View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:23 am Post subject: How Mexico has fared due to its FTA agreement |
|
|
Sorry, no easy pronouncements here. You've either got the reading and reasoning skills, or you don't-
http://www.kent.ac.uk/politics/carc/reading%20group/Mercille%20-%20Narco%20Cartels%20or%20US%20Hegemony_Oct%202011.pdf
NAFTA and neoliberal reforms have increased the size of the drugs industry by involving more Mexicans in it for two reasons: in order to find work and out of desperation. The consequences of neoliberalisation for the majority of Mexico�s population have largely been negative. NAFTA has failed to generate job growth and increase wages�the average wage in Jua� rez, for example, dropped from $4.50 a day to $3.70. True, the manufacturing sector has added some 500 000 to 600 000 net jobs since NAFTA went into effect, but this has been offset by a loss of about 2.3 million jobs in the agricultural sector caused by cheaper imports of corn from subsidised US agrobusinesses. Farmers were forced to abandon their land and migrate to the US or move to the cities in Mexico along the US border, where they became cheap labour for US manufacturing businesses (maquiladoras). Because maquiladoras mostly assemble imported components and immediately re-export finished products, few linkages have been generated with the Mexican domestic economy, creating few employment opportunities.
Additionally, other articles have pointed out that the type of jobs generated in the manufacturing sector are mostly working for US multinationals (i.e. maquiladoras) for dirt cheap salaries, which has also motivated people to simply start getting into the more lucrative drug trade. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe if the Mexican government would do their fair share of "Drug Enforcement" then it wouldn't be such a problem.
You can't blame NAFTA for the government turning a blind eye to drugs in their country. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^Exactly one of the misconceptions the paper examines.
You obviously haven't read it  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
adzee1
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pkang0202 wrote: |
Maybe if the Mexican government would do their fair share of "Drug Enforcement" then it wouldn't be such a problem.
You can't blame NAFTA for the government turning a blind eye to drugs in their country. |
A typically narrow minded comment from someone who has probably never been to Mexico or has just watched too much US ( we are the heroes they are the drug dealing scum ) media...
Maybe if the US did there fair share of gun control, and the citizens reduced their drug intake so they are not the worlds number 1 consumer, then the drug war would not have claimed so many lives.
NAFTA in many senses is pure exploitation, the lower standard agricultural products that have forced many farmers out of business do not benefit anyone except for the large agro-businesses in the US. When in doubt blame the Mexicans I guess... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pedrotaves
Joined: 02 Mar 2011
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
pkang0202

Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dave Chance wrote: |
^^Exactly one of the misconceptions the paper examines.
You obviously haven't read it  |
I read your initial post and didn't feel the need to read the make-believe journalism that is inside that article.
Free trade is good. NAFTA has benefits for all countries. Free Trade doesn't mean all countries win all the time. Some things will get better. Other things won't. But the overall NET is better for all parties. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
adzee1
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pkang0202 wrote: |
Dave Chance wrote: |
^^Exactly one of the misconceptions the paper examines.
You obviously haven't read it  |
I read your initial post and didn't feel the need to read the make-believe journalism that is inside that article.
|
Oh dear.. Make believe journalism ? Did you even glance at the paper and see that it is an academic paper and not journalism as such? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
MoneyMike
Joined: 03 Dec 2008
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think free trade with America would help countries a lot more if it actually was free trade. The amount of subsidies America pumps into things like it's agriculture industry is crazy.
America has always wanted to have it both ways. Access to others markets while blocking access to their own any way they can. (obviously this is not true of every product, but its true for quite a few) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lets get real here, free trade is anything but actually free and equal. It is, like most trade agreements based on the relative power of member nations. In this case the US was the dominant partner in NAFTA. No shock there. As such, they negociated a system that they favors them. As was said, they do all sorts of things to benefit from the "free" trade while protecting their domestic economy. The softwood lumber issue with Canada is a prime example.
As for Mexico, well it is a country with numerous social issues of its own but it appears to be getting better economically. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
Lets get real here, free trade is anything but actually free and equal. It is, like most trade agreements based on the relative power of member nations. In this case the US was the dominant partner in NAFTA. No shock there. As such, they negociated a system that they favors them. As was said, they do all sorts of things to benefit from the "free" trade while protecting their domestic economy. The softwood lumber issue with Canada is a prime example.
