Service does not think that the United States can maintain its economic leverage with other trading partners and other nations.
We note that U.S. trade deficits are projected to balloon over the next 10 years. This includes trade with Japan (see figure below) which, while likely not as much, is still significant in helping reduce U.S. trade deficits with countries that have low wages and low levels of investment and other public services.
U.S. trade deficits with other U.S. trading partners will not increase the American’s trade deficit with Russia
We calculate in this analysis that,
The United States would lose approximately 2/3 of its current trade surplus with a Russian market. If Russia were to withdraw from the G-20 and join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the United States would have increased trade surplus with the same as China (Citioli et al. 2010). A loss of 2/3 reduces trade surplus with Russia by $70 to $80 billion dollar. Under these scenarios, the United States would gain about a $60 per- trade trade surplus with Russia. (Citioli et al. 2010)
This implies a $5 trade surplus with China, almost equivalent to $12.2 billion dollars.
A loss of 2/3 is a $6 trade surplus with China—an additional $80 billion dollars.
The increase in trade deficits will also have an immediate effect on the balance of trade between all U.S. trade partners. This is largely due to trade deficit extension with China, where it would be subject to restrictions and the need to renegotiate those trade agreements to increase competitive pressure on trade.
As the United States negotiates trade and investment agreements for 2018, it should be understood that the majority of trade deficits are projected into the future. This is especially true in the case of China’s trade with the United States, where a smaller overall U.S. trade deficit will continue to grow. As the United States becomes more competitive and less dependent on foreign suppliers, it may become more difficult to avoid paying significant tax on U.S. exports and imports.
A trade surplus with other trading partners will lower the United States’s overall trade deficit
In the short to medium term, trade is likely to be substantially less volatile than in the long term in order to maintain its economic clout with other nations and with U.S. trading partners. The United States has a low margin of confidence in trading partners and trade commitments and is likely to have a difficult time maintaining the international position it enjoys under its leadership. If there is political will in Washington to pursue a trade agreement with other European countries, the United States could be facing severe consequences for its trading relations with the European Union (for example, Russia’s accession to the WTO in December 2005).[14]
We note that a trade agreement with a trading partner is a better path forward. It opens up trade opportunities for U.S. goods and services that otherwise would have been at odds with these companies rather than competing with imports. The United States is also capable of making economic investments by reducing its reliance on local competition, including in agriculture, for a greater share of its inputs and costs. This is a huge benefit to our industry.
Although we strongly oppose a trade agreement with the United States, this is not to say our tariffs against Chinese and Indian goods and
The Congressional Research Service believes that a trade agreement with a trading partner is the best approach to strengthening U.S. markets, which is why, in an effort to limit the economic effects of trade agreements with other U.S. trading partners, Congress must pass trade reform, not impose punitive tariffs. However, the Congressional Research Service does not think that the United States can maintain its economic leverage with other trading partners and other nations.
We note that U.S. trade deficits are projected to balloon over the next 10 years. This includes trade with Japan (see figure below) which, while likely not as much, is still significant in helping reduce U.S. trade deficits with countries that have low wages and low levels of investment and other public services.
U.S. trade deficits with other U.S. trading partners will not increase the American’s trade deficit with Russia
We calculate in this analysis that,
The United States would lose approximately 2/3 of its current trade surplus with a Russian market. If Russia were to withdraw from the G-20 and join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the United States would have increased trade surplus with the same as China (Citioli et al. 2010). A loss of 2/3 reduces trade surplus with Russia by $70 to $80 billion dollar. Under these scenarios, the United States would gain about a $60 per- trade trade surplus with Russia. (Citioli et al. 2010)
This implies a $5 trade surplus with China, almost equivalent to $12.2 billion dollars.
A loss of 2/3 is a $6 trade surplus with China—an additional $80 billion dollars.
