Posted on 07/03/2005 6:00:20 PM PDT by 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,
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Oh, just those jobs disappearing in Mexico . . .
Well, Ross was half right.
"There are times when you have to "think outside the box" especially what has worked before doesn't anymore. "
What isn't working? Things have never been better. Except perhaps in California where, despite a robust economy, their screwed up socialism and liberalism is causing problems unique to them.
Not nearly as many times as people have posted that picture of an old barbed wire fence and claimed it was the border fence.
Does anyone doubt that my picture is a legitimate photo of the fences (plural) in the San Diego sector and that it has failed to prevent people from crossing illegally?
When I was a child I believed Peter Pan when he said that, but when grew up I discovered reality.
19th century America was largely agrarian, and we were NOT, I repeat NOT the richest nation on the planet. We didn't emerge as an economic superpower until well into the 20th century.
How can you say America wasn't the richest nation on the planet? Wealth is in intellectual potential. It's in mineral deposits. It's in the ability to obtain what one seeks. America had that. We were agrarian and we were a frontier nation. We ended that artificially by halting homesteading in 1968. It was the belief that our expansion would continue that brought on the children. It was leadership that helped us to realize that belief that gave them wealth to acquire and reinvest.
Great speech! It's as if we were at a sleepy pub in colonial America, and you stood up and gave a toast to what America was to be all about. I think you made my 4th of July weekend with that reply.
You're mistaken. The stock market crashed on October 29, 1929 and Smoot-Hawley gained final passage in the Senate on June 13, 1930 by a slim 44 to 42 margin. Following is an excerpt from http://www.eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=obrien.hawley-smoot.tariff/A>:
The Republicans did well in the 1928 election, picking up 30 seats in the House -- giving them a 267 to 167 majority -- and seven seats in the Senate -- giving them a 56 to 39 majority. Hoover easily defeated the Democratic presidential candidate, New York Governor Al Smith, capturing 58 percent of the popular vote and 444 of 531 votes in the Electoral College. Hoover took office on March 4, 1929 and immediately called a special session of Congress to convene on April 15 for the purpose of raising duties on agricultural products. Once the session began it became clear, however, that the Republican Congressional leadership had in mind much more sweeping tariff increases.
The House concluded its work relatively quickly and passed a bill on May 28 by a vote of 264 to 147. The bill faced a considerably more difficult time in the Senate. A block of Progressive Republicans, representing midwestern and western states, held the balance of power in the Senate. Some of these Senators had supported the third-party candidacy of Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette during the 1924 presidential election and they were much less protectionist than the Republican Party as a whole. It proved impossible to put together a majority in the Senate to pass the bill and the special session ended in November 1929 without a bill being passed.
By the time Congress reconvened the following spring the Great Depression was well underway. Economists date the onset of the Great Depression to the cyclical peak of August 1929, although the stock market crash of October 1929 is the more traditional beginning. By the spring of 1930 it was already clear that the downturn would be severe. The impact of the Depression helped to secure the final few votes necessary to put together a slim majority in the Senate in favor of passage of the bill. Final passage in the Senate took place on June 13, 1930 by a vote of 44 to 42. Final passage took place in the House the following day by a vote of 245 to 177. The vote was largely on party lines. Republicans in the House voted 230 to 27 in favor of final passage. Ten of the 27 Republicans voting no were Progressives from Wisconsin and Minnesota. Democrats voted 150 to 15 against final passage. Ten of the 15 Democrats voting for final passage were from Louisiana or Florida and represented citrus or sugar interests that received significant new protection under the bill.
At your celebration tomorrow, remember America and Americans to your family and guests. Independence day is the day to cheer, drink to, and praise those who cherish with all their heart the gifts granted to us by our creator, which are life and liberty, and our property, which each and every one of us must protect for ourselves and our fellow Americans. It is a time to renew our commitment to these principles, and to pledge to live them daily.
As I recall from many years ago the Europeans started raising tariffs in anticipation of the passage of Smoot Hawley and that hurt U.S. exports and caused the stock panic.
Why should it be our problem to control Mexico's citizens?
Our problem is with the Mexican government.
THEY should control their citizens.
If your neighbor's kids trash your backyard, do you build a higher fence, or do you have a talk with their parents while presenting them with a bill for the damages?
Castro does a much better job of keeping his citizens inside his borders.
So did East Berlin.
So it can be done.
The United States should refuse to trade with Mexico until Mexico keeps its citizens in Mexico.
And how many millions of Americans would that put out of jobs?
Thank God we have a representative democracy instead of a direct one.
England maneuvered to keep the American Colonies from manufacturing anything themselves.
So that the Colonies would always be dependent on England for manufactured goods.
And now the elites consider the nation state as obsolete and inefficient--an obstacle to greater profits.
And it will be if we let them bamboozle us out of it.
Whether America makes or loses money, is not as important as losing independence.
Show me the math, scare monger.
You're one of the few people who can see the relationship between the rise of globalization/free trade and the necessity to abolish the Second Amendment and all vestiges of private firearm ownership.
And don't believe for a minute that that strategy is confined to Hitlery and the Commie-libs.
Refusing to trade with Mexico would put millions of Americans out of work?
You should be glad,
All those people looking for work would solve the labor shortage you were complaining about: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435908/posts
And without having to import more immigrants.
Simple.
[[George Herbert Walker Bush was president at the time, so essentially you wasted all those allusions to Clinton.]]
You are partially right. My mistake. Bush was president but my assessment of Clinton was right on the money. Does that bother you?
Good thought, and I'll include Bishop Sheen while I'm at it!
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.