As for Mexico, well it is a country with numerous social issues of its own but it appears to be getting better economically. |
Part of the point of the paper (as well as the video) is to show how this doesn't appear to be the case. On the contrary, things look to be getting worse, an assessment seconded by a Mexican acquaintance of mine. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dave Chance wrote: |
PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
Lets get real here, free trade is anything but actually free and equal. It is, like most trade agreements based on the relative power of member nations. In this case the US was the dominant partner in NAFTA. No shock there. As such, they negociated a system that they favors them. As was said, they do all sorts of things to benefit from the "free" trade while protecting their domestic economy. The softwood lumber issue with Canada is a prime example.
As for Mexico, well it is a country with numerous social issues of its own but it appears to be getting better economically. |
Part of the point of the paper (as well as the video) is to show how this doesn't appear to be the case. On the contrary, things look to be getting worse, an assessment seconded by a Mexican acquaintance of mine. |
This article is a bit long, and there isn't any one part in particular worth quoting, but it offers counterpoints and is worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Dave Chance
Joined: 30 May 2011
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
northway wrote: |
Dave Chance wrote: |
PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
Lets get real here, free trade is anything but actually free and equal. It is, like most trade agreements based on the relative power of member nations. In this case the US was the dominant partner in NAFTA. No shock there. As such, they negociated a system that they favors them. As was said, they do all sorts of things to benefit from the "free" trade while protecting their domestic economy. The softwood lumber issue with Canada is a prime example.
As for Mexico, well it is a country with numerous social issues of its own but it appears to be getting better economically. |
Part of the point of the paper (as well as the video) is to show how this doesn't appear to be the case. On the contrary, things look to be getting worse, an assessment seconded by a Mexican acquaintance of mine. |
This article is a bit long, and there isn't any one part in particular worth quoting, but it offers counterpoints and is worth a read: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/07/06/world/americas/immigration.html. |
I can go along with the assertion that things have inevitably gotten better in certain areas of Mexico.
However, the overall trends outlined in detail in the academic paper, and again what a native from there has to say, plus the reporter's first-hand accounts in the Youtube link (we needn't even mention the slew of atrocities reported happening since the NYT's article was published) overshadow and paint a very different picture indeed.
It goes without saying that US officials would like to seal as many FTA-type agreements globally as possible...when they wanted war in Vietnam a US president was assasinated and a false flag incident fabricated...article in any major US daily?...piece of cake, brother |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
The claims are preposterous that NAFTA has contributed significantly to Mexico's drug problems.
Let's not forget that Mexico is a member of the OECD. The author's repitition of "neoliberalism" and "US hegemony" treat what is actually a developed country very condescendingly. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
adzee1
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For some people the economy is getting better and on the whole is growing in many sectors, and for others its getting worse. I am married to a Mexican and have spent over 4 years of my life living and travelling in Mexico, I worked in a school where i taught many children who are the family of narco traffickers, which was an enlightening experience to say the least and it was commonly known throughout the school who they were and what their parents did.
The current generation of my wifes family who are mostly college educated, are in a much better situation economically compared to the previous generation many of whom are also college educated so in a sense I think the economy has improved. There are more opportunities now and those opportunities have started to pay much better in recent years. One of the problems which is touched on in the report is that people in some Northern states such as Sinaloa, Sonora who have up until recent generations largely made a living from farming, dont have the large cities and economic opportunities that people in the large cities have and so making fast money is appealing to them as its a way of raising their status and gaining respect.
I am not saying this is entirely NAFTA`s fault but I think it has contributed to it by destroying the livelihood of many small farmers, and with the rise in popular media which shows them what they can have by making lots of money.
With regards to the cartels and crime however there is still corruption at all levels of police and government and this will not stop for a long time, the one thing about it though its that it is quite transparent, everyone is so used to it and many people use it to their advantage or just simply accept it. The corruption on the US side regarding the flow of guns and drugs is not so transparent and many people would rather believe its just a Mexican problem when infact it isnt.
Someone mentioned about " Mexicos drug problem" and I like to point out that on the whole Mexico has lower drug consumption rates as a populace than the US and the UK. It doesnt have the same level of recreational drug culture that the US and UK have.
Yes it has a problem but that problem mainly lies in the battle to supply the lucrative drug market north of the border and since the " war on drugs" started the cartels have multiplied and become more violent than before. Before this Calderon and US led campaign started of course the cartels existed but they operated quietly and with far less violence. Bribery existed on a larger scale and people kept their activities and profits flowing which is of course morally wrong, but Mexico was a much more peaceful place to be.
If the war on the cartels is won the activity will simply move to other countries such as Honduras, Guatemala etc.. Which is already happening as we speak, while there is demand there will always be someone willing to supply. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|