The increase in trade deficits will also have an immediate effect on the balance of trade between all U.S. trade partners. This is largely due to trade deficit extension with China, where it would be subject to restrictions and the need to renegotiate those trade agreements to increase competitive pressure on trade.
As the United States negotiates trade and investment agreements for 2018, it should be understood that the majority of trade deficits are projected into the future. This is especially true in the case of China’s trade with the United States, where a smaller overall U.S. trade deficit will continue to grow. As the United States becomes more competitive and less dependent on foreign suppliers, it may become more difficult to avoid paying significant tax on U.S. exports and imports.
A trade surplus with other trading partners will lower the United States’s overall trade deficit
In the short to medium term, trade is likely to be substantially less volatile than in the long term in order to maintain its economic clout with other nations and with U.S. trading partners. The United States has a low margin of confidence in trading partners and trade commitments and is likely to have a difficult time maintaining the international position it enjoys under its leadership. If there is political will in Washington to pursue a trade agreement with other European countries, the United States could be facing severe consequences for its trading relations with the European Union (for example, Russia’s accession to the WTO in December 2005).[14]
We note that a trade agreement with a trading partner is a better path forward. It opens up trade opportunities for U.S. goods and services that otherwise would have been at odds with these companies rather than competing with imports. The United States is also capable of making economic investments by reducing its reliance on local competition, including in agriculture, for a greater share of its inputs and costs. This is a huge benefit to our industry.
Although we strongly oppose a trade agreement with the United States, this is not to say our tariffs against Chinese and Indian goods and
The United States should ensure that its trade surplus with Mexico and its members of the Central American cartel is reduced to the level necessary for the growth of U.S. exports to Mexico, and the United States should pursue a trade policy in which the United States is no longer a burden on the Central American Cartel.
The Economic Consequences of the Trade Agreement With Mexico
As with most other trade agreements, the trade agreement with Mexico is subject to a number of limitations. The most important of which is regulatory requirements. In exchange for a U.S.-Mexico agreement, it needs to meet the following stipulations:
The United States must negotiate on a set of terms which includes certain elements of its domestic trade relations that may include a number of aspects that must be agreed upon under the agreement.
Companies or organizations with commercial experience working for the United States are not required to obtain a trade license from the Mexican government.
U.S.-Mexico cooperation in trade in services must be approved by a U.S.-Mexican delegation of representatives which is also under the control of the State Department.
Trade agreements with many foreign countries, especially the United States, will impact the United States economy. In order to maintain the good relations between the United States and Mexico, U.S.-Mexico relations must be better managed and negotiated.
Finally, the United States cannot accept that the Mexican government will take a side in negotiations which is detrimental to American economic interests in Mexico. This may be because of its dependence upon the United States and its government policy of support for Mexican political and military dictators
The Economic Consequences of Trade with Mexico
The US is the nation of 5.4 billion and its trade balance balances are about $30 billion dollars. Therefore, a trade agreement which will facilitate American business should have the potential of creating significant economic benefits for the people of the United States. There are, however, risks associated with such a trade agreement. It will increase costs and hinder U.S. competitiveness (Citioli et al. 2010). This is most likely to be achieved through the U.S. government subsidizing businesses. This will increase their profits as well as to prevent competitive advantages. The United States could also be burdened with more government benefits such as higher taxes.
While other U.S. trade deals would benefit their foreign counterparts, other American economic outcomes will be harmed. The current trade deficit is estimated at about $80 billion dollars in 2016 (Citioli et al. 2010, 2012). This is a far cry from the $1.38 trillion U.S. trade deficit with the Soviet Union. If the United States is elected President, it will require Washington to implement significant improvements in international trade. We do not accept the existence of a U.S. trade deficit with a member of the Soviet bloc, and the United States needs not be particularly harsh on its trade partners. (Lack of strong economies and the prospect of rising American deficits, however, lead to the reduction in the United States trade surplus by about $60 to $80 billion dollar, Lacks of strong economies led to an increase in U.S. exports (United States Department of Commerce, 2006) to Mexico and the Philippines). The same would be true of the United States.
