FOX says Mexicans in the US do the work blacks don't want.......

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


The explosion of the AIDS epidemic is the one I can most obviously think of.

Oh, that little thingy?





pfffft

[GePap]

Honestly



If you can give a shred of reputable evidence (from some epidimiologists, NOT anti-immigration activists) for your assertion, do it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whoha

"1985 and 1992"
What important, and note worthy events happened in that time frame?

You are likely thinking of 1982 and 1995 since both were times when Mexico defaulted on its national debt and the country's economy virtually crashed. Both time the US acted as the lender of last resort in order to get the Mexican economy moving again. Countries like Argentina aren't so fortunate to be so close to a wealthy neighbor who could help them out.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/MEXICOEXTN/0,,menuPK:338407~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:338397,00.html

Mexico is in dead doing better since NAFTA was signed. Unemployment is down, tax reciepts are up, Per Capita GDP is up, balance of trade is much better, and the poverty rate has indeed declined modestly. Mexico still suffers from a 50% poverty rate but that's better then the 60% per NAFTA.

Unemployment has worsened in the last 2 years and the official data is a huge ruse since the national statistical agency grossly understates it (many people have recently called for a a more accurate methodology in reporting uemployment). I have numerous friends who have failed to find jobs after college and this coming from one of the most prestigious private universities in Latin America. God forbid we graduated from a public one.

Secondly, GDP per capita is up in the nominal sense, it is not up in the real sense and it is hardly up in purchasing power. Like I mentioned before, purchasing power has not yet reached its 1982 levels. That means much more than any numerical increase in GDP.

Also regarding poverty, it has not declined at all, it's been at 50% even before NAFTA. Problem is income inequality, and Mexico has gained a few decimal points on the Gini scale ever since NAFTA came into effect. The rural areas, which the area directly related to my line of work have been considerably worse off since NAFTA.

NAFTA has sadly only benefited foreign multinationals, and the modern sector of the Mexican economy which is capable and skilled enough to take advantage of export possibilities. This sector is, however, a minority, compared to the total employed population. NAFTA wiped out the small domestic industry sector (this is a documented fact) which was the major employer and now threatenes to wipe out the rural sector by 2008 when all agricultural barriers are set to be dropped.

Of course if a certain country stoped massively subsidizing its agro sector we could at least claim to have been defeated by an opponent who fought fair.

Seriously, don't believe the hype that the WB and the IMF preach. They like to paint Mexico as a success story since free trade and market opening is their main political and ideological drive. The reality on the ground is very different and I see it all too often in my visits to the poor rural towns around here. Tell any Mexican or anyone else who lives here (ask MichaeltheGreat for example) and they'll only confirm what I say.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You are likely thinking of 1982 and 1995 since both were times when Mexico defaulted on its national debt and the country's economy virtually crashed. Both time the US acted as the lender of last resort in order to get the Mexican economy moving again. Countries like Argentina aren't so fortunate to be so close to a wealthy neighbor who could help them out.

No, he is thinking 85 and 92 because Whoha is trying to assert that illegal immigrants are responsible for an upserge in Tuberculosis cases, an assertion he has decided to make free of evidence.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin

You are likely thinking of 1982 and 1995 since both were times when Mexico defaulted on its national debt and the country's economy virtually crashed. Both time the US acted as the lender of last resort in order to get the Mexican economy moving again. Countries like Argentina aren't so fortunate to be so close to a wealthy neighbor who could help them out.

Mexico's 1995 crisis was not debt related, it was a combination of exchange rate and portafolio-investment crisis. The debt had nothing to do with it. The 40 billion bailout was used for monetary purposes to re-stabilize the economy and it was paid off in just a few years. Argentina's 2001 crisis WAS debt related on the other hand since the debt burden relative to GDP in Argentina is incalculably worse than Mexico's.

[Whoha]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11147986&dopt=Abstract

heres the 1993-1998 data. It seems my hyperbole was wrong, and that the foreign born population accounts for only 43% of all cases.

[Dinner]

Of course if a certain country stoped massively subsidizing its agro sector we could at least claim to have been defeated by an opponent who fought fair.

I'd love to get rid of them. I hate farmers since all they ever seem to do is whine that they aren't getting enough free money. The US actually ended all farm subsidies for three years because we had an informal agreement with the EU; the EU claimed that they wanted to eliminate farm subsidies but they couldn't do it unless the US eliminated their's first. The US stupidly eliminated its subsidies then the EU INCREASED its subsisides. In short order the US got back into the farm subsidy business.

