NAFTA Gives Mexicans New Reasons to Leave Home

San Francisco Chronicls ^ | 10.15.98 | Robert Collier

[Coleus]

When the North American Free Trade Agreement was being debated in 1993, the rhetoric from both the U.S. and Mexican governments was similarly emphatic.

NAFTA would help deter migration by creating new jobs and prosperity in Mexico, they said.

Several years later, NAFTA appears to have done just the opposite. While many Mexicans appreciate the elevated diplomatic status it has conferred upon their country, the trade pact has driven large numbers of farmers, small-business owners and laborers out of work. These people are left with few options but to seek a better life in the United States.

NAFTA has helped part of the Mexican economy -- large industry, agribusiness and the average consumer -- by accelerating capital investment, boosting trade and lowering prices. Industrial productivity has increased, Internet use is becoming more common and store shelves are packed with the latest consumer goods from all over the world.

However, although the Mexican government does not keep reliable statistics on unemployment, experts say the jobs created by NAFTA are not as numerous as the jobs eliminated.

FARMING WOES In Tlacuitapa, farming has never looked worse, and local farmers blame foreign trade.

As part of NAFTA, corn and dairy tariffs were cut, bringing floods of cheaper U.S. corn. Tlacuitapa farmers, whose two main products are corn and milk, found the prices offered by local distributors slashed to the bone.

The region, where farm machines are few, the land is rocky and rainfall is erratic, simply could not compete with the mechanized, nature-blessed bounty of U.S. agriculture. Those who had the misfortune to live in the Tlacuitapa region -- and in many other regions throughout Mexico -- had no way of making a decent living.

At around the same time that NAFTA took effect, the Mexican government eliminated farm subsidy payments,

[A. Pole]

Your the exact same as a liberal who claims that wealth is a zero sum game.

Not every sum gain is good. If one family increases its yearly income from 100K to 130K at the expense of the second family income shrinking from 40K to 20K it is not good even if the sum grows from 140K to 150K.

What is better - to have 5 million dollars and live in Weston, Massachusetts or to have 10 million and live in Bogota, Colombia with bodyguards and many servants?

[John Filson]

What makes you think I'm a Bushbot? You seem to think our war with the islamofascists has no merit. You accused our CINC of lying to pursue a war that has been waged against us for the last 40 years without a proper response. Back up your accusations or get off of this forum. Otherwise, stick to the topic at hand.

[A. Pole]

You seem to think our war with the islamofascists has no merit.

Saddam Hussein was a great tool in fighting "islamofascists". That is why Ronald Reagan supported him.

Tell me, are Islamists happy or unhappy that secularist Baath regime got removed from Baghdad?

[John Filson]

This thread is getting off topic, but I think you should review Reagan's dealings with the mideast. He never properly responded to the Marine barracks bombing. His foot soldiers traded arms to the very Iranian regime that had kidnapped Americans just a few years before -- to secure the release of hostages held by Iranian terrorists in Lebanon.

There is only one way to solve the problems in the Mideast, and at least President Bush has begun it, albeit only visibly in one country.

But let's keep to the subject of trade. One can be "America first" and still support the war against Carthage.

[John Filson]

You sound like an Ayn Rand follower, selfishness not needing controls and whatnot.

[Dat]

So what?

[Toddsterpatriot]

You sound like an Ayn Rand follower, selfishness not needing controls and whatnot.

Why? Because I think asking the government to somehow control greed is naive?

Since Age never answered the question, I'll ask you. How do you control greed?

[John Filson]

Greed is an integral part of nature, but if we rely on it alone or if we ignore its destructive force, we are no better than beasts in the field. Capitalism only works under the rule of law. Adam Smith himself envisioned communities of suppliers and consumers, not a jungle. The law protects business by providing a basis for agreements, which ought to be equitable in order for both parties to prosper. True greed would go above the law, as often it does. I rely on the law to protect myself against greed. There is deterrence and recourse in the law. The law is what sets us free, not our unfettered greed. Of course animals would disagree.

Perhaps you should read up on why capitalism often fails in non-western countries where Christian morals are either diluted or missing. The rule of law is the basis for capitalism, not selfishness.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Greed is an integral part of nature, but if we rely on it alone or if we ignore its destructive force, we are no better than beasts in the field. Capitalism only works under the rule of law. Adam Smith himself envisioned communities of suppliers and consumers, not a jungle. The law protects business by providing a basis for agreements, which ought to be equitable in order for both parties to prosper. True greed would go above the law, as often it does. I rely on the law to protect myself against greed. There is deterrence and recourse in the law. The law is what sets us free, not our unfettered greed. Of course animals would disagree.

Hey, good answer. Now tell me why does free trade equal greed? And why are tariffs somehow the antidote to greed?