The trade deficit is one of the largest U.S. financial losses of any country in history as a result of American economic growth. We take the President’s commitment to reducing trade deficits as our sole and significant policy action. On January 31, 2010, President Obama signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) into law.
Trade deficits are one of the most prominent and enduring challenges to American economic growth globally. The United States would be the first country to impose additional tariffs in response to any change in the underlying value of a trade agreement. More than 3.5 million Americans work more than 60 hours per month. Americans work more than 600 hours per week, and they are paid less than 1 percent of the median hourly-wage earnings of that population in the United States, a situation that is also reflected in the high rates of health care and educational attainment for Americans. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would result in an increase in trade barriers to many industries and a decrease in international trade relations, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the ITR (United States Trade Representative, 2012). American companies have already been hit hard by the U.S. Trade Representative’s trade policies, and if U.S.-based companies are to continue to receive preferential treatment by the Trade Representative in exchange for protectionist trade policies, economic growth will remain sluggish for decades. That is why the Trade Representative must act to ensure that American manufacturers and consumers are protected, and to ensure that the President has the ability to take immediate action to address the economic hardships faced through trade and investment policies.
While the trade deficit is the largest in history globally, it has its roots in the U.S. trade deficits with other countries. Trade deficits are one of the biggest and persistent problems for the United States in world economic history. In some ways the trade deficit with China is one of the most serious public health issues in history. The TPP would provide significant economic benefits to China that are likely to be offset by other trade problems such as the increased supply of raw materials to China and increased exports to India, with many countries of the region supporting U.S. products. More than 6 million jobs would now be lost as a result of the trade deficit and $60 billion would go toward improving economic efficiency and creating new jobs for workers.
The TPP would dramatically improve investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) (i.e., a mechanism whereby an owner of a company could negotiate a lower or a higher price for an item of merchandise, that the company would sell at higher profits by reducing consumer resistance from other parties to the sale of the item). In its proposed TPP text, the U.S. would amend the TPP’s Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms to include provisions to create two types of dispute resolution systems on a global scale that allow greater protection of intellectual property rights and protect against fraud, abuse and the violation of rights of citizens and other entities. The TPP’s anti-ISDS provisions would establish a mechanism that will provide a mechanism for U.S. companies to sue China to the full extent permitted—for example, to sue government and foreign governments to remove or destroy intellectual property on U.S. public property. We believe that ISDS is extremely important to our economy, and could become one of the key factors in reducing labor and income inequality. The proposed TPP (i.e., TPP) text would be the most progressive U.S. trade policy in decades. It would help to strengthen the U.S. economy, but it would also bring about significant job losses across the board. The TPP
The Congressional Research Service believes that a trade agreement with a trading partner is the best approach to strengthening U.S. markets, which is why, in an effort to limit the economic effects of trade agreements with other U.S. trading partners, Congress must pass trade reform, not impose punitive tariffs. However, the Congressional Research Service does not think that the United States can maintain its economic leverage with other trading partners and other nations.
We note that U.S. trade deficits are projected to balloon over the next 10 years. This includes trade with Japan (see figure below) which, while likely not as much, is still significant in helping reduce U.S. trade deficits with countries that have low wages and low levels of investment and other public services.
U.S. trade deficits with other U.S. trading partners will not increase the American’s trade deficit with Russia
We calculate in this analysis that,
The United States would lose approximately 2/3 of its current trade surplus with a Russian market. If Russia were to withdraw from the G-20 and join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the United States would have increased trade surplus with the same as China (Citioli et al. 2010). A loss of 2/3 reduces trade surplus with Russia by $70 to $80 billion dollar. Under these scenarios, the United States would gain about a $60 per- trade trade surplus with Russia. (Citioli et al. 2010)
This implies a $5 trade surplus with China, almost equivalent to $12.2 billion dollars.
