Skip to comments.
Ag secretary puts spin on trade report
PEORIA JOURNAL STAR, INC. ^
| September 12, 2006
| Alan Guebert
Posted on 09/12/2006 12:31:55 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Mexico, with one-third our population, one-tenth our economy and one-fourth our per capita income, will combine with Canada, with one-one-tenth our economy and one-ninth our population, to sell us 35 percent of all our imported food. Thanks, NAFTA
Nailed it.
To: freepatriot32; calcowgirl; nicmarlo; texastoo; William Terrell; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; cinives; ...
To: hedgetrimmer
Democrats running in farm states could really kill Republicans with the falling farm income stats, especially with this year's crushing fuel costs and low commodity prices. It could cost the GOP the House.
To: hedgetrimmer
I live in the Central Valley of California. Did you know that most of what we grow is exported from California and I can't find produce at the grocery stores that is NOT from Mexico?
We eat very little produce anymore unless it is bought from a farmer's market. etc. There are a few local owned stores that only sell local produce also.
4
posted on
09/12/2006 12:38:17 PM PDT
by
sheana
To: sheana
There are a few local owned stores that only sell local produce also.
We do need to support our local growers. The terrible thing is, that California is an agricultural eden, and our elected officials are doing their best to destroy it.
To: hedgetrimmer
Mexico, with one-third our population, one-tenth our economy and one-fourth our per capita income, will combine with Canada, with one-one-tenth our economy and one-ninth our population, to sell us 35 percent of all our imported food.Let's do the math. one-third (33%) + one ninth (11%) = 44%. They have 44% of our population and sell us 35% of our imported food.
Gee, I guess that's a disaster. I'm not sure exactly why. Maybe a protectionist can explain it?
6
posted on
09/12/2006 12:43:06 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math and reading?)
To: kittymyrib
Democrats running in farm states could really kill Republicans with the falling farm income stats,
Are they smart enough to do this, or are they too corrupted by the "free traders" to admit their policies are destroying all wealth producing sectors in our economy.
To: sheana; hedgetrimmer
But of course, you will be asked to endorse the big-bang-bond to invest in ports so that even more of your food and necessities can be provided by foreign sources. Will California produce anything after the globalists are done with us?
8
posted on
09/12/2006 12:46:46 PM PDT
by
calcowgirl
("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
To: calcowgirl
I don't think there will be much left of California after ALL the politicians get done with us.
9
posted on
09/12/2006 12:48:30 PM PDT
by
sheana
To: kittymyrib
Sen. Chuck Grassley talks like he's a senator for Mexico, not Iowa.
***
According to the Mexicos Ministry of the Economy, Mexicos GDP has increased by 43 percent over the past ten years. Mexico added over 590,000 jobs in 2005, and it looks like the number of jobs created in 2006 could reach 900,000. Economic growth and job growth in Mexico can be attributed, in part, to NAFTA-induced increases in foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico. FDI in Mexico averaged $2.1 billion from 1986 to 1993, reached almost $18 billion in 2005, and could hit $20 billion in 2006.
By locking in economic reforms, NAFTA has helped to bring economic stability to Mexico. Mexican families have benefited by the near disappearance of inflation, which was at just 3.3 percent in 2005, a marked drop from pre-NAFTA inflation of, for example, 159 percent in 1987. Likewise, Mexican consumers who faced annual interest rates of 96 percent in 1987 saw interest rates of just 9.2 percent last year.
With regard to Mexican agriculture, Mexicos agricultural exports to the United States have increased by $5.6 billion over the past twelve years, compared with U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico increasing by $5.7 billion during that same time period, which demonstrates that the growth in agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico has been quite balanced under NAFTA. Id also like to note that while some critics of NAFTA claim that U.S. exports have devastated Mexican corn production, this isnt the case. Production of corn in Mexico has remained remarkably stable since NAFTA was implemented Mexico produced 19 million metric tons of corn in 1993/94 compared to 22 million metric tons in 2004/2005. U.S. corn exports have supplemented Mexican corn production and go largely to Mexicos growing livestock industries.
Finally, the benefits of NAFTA to Mexico are more than economic. Im convinced that theres a link between NAFTA and Mexicos significant movement to democracy following 1993. After all, free markets tend to lead to free elections.
Grassley Highlights Benefits to U.S. Producers Mexican Economy, Economy of NAFTA at Year 12
http://www.ifbf.org/fullarticle.aspx?artid=23821
To: calcowgirl
Will California produce anything after the globalists are done with us?
Indebtedness for ourselves and our 'future generations', and wealth for everyone else.
To: Toddsterpatriot
Maybe a protectionist can explain it? I think it has something to do with the horror of discovering that our closest neighbors (in terms of geography) grow stuff and dare sell it to us.
12
posted on
09/12/2006 12:52:23 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Damn them. I just hope they don't sell us beer.
13
posted on
09/12/2006 12:53:27 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math and reading?)
To: hedgetrimmer
Indebtedness for ourselves and our 'future generations', and wealth for everyone else. If whining paid, you could cover the trade deficit all by yourself!
14
posted on
09/12/2006 12:54:56 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math and reading?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
Do you remember He Who Should Not Be Named complaining about sugar beet farmers in Minnesota? Those were the days.
15
posted on
09/12/2006 12:56:34 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
We need those over priced sources of sugar, to keep sugar cheap and readily available.
If ignorance paid, HWSNBN would have covered the trade deficit years ago.
16
posted on
09/12/2006 12:59:31 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math and reading?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
Come to think of it, I wonder if beer is considered to be a consumer-product or an ag-product? Probably consumer. I wish I could afford to drink more Bohemia . . . it's one of the finest (Mexican) lagers in the world, in my opinion, if one can find it fresh.
17
posted on
09/12/2006 1:01:50 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
The agriculture secretary is a puppet. Who cares what he says?
To: NapkinUser
Don't forget, none of us voted for him.
19
posted on
09/12/2006 1:05:18 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
LOL!
I demand a recount!
Who is this guy? Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns. Sounds Dutch!!
20
posted on
09/12/2006 1:07:37 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math and reading?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson