NAFTA Years Later

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Is it your fault that another 3rd world country pays a guy like you 1/10 to do the same job?

Does that mean you would support the US keep manufacturing, etc. jobs from being shifted to Mexican sites?

I think after all these posts you've realized that I am a huge enemy of globalization.

I have no reason to demand the US send its jobs over here. They are welcome but my country needs to learn to survive without them.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Is it my fault if I'm still paying $5,000 for the likes of an IBM PC-AT because protection of manufacturing jobs and thwarting of a competitive marketplace makes me captive to buying overpriced crap in the marketplace?

I worked in Silicon Valley in it's early heyday, when companies most people have now never heard of (Amdahl, Fairchild Semiconductor, Monolithic Memories, Inc. {weird name, that one }) ruled the roost. Going from Silicon Valley mercenary wages to Army wages was a big shock to my wallet.

In the mid-80s, when the US had RAM manufacturing, and the first 256KB (yes, KB, not MB) chips came out, the US imposed a 100% duty against Japanese chips (the Koreans weren't in the market yet), to protect the American industry. The American RAM industry is still gone, and the only effect of the action by the US was to delay adoption of superior technology and increase the price of that adoption, reducing US competitiveness in other areas.

Again, "pick and protect" that's the problem (or rather solution). Looking at the world in the black and white term of protection/free trade is silly. You don't have to go to either extreme. If the RAM industry was better left unprotected because it was inherently weak then let it die, not every country is good at everything. However, what is wrong is not giving the industry a chance, and its also wrong to let it die when the problem is not necessarily inefficient. Again, in economic terms being non-competitive in wages is technically being "inefficient". However, I do not see it that way, then again, I'm a very unconventional economist

As for the rest of the post, I think we generally agree on most things, except we have different ways of expressing things.

G'nite

-MZ

[Master Zen]

Oh and for the record, I'm not a pipope!!!

Not my fault I live in this boring city...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Master Zen
I think after all these posts you've realized that I am a huge enemy of globalization.

Yeah, arguing with a PRDista (I'm assuming, you don't sound like a card-carrying PANista ) is restoring my center-right credentials after my views on the war in Iraq got me lumped in with all the commies.

I have no reason to demand the US send its jobs over here. They are welcome but my country needs to learn to survive without them.

I'd much rather see a pan-Latinamerican trade organisation that looked toward internal development and dealing with the US from a position of parity, rather than the White Man's Burden/Monroe Doctrine crap that's the norm now. Especially with Fox and his constant, non-productive bootlicking of Bush. I don't think most people would mind Fox using his tongue, if it got results, but every time he goes north, he comes away with nothing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Oh and for the record, I'm not a pipope!!!

Not my fault I live in this boring city...

I knew that would get to you sooner or later.

G'nite.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Yeah, arguing with a PRDista (I'm assuming, you don't sound like a card-carrying PANista ) is restoring my center-right credentials after my views on the war in Iraq got me lumped in with all the commies.


I'd much rather see a pan-Latinamerican trade organisation that looked toward internal development and dealing with the US from a position of parity, rather than the White Man's Burden/Monroe Doctrine crap that's the norm now. Especially with Fox and his constant, non-productive bootlicking of Bush. I don't think most people would mind Fox using his tongue, if it got results, but every time he goes north, he comes away with nothing.

I'd agree 110% if that were mathematically possible Such a trade organization (and not just limited to trade but to a common diplomatic front) is what I dream of every day...

PRD!!!

I would never join that party, they are rebelious idiots who have no ****ing clue on how to run a country, just complain and ***** about things and organize riots. Much less PAN who are a bunch of pro-US pro-Catholic elitist lying scum, oh and no words can express the contempt I feel for PRI...

So, that leaves me with no party to identify which, and hence, no party to vote in the next elections (something which I don't plan on doing). So, consider me an "enemy of the state" for all that means, and an enemy of the political system as a whole, not just any party in particular.

For the record, I am a leftist in economic affairs (which is strange since I am studying in a very elitist school) but very much an authoritarian if I were to run this joint. God help us if I ever do...

[DinoDoc]

I don't think most people would mind Fox using his tongue, if it got results, but every time he goes north, he comes away with nothing.

Besides the amnesty/guest worker program (which died due to factors out of his control) he was hoping for, what has wanted that was denied?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran I'd only buy that if they were losing jobs to real inefficiencies and not protectionism or worker exploitation.

We ARE losing jobs to real inefficiencies. The so-called 'worker exploitation' is laughable. Those jobs are better than any other job the people in those countries could get, by far! Sweatshops made many countries rich, including, btw, the US and South Korea (albeit in different centuries).

Get rid of the chaff, and bring in the high productivity jobs. We can't stay in the 1910s, simply to 'save jobs'. The inefficient jobs leave, the efficient ones stay and the US is better off in the end (supposing we actually do real free trade).

[JohnT]

Sloww, your article dealt with people in the telecom industry, not manufacturing. So stop with the blue-collar righteousness act, ok?

Secondly, the article mentions Mexico not a bit, but does speak a bit about India and China, making it's relevence in this NAFTA discussion moot.

Third, the South is now primarily a service based industry, especially GA, AL, TN, NC, VA, SC, and FL. It is a land dominated by office parks, not factories. This South is the one that benefits from NAFTA.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Oerdin

For the most part the 3rd world workers know they have nothing lose and everything to gain so they go along. The protesters who endlessly moan about the world not being a communist utopia and that direct investment hasn't instantly made every place in the world as affluent as Beverly Hills are doing more to harm the world's poor then help them. Every place in the history of the world which has gone from being poor to being rich has gone through the same slow climb out of poverty. The most important thing is to keep good policies in place which encourage trade & investment, discourage corruption, and promote the rule of law. If you do that then the lives of people will improve.

Well said!

[Plan Austral]

Maybe 400 dollars per month is only 1/10 of the salary of an american, but here and in Mexico or Brazil it is a middle class salary.

[SlowwHand]

JohnT, blow it out your ass.
Don't make me point out that manufacturing is manufacturing.
You make it sound like it's all "clean room".


NAFTA sucks.

[Arrian]

Good argument, Sloww. That'll show John.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

I should hope so.

[Plan Austral]

My bad, Slowwhand looks leftist!