A loss of 2/3 is a $6 trade surplus with China—an additional $80 billion dollars.
The increase in trade deficits will also have an immediate effect on the balance of trade between all U.S. trade partners. This is largely due to trade deficit extension with China, where it would be subject to restrictions and the need to renegotiate those trade agreements to increase competitive pressure on trade.
As the United States negotiates trade and investment agreements for 2018, it should be understood that the majority of trade deficits are projected into the future. This is especially true in the case of China’s trade with the United States, where a smaller overall U.S. trade deficit will continue to grow. As the United States becomes more competitive and less dependent on foreign suppliers, it may become more difficult to avoid paying significant tax on U.S. exports and imports.
A trade surplus with other trading partners will lower the United States’s overall trade deficit
In the short to medium term, trade is likely to be substantially less volatile than in the long term in order to maintain its economic clout with other nations and with U.S. trading partners. The United States has a low margin of confidence in trading partners and trade commitments and is likely to have a difficult time maintaining the international position it enjoys under its leadership. If there is political will in Washington to pursue a trade agreement with other European countries, the United States could be facing severe consequences for its trading relations with the European Union (for example, Russia’s accession to the WTO in December 2005).[14]
We note that a trade agreement with a trading partner is a better path forward. It opens up trade opportunities for U.S. goods and services that otherwise would have been at odds with these companies rather than competing with imports. The United States is also capable of making economic investments by reducing its reliance on local competition, including in agriculture, for a greater share of its inputs and costs. This is a huge benefit to our industry.
Although we strongly oppose a trade agreement with the United States, this is not to say our tariffs against Chinese and Indian goods and
The Congressional Research Service believes that a trade agreement with a trading partner is the best approach to strengthening U.S. markets, which is why, in an effort to limit the economic effects of trade agreements with other U.S. trading partners, Congress must pass trade reform, not impose punitive tariffs. However, the Congressional Research Service does not think that the United States can maintain its economic leverage with other trading partners and other nations.
We note that U.S. trade deficits are projected to balloon over the next 10 years. This includes trade with Japan (see figure below) which, while likely not as much, is still significant in helping reduce U.S. trade deficits with countries that have low wages and low levels of investment and other public services.
U.S. trade deficits with other U.S. trading partners will not increase the American’s trade deficit with Russia
We calculate in this analysis that,
The United States would lose approximately 2/3 of its current trade surplus with a Russian market. If Russia were to withdraw from the G-20 and join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the United States would have increased trade surplus with the same as China (Citioli et al. 2010). A loss of 2/3 reduces trade surplus with Russia by $70 to $80 billion dollar. Under these scenarios, the United States would gain about a $60 per- trade trade surplus with Russia. (Citioli et al. 2010)
This implies a $5 trade surplus with China, almost equivalent to $12.2 billion dollars.
A loss of 2/3 is a $6 trade surplus with China—an additional $80 billion dollars.
The increase in trade deficits will also have an immediate effect on the balance of trade between all U.S. trade partners. This is largely due to trade deficit extension with China, where it would be subject to restrictions and the need to renegotiate those trade agreements to increase competitive pressure on trade.
As the United States negotiates trade and investment agreements for 2018, it should be understood that the majority of trade deficits are projected into the future. This is especially true in the case of China’s trade with the United States, where a smaller overall U.S. trade deficit will continue to grow. As the United States becomes more competitive and less dependent on foreign suppliers, it may become more difficult to avoid paying significant tax on U.S. exports and imports.
