Thread: Mexicans will march against NAFTA on Jan. 31

PARTIAL TRANSLATION FROM:
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/473088.html

About ten rural organizations called today for a national mobilization on the 31 of January, to require the Government of president Felipe Calderon the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

"We expect at least to double the number of four years ago, when there was more than 100 thousand members in a great rural mobilization", said in press conference José Narro, representative of the National Coordination of Plan Ayala.

Here's an example of an IA apologist using the NAFTA theory:
Pre NAFTA, Mexico was self-sufficient on food production, particularly corn, which is a staple in the Mexican diet.
Within 2 yrs of NAFTA implementation, taxpayer-subsidized corn from the U.S. was selling in Mexico for less than Mexican subsistance farmers could grow it. Result was the obvious one.
Hundreds of subsistance farmers in Mexico were forced to give it up, and Mexico's "corn belt" (Tepotzotlan region) has been devastated, economically.
"Not surprising then that hundreds of thousands of poor Mexican farmers migrate northwards (first) to the border region where all those US industry plants initially went, seeking employment. And then when those shut down, or all the jobs are taken, then continue north into the U.S. seeking an income with which to feed their families...

I was a believer in NAFTA back in the '90s, but as time has gone on, I've come to believe there are good and bad points both for and against these free trade agreements. But in balance, I think they are more trouble than they are worth. They do great things for the corporate bottom line, but achieve this by driving down living standards to the lowest possible standard, forcing us all to compete for an every-lower living standard. Unless you are one of those at the top of the corporate ladder, of course!"
On the "Calderon: NAFTA has benefited Mexico" thread I cite a Wikipedia article which does indeed bear out Cladderon's claim. Economic conditions have been improving in Mexico since NAFTA. So the argument that we should make a way for "displaced" farmers to settle in the US is a red herring.

Before NAFTA Mexico placed heavy tariffs on US corn exports, because their farmers could not compete. This led to the US seeking to faciltate its own corn exports. Free Trade Agreements are very common throughout Latin America. Mexico picked up jobs in the border areas, but these companies eventually went after even cheaper labor further south. The unemployed Mexicans then crossed the US border. Essentially, they displaced themselves when the businesses moved their facilities, even though there was an unmet demand for secondary agricultural products from the corn farms they had previously left.

Control your population, Mexico!

Will they be demonstrating in our streets with their flags....again, or will
they actually do this in Mexico?

They will march in Mexico city on January 31, 2008. If our borders stay open, they will march in 2009 in Los Angeles and Chicago demanding amnesty.

I believe the dumping of subsidized corn had something to do with many coming here. That doesn't make it right and whether or not they could have done more in their own country we don't know. But it did have an effect and some came here with a mad on and blaming all Americans for it.

Nafta - I don' t see it has been good for anyone.

If MExico's workers are better - I might suggest that shoving 30 million of their poor and criminals onto the US, cutting back on competition and crime, and sending back money second only the oil income into the country might have had more to do with it than NAFTA.

Then of course, we could also consider the money their drug trade pours into the economy - and don't forget, our foreign aid to Mexico -

I hope they march in Mexico against their own government.

Remember, these are the people who are evidently staying in Mexico.

Well, at least we can agree that NAFTA sux. I wonder if we can get a protest going on this side of the border, showing dissatisfication on both sides.

But it will probably be the typical Rage Against the Machine commie crowd doing it unfortunately

IF THEY WANT TO PROTEST NAFTA, THAT IT OK WITH ME. JUST LET THEM DO IT ON THEIR SIDE OF THE BORDER.

Yes, on their side. We should be doing the same.

EVERYONE should protest against NAFTA because nearly NOBODY benefits from it except GREEDY big business!

I believe the dumping of subsidized corn had something to do with many coming here. That doesn't make it right and whether or not they could have done more in their own country we don't know. But it did have an effect and some came here with a mad on and blaming all Americans for it.

I wish I could provide a link for the Wikipedia article but my editing feature is somehow not working. Do a Google search: Wikipedia+NAFTA

Yes, US corn farmers are subsidized and yes, I suppose it could be called "dumpimg." But the reality according to this article is that US corn farmers are on the average 4X as efficient (productive) as their counterparts in Mexico. US farmers want to sell their product. The only way that Mexico could withstand the better competition was to impose a tariff(s) on the US product. NAFTA eliminated these tariffs.

But what the article goes on to say is that Mexico still needs a lot more corn than it can produce, so they accept imports from the US. Further it says that there is a great"downstream" demand for corn products. I think this means that there are industries that can refine the corn product: corn oil, corn syrup?? So it sounds like there are jobs and that they do need the corn imports. But if you go back prior to NAFTA, yes Mexican peasants wrere being displaced so they moved into the maquiladora industries on the border. Then these businesses moved out leaving the peasants further jobless, hence a panicked exodus into the US.
The article also says that Mexico should have invested more into its infrastructure, was expected to, but didn't. So it didn't develop other industries.
Maybe I should transfer the whole article over, since I can't link it.