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,

[John Filson]

You say America has the strongest economy ever? In the 1950s America was the economy of the world. We made and consumed our own products. Those were real jobs for real people, not the imaginary ones in the shrinking service sector we have now. In the 1950s we still had homesteading in Alaska. Property values were reasonable even in growing areas. You live in a fantasy world if you think America is stronger today economically than it was in 1950. But then again, you'll say anything to keep us in the status quo. That's what you do: shill for the status quo.

[bayourod]

Sorry, but I remember the recession of the late 50's and the stagnation/inflation'price controls of the 60's back before Reagan proved that supply-side economics works.

Say hello to the Beav and June Cleaver in your reminisces..

[Mears]

China!

[John Filson]

You're too young to know better, aren't you?

[bayourod]

"You're too young "

Well I certainly didn't know Hamilton but I'm old enough to have heard numerous men talk about living through the Great Depression brought about by Smoot-Harley and the trade wars.

Protectionism always depresses economic activity.

[John Filson]

You're conveniently forgetting how optimistic the 1950s were. You can measure the economic health of a nation by its birth rate. Native-born American birthrates were very high in the 1950s. Now they're practically negative. Why is that, bayourod? Show me the native-born economic optimism. It's gone missing. You're clueless as to where it's gone, but it's definitely gone. It would be easy to bring it back, but that's not what interests you.

[A. Pole]

Great Depression brought about by Smoot-Harley and the trade wars.

How could it be if the Smoot-Hawley was AFTER Stock Market Crash of 1929?

[A. Pole]

Native-born American birthrates were very high in the 1950s. Now they're practically negative.

As it should be according to the free trade rules. See my tagline.

[John Filson]

The multiculturalists planned it that way.

[bayourod]

It became effective after the crash but was passed before. Economics is influenced by what people believe is going to happen in the future.

[henderson field]

To John Filson - don't blame bayourod. People like him have been told what to think.

[John Filson]

Don't forget that it was Depression survivors who had all those boomer children in those "protectionist 1950s."

[hedgetrimmer]

There are robots, already invented, to mechanically harvest produce and they do it faster, cheaper and as well as human beings.

Some produce, like strawberries have need robotic vision systems to help determine ripeness. Robotic vision systems lagged behind other robotic technologies, but they are now starting to come into their own. Other produce, like olives, oranges and grapes can be harvested mechanically without problems.

Just think if we went to robotic harvesters, we could eliminate one of the lures for illegals, jumpstart a new technology and manufacturing industry and become the world leaders in robotic harvesters.

But thats just too American. In the new global system Americans must are support the rest of the world through illegal labor. The "free trade" system would fall apart if third world countries couldn't include in their negotiations, their excess labor force. And the globalists wouldn't want that would they, now that they are so close to dominating the world via "free trade".

[bayourod]

A poor economy doesn't prevent sex. And we didn't have the pill in the 50s.

[John Filson]

On the contrary - he's here to tell us what to think.

[John Filson]

Why would optimistic Americans choose to use the pill if they believed that their children had a future? And how about their incessant resort to abortion? Is that natural, too? Do you really believe optimistic people would abort all those millions of children?

[bayourod]

"Show me the native-born economic optimism. It's gone missing. You're clueless as to where it's gone, but it's definitely gone."

Consumer confidence is very high right now according to the latest numbers released this last week.

And you're right, when optimism goes someplace I don't know where it goes. Probably someplace up North.

[hedgetrimmer]

According to Senator Hollings, in a statement to congress in 1990, the American economy was deemed too strong by many foreign interests. So they opted to create a system of "free trade" which wasn't in his words, about cheaper prices, but to force America to accept "dumping" of their cheaper goods on American markets.

He commented in his testimony that the foreign interests created an organization that would include Americans that was expressly set up to influence the government to let down any trade protections, or tariffs that existed, and give them full reign to kill off American manufacturing capabilities so foreign interests could take over our markets.


These comments were made during the presentation to Congress of the AIR TRAVEL RIGHTS FOR BLIND INDIVIDUALS ACT (Senate - June 08, 1990). The text is available through thomas.loc.gov

When you hear "Free traders" deriding tariffs, even though historically tariffs helped to bring the American economy to superpower status, you will know where their political philosophy is derived. From foreign governments and foreign manufacturers and American multinationals who created a variety of organizations to achieve their goal of robbing Americans of their national economy and give it away to the world.

[bayourod]

"Why would optimistic Americans choose to use the pill if they believed that their children had a future?"

Because we're selfish. We are remaining single in increasing numbers to later ages so that we can enjoy our many new toys, sensual pleasures and leisure time created by the longest period of prosperity in our history.

Both my grandmothers were married at age 13 and each had over ten children. Neither one ever went para-sailing in Cancun though.