A trade surplus with other trading partners will lower the United States’s overall trade deficit
In the short to medium term, trade is likely to be substantially less volatile than in the long term in order to maintain its economic clout with other nations and with U.S. trading partners. The United States has a low margin of confidence in trading partners and trade commitments and is likely to have a difficult time maintaining the international position it enjoys under its leadership. If there is political will in Washington to pursue a trade agreement with other European countries, the United States could be facing severe consequences for its trading relations with the European Union (for example, Russia’s accession to the WTO in December 2005).[14]
We note that a trade agreement with a trading partner is a better path forward. It opens up trade opportunities for U.S. goods and services that otherwise would have been at odds with these companies rather than competing with imports. The United States is also capable of making economic investments by reducing its reliance on local competition, including in agriculture, for a greater share of its inputs and costs. This is a huge benefit to our industry.
Although we strongly oppose a trade agreement with the United States, this is not to say our tariffs against Chinese and Indian goods and
The United States should ensure that its trade surplus with Mexico and its members of the Central American cartel is reduced to the level necessary for the growth of U.S. exports to Mexico, and the United States should pursue a trade policy in which the United States is no longer a burden on the Central American Cartel.
The Economic Consequences of the Trade Agreement With Mexico
As with most other trade agreements, the trade agreement with Mexico is subject to a number of limitations. The most important of which is regulatory requirements. In exchange for a U.S.-Mexico agreement, it needs to meet the following stipulations:
The United States must negotiate on a set of terms which includes certain elements of its domestic trade relations that may include a number of aspects that must be agreed upon under the agreement.
Companies or organizations with commercial experience working for the United States are not required to obtain a trade license from the Mexican government.
U.S.-Mexico cooperation in trade in services must be approved by a U.S.-Mexican delegation of representatives which is also under the control of the State Department.
Trade agreements with many foreign countries, especially the United States, will impact the United States economy. In order to maintain the good relations between the United States and Mexico, U.S.-Mexico relations must be better managed and negotiated.
Finally, the United States cannot accept that the Mexican government will take a side in negotiations which is detrimental to American economic interests in Mexico. This may be because of its dependence upon the United States and its government policy of support for Mexican political and military dictators
Mexico official language is Spanish though English is used and widely understood by the Mexican business world. Business meetings should normally take place and be conducted in Spanish but most of the time the business hosts will more than likely try to accommodate to the language needs. Any attempts by a foreigner to speak Spanish are appreciated and shows respect for Mexicans, even if the attempts are less than favorable.
There is to per say no official religion of the country, however almost 90 percent of Mexicans are Roman CatholicMexico has become a large global presence and it is important to understand the business etiquette and mannerisms of the country in order to successfully conduct business in Mexico.
Business AppearanceWhen doing business in Mexico, it is important to wear clothes that are similar to what Mexican businesspersons wear. Men should wear a conservative dark suit and tie. A white shirt is more formal and should be worn when the formality of the meeting dictates. Women should wear a dress or skirt and blouse. For the men and women, the classic colors of gray, navy or white is acceptable. Should the occasion arise, casual wear for the men would consist of a light shirt and pants and for the women a blouse with pants or skirt. Jeans are not appropriate nor tight or low cut clothing.
Business EtiquettePersonal relationships are important part in doing business in Mexico and Mexicans put a great deal of emphasis on this. Relationships between people/companies must be developed first. Mexicans will make friends first, and then do business. In a lot instances, an intercessor will be needed to set up business meetings and make introductions between the parties. This intercessor serves as “the bridge that builds the trust necessary to do business in Mexico.”(Mexperience, 2006) When in a meeting, begin with small talk discussing such things as the family, “Mexican culture, history, art and museums. Never bring up and discuss topics such as the Mexican-American war, poverty, illegal aliens or earthquakes.”(Nicol, 2003) Americans would need to be very careful with hand gestures. The gesture of circling the index finger to the thumb to give the “Okay” sign is “extremely offensive” to the Mexicans. The placement of ones hands on their hips is a sign of aggressiveness, while placing the hands the pocket is impolite. (CC Consulting Ltd 2004)
Breakfast, Lunch and DinnerAny type of business meeting can take place while eating, depending on the time of day. Business