[John Filson]

The answer is simple: comparative advantage can fail in three ways. First, a super power needs to be independent. If comparative advantage decreases independence sufficiently, it will lose power. Second, foreign markets may arise that actual intend to reduce the super power's independence. For example, if the Chinese actually do intend to take over the planet, they can provide value in entire market sectors below the true cost. Finally, foreign markets can arise that serve to abuse labor and the environment -- due to the lack of ethical consideration on the part of agents of supply.

If trade exists that damages the super power's independence, and harms the global environment and abuses workers, the consuming country loses in the long run. In effect, it sells out and harms others in the process.

For example, if China is supplying land to factories that produce computer components, and computer component suppliers in America can prove it, they should be able to go to an American trade authority and ask for redress. Lay tariffs on the offending country until it relinquishes its predatory practices. We do this today, but the problem is that we're not aggressive enough in going after China. Why? In short, it's a comedy of errors that culminates in treason.

The Chinese will eat us for dinner if we let them. They're playing in the jungle, and we're trying to be gentlemen. Gentlemen should be strong enough to protect their families. If they don't, they're not gentlemen.

[Toddsterpatriot]

All interesting points, but I thought we were talking about greed?

[John Filson]

We're talking about fair trade, aren't we? If China is intentionally dumping into our markets with the long-term objective of destroying our economy, wouldn't you describe that as greed? After all, once our suppliers are out of business, theirs can raise the price -- at least. In the long run, if enough of our supply sectors are destroyed, we will be vulnerable to more than just economic attack. And wouldn't you agree that when our own economic independence is concerned, we should be willing to establish rules (laws) that govern what we consider fair in international transactions? You do agree that capitalism is only possible under conditions which are governed by the rule of law, don't you?

[Toddsterpatriot]

We're talking about fair trade, aren't we?

You may have been, I wasn't.

If China is intentionally dumping into our markets with the long-term objective of destroying our economy, wouldn't you describe that as greed?

How does selling us cheap stuff destroy us? How is it greedy?

After all, once our suppliers are out of business, theirs can raise the price -- at least.

Yeah, that'd be terrible. You have any examples of that happening yet?

In the long run, if enough of our supply sectors are destroyed, we will be vulnerable to more than just economic attack.

You know we produce more in America than ever before?

And wouldn't you agree that when our own economic independence is concerned, we should be willing to establish rules (laws) that govern what we consider fair in international transactions?

Like Americans paying double the world price for sugar? Hmmmm...sounds like greed.

You do agree that capitalism is only possible under conditions which are governed by the rule of law, don't you?

Who said anything about eliminating rule of law?

[John Filson]

Who said anything about eliminating rule of law?

You seem unwilling to accept tariffs that are intended to enforce or level the playing field. It's really simple, but you keep making excuses to avoid it.

I can't actually believe that you think what the Chinese are doing is innocuous.

Do me a favor and name one major chip fabrication plant in full production here in America.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You seem unwilling to accept tariffs that are intended to enforce or level the playing field.

So, raising the prices Americans pay for goods levels the playing field? Do you want to raise all the prices we pay?

I can't actually believe that you think what the Chinese are doing is innocuous.

When did I ever say that?

Do me a favor and name one major chip fabrication plant in full production here in America.

Are you saying there are none?

[John Filson]

What's wrong with raising the prices Americans pay if we could lose the next world war if we don't? You haven't located a full-production chip fabrication plant yet. Show me.

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's wrong with raising the prices Americans pay if we could lose the next world war if we don't?

So, if the next toy I buy doesn't double in price, we're all gonna die? Or do you have some specific products you want to raise prices on?

You haven't located a full-production chip fabrication plant yet. Show me.

Sorry, not my specialty. Are you saying there are none? You have a link to this claim? Or did you pull it out of the same place you pulled the 50% foreign ownership claim?

[John Filson]

So, if the next toy I buy doesn't double in price, we're all gonna die?

Are you willing to admit that such a situation could exist? I'm still waiting for you to identify the location, ownership, and production rate of a core strategic industry that has been destroyed by offshoring to China.

Show me a major chip fabrication plant in full production on American soil or get off this thread.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you willing to admit that such a situation could exist? I'm still waiting for you to identify the location, ownership, and production rate of a core strategic industry that has been destroyed by offshoring to China.

Sorry, can't think of one. Can you?

Show me a major chip fabrication plant in full production on American soil or get off this thread.

Show me proof that there isn't one. I guess you're trying to make a point?

[John Filson]

You said you didn't know anything about the chip industry. I happen to know that our ability to produce chips here in America has been decimated by offshoring. If we had a world war tomorrow, we might lose it because we are that vulnerable in our inability to manufacture our own command and control devices.

You've lost this argument.