Thread: Calderon: NAFTA has benefited Mexico!

PARTIAL TRANSLATION FROM:

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/01/08/i ... e=003n1pol

"The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has been beneficial for Mexico with all the natural convenient and objections of an agreement of this nature. Besides it has brought formal employment and even better paid salaries for the linked sectors, the Mexican president Felipe Calderon responded to the rural organizations and to the politicians that demand its review."

If you read between the lines, Calderon is saying: "NAFTA has made me and my fat cat friends very rich, while it has created more poverty in Mexico, Jorge Bush will take them in and give them Amnesty in America.

Of course NAFTA has benefits mexico. Up until nafta, the US had a trade surplus with mexico. Since nafta, we have had a trade deficit. Sure sounds like they benefited from it to me.

Calderon talks just like a lawyer, or an insurance company. Hard to make out what he is saying in that word salad....Mexican manufacturing wages DE-creased because of NAFTA. I think by 20%. NAFTA helped nobody except the elite in the US and Mexico.

Originally Posted by sippy

Of course NAFTA has benefits mexico. Up until nafta, the US had a trade surplus with mexico. Since nafta, we have had a trade deficit. Sure sounds like they benefited from it to me.

I think we had a small, managable trade deficit with Mexico prior to NAFTA, but the agreement made our trade deficit increase NINE-FOLD. And it directly caused the loss of almost 1 million American manufacturing jobs.

I don't know if the typical arguments raised against NAFTA are valid i.e. 1. We forced it upon them 2. It has destroyed farming jobs in Mexico 3. We must tolerate the influx of Mexican peasants who are unemployed because of NAFTA.

These arguments are raised by OBL sympathizers ( I hear them all the time from IA apologists) but, assuming that Wikipedia is an unbiased source of info, their arguments may be bogus. Here's why:
1. If Mexico was forced to accept NAFTA why have they entered into forty (40) other free trade agreements with other Latin American countries?
2. Agricultural output has increased in Mexico since NAFTA
3. Mexico set the stage for NAFTA by slapping tariffs on imports of US corn
4. General employment is up in Mexico since NAFTA began.

From Wikipedia:
Most [economists] agree that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise, even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis. Nonetheless, the majority agree that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence[12] (which is hardly surprising given the initial economic disparity between Mexico and the United States/Canada), nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture.

The bottom line (and the Wikipedia article spells this out clearly) is that Mexican corn producers were way outstripped by US farmers, and cried foul. We won fair and square, but they barred our imports.
The high unemployment in Mexico is due to high birthrates, not to NAFTA. A high birthrate is their problem not ours!

Again, from Wikipedia:
The overall effect of the Mexico-U.S. agricultural agreement is a matter of dispute. Some argue that the effects have been devastating to peasants, given that Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition (such as efficient railroads and highways). Still, the causes of rural poverty cannot be directly attributed to NAFTA; in fact, Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4% annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9% a year during the same period.[13]

In fact, production of corn in Mexico has actually increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated.[14] Zahniser & Coyle have also pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, yet through a program of direct income transfer (a subsidy) expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.[15] The logical result of a lower commodity price is that more use of it is made downstream. Unfortunately, many of the same rural people who would have been likely to produce higher-margin value-added products in Mexico have instead emigrated. The rise in corn prices due to increased ethanol demand may improve the situation of corn farmers in Mexico.

Originally Posted by Captainron

I don't know if the typical arguments raised against NAFTA are valid i.e. 1. We forced it upon them 2. It has destroyed farming jobs in Mexico 3. We must tolerate the influx of Mexican peasants who are unemployed because of NAFTA.

These arguments are raised by OBL sympathizers ( I hear them all the time from IA apologists) but, assuming that Wikipedia is an unbiased source of info, their arguments may be bogus. Here's why:
1. If Mexico was forced to accept NAFTA why have they entered into forty (40) other free trade agreements with other Latin American countries?
2. Agricultural output has increased in Mexico since NAFTA
3. Mexico set the stage for NAFTA by slapping tariffs on imports of US corn
4. General employment is up in Mexico since NAFTA began.

From Wikipedia:
Most [economists] agree that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise, even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis. Nonetheless, the majority agree that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence[12] (which is hardly surprising given the initial economic disparity between Mexico and the United States/Canada), nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture.

The bottom line (and the Wikipedia article spells this out clearly) is that Mexican corn producers were way outstripped by US farmers, and cried foul. We won fair and square, but they barred our imports.
The high unemployment in Mexico is due to high birthrates, not to NAFTA. A high birthrate is their problem not ours!

Again, from Wikipedia:
The overall effect of the Mexico-U.S. agricultural agreement is a matter of dispute. Some argue that the effects have been devastating to peasants, given that Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition (such as efficient railroads and highways). Still, the causes of rural poverty cannot be directly attributed to NAFTA; in fact, Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4% annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9% a year during the same period.[13]

In fact, production of corn in Mexico has actually increased since NAFTA's implementation. However, internal corn demand has increased beyond Mexico's sufficiency, and imports have become necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico had originally negotiated.[14] Zahniser & Coyle have also pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, yet through a program of direct income transfer (a subsidy) expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production has remained stable since 2000.[15] The logical result of a lower commodity price is that more use of it is made downstream. Unfortunately, many of the same rural people who would have been likely to produce higher-margin value-added products in Mexico have instead emigrated. The rise in corn prices due to increased ethanol demand may improve the situation of corn farmers in Mexico.

Excellent analysis.

captainron wrote:

The high unemployment in Mexico is due to high birthrates, not to NAFTA. A high birthrate is their problem not ours!

Mexico needs to supply free birth control to its citizens and quit building Mexican Consulates in the US. Their high birthrate is our problem because they come here to have their children or move here with their families..

In 2001 President Fox had 200,000 survival kits made for those illegally entering the US. The kit included:
The survival kits being given to Mexicans planning to cross the border will include anti-diarrhea medicine, bandages, aspirin, acetaminophen (Tylenol), medicine for snake and scorpion bites, powder to prevent dehydration, water, salt, dry meat, tuna and granola.
In addition, women's kits will have 25 birth control pills, while men will get 25 condoms.
As part of the same program, the government will train hundreds of volunteers among the population who immigrate illegally each year in first aid and emergency health care. They will be given surgical soap, sutures for sewing wounds, thermometers, gauze, cotton and other implements to treat common medical problems suffered on the road.

Birth control supply for 25 days! After in US, reproduce!

In addition to distributing medicine and equipping some emigrants to administer first aid, the government also is distributing a list of California health clinics that do not require a Social Security number to receive treatment. Tuberculosis sufferers will be given a card that documents their last doctor visits so they can continue treatment in California.

Finally, the program will hold seminars in which recipients of the kits are taught about good nutrition, how to use the included medicines and condoms, and techniques to combat depression and anxieties that come with leaving family and friends behind and arriving illegally in an English-speaking nation.

Entire article at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 200449.DTL

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Come on, Calderon--NAFTA benefited only BIG brass like YOU, and NOT your AVERAGE Mexican, or average AMERICAN or CANADIAN, for THAT matter!

NAFTA has benefitted only the rich in both countries.

Yes, American farmers outstripped the Mexican farmers, that's not saying much.

The fact is, tariff or no, American farmers are heavily subsidized and according to the accounts I have read actually were able to dump cheaper corn into Mexico, putting a lot of poor small farmers out of business.

That doesn't mean it is OK to come to the US illegally - I'm not saying that. But we have to understand what is going on here.

The same thing is happening with Wal Mart and Costco. If any of you remember what it was like to have a small town and be able to go to town and purchase clothing, shoes, linens, dishes, whatever you needed. Then remember those empty buildings when Wal Mart came to town or just to a down near you.

Mexican merchants are much smaller merchants than Americans were. In their communities will be small mom and pop stores - some even in homes. These are being put out of business by Wal Mart. Where do they go? To America, I guess. We wonder how they can come here and start up a business - it's because that's what they did in Mexico - before Wal Mart.

Be angry with the illegals, with Mexico, but also be angry with our government that has perpetrated this on us and them.

We might need to brace outselves for what is coming when big, subsidized agribusiness starts putting small Peruvian farmers out of work.