IF the EU would have honored the agreement in 1997 then there would be no farm subsidies today.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Unemployment has worsened in the last 2 years and the official data is a huge ruse since the national statistical agency grossly understates it (many people have recently called for a a more accurate methodology in reporting uemployment). I have numerous friends who have failed to find jobs after college and this coming from one of the most prestigious private universities in Latin America. God forbid we graduated from a public one.

Secondly, GDP per capita is up in the nominal sense, it is not up in the real sense and it is hardly up in purchasing power. Like I mentioned before, purchasing power has not yet reached its 1982 levels. That means much more than any numerical increase in GDP.

Also regarding poverty, it has not declined at all, it's been at 50% even before NAFTA. Problem is income inequality, and Mexico has gained a few decimal points on the Gini scale ever since NAFTA came into effect. The rural areas, which the area directly related to my line of work have been considerably worse off since NAFTA.

NAFTA has sadly only benefited foreign multinationals, and the modern sector of the Mexican economy which is capable and skilled enough to take advantage of export possibilities. This sector is, however, a minority, compared to the total employed population. NAFTA wiped out the small domestic industry sector (this is a documented fact) which was the major employer and now threatenes to wipe out the rural sector by 2008 when all agricultural barriers are set to be dropped.

Of course if a certain country stoped massively subsidizing its agro sector we could at least claim to have been defeated by an opponent who fought fair.

Seriously, don't believe the hype that the WB and the IMF preach. They like to paint Mexico as a success story since free trade and market opening is their main political and ideological drive. The reality on the ground is very different and I see it all too often in my visits to the poor rural towns around here. Tell any Mexican or anyone else who lives here (ask MichaeltheGreat for example) and they'll only confirm what I say.

Insightful post, Zen. But here, the rules are that you're not allowed to use facts for your arguments.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11147986&dopt=Abstract

heres the 1993-1998 data. It seems my hyperbole was wrong, and that the foreign born population accounts for only 43% of all cases.

From your data:

During 1993-1998, the TB case rate was 32.9 per 100000 population in foreign-born persons compared with 5.8 per 100000 in US-born persons. Six states reported 73.4% of foreign-born cases (California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois). Approximately two thirds of these cases were originally from Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, China, Haiti, and South Korea.

So its poor immigrants, legal or not, who are liekly to develop TB, specially if they are latent carriers, since being a bacteria, you can't really vaccinate against TB.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Mexico's 1995 crisis was not debt related, it was a combination of exchange rate and portafolio-investment crisis. The debt had nothing to do with it. The 40 billion bailout was used for monetary purposes to re-stabilize the economy and it was paid off in just a few years. Argentina's 2001 crisis WAS debt related on the other hand since the debt burden relative to GDP in Argentina is incalculably worse than Mexico's.

That's mostly correct. I was reading an economist article recently which explained "the tequila crisis" as it is called which was caused by Meixco running a 7% of GDP current account deficit while tring to maintain a fixed peso to dollar ration. Mexico's central bank ran out of hard currrency to buy pesos with (in an attempt to prop up the peso's value) and the currency dropped by 50%. The next problem was all of Mexico's debt was in dollar denominations which effectively doubled since Mexico had to use pesos to buy dollars.

The US gave Mexico bridging loans and refinanced much of Mexico's national debt to prevent a full on default. So it appears you were mostly correct while I mixed up the major and minor causes of the crisis.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3524948

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by MrFun
Insightful post, Zen. But here, the rules are that you're not allowed to use facts for your arguments.

[Whoha]

It isn't possible to vaccinate against it, but from your links it seems that we can test for it,even the latent infections. And we can definately prevent the spread of the disease.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'd love to get rid of them. I hate farmers since all they ever seem to do is whine that they aren't getting enough free money. The US actually ended all farm subsidies for three years because we had an informal agreement with the EU; the EU claimed that they wanted to eliminate farm subsidies but they couldn't do it unless the US eliminated their's first. The US stupidly eliminated its subsidies then the EU INCREASED its subsisides. In short order the US got back into the farm subsidy business.

IF the EU would have honored the agreement in 1997 then there would be no farm subsidies today.

Sadly its the excuse both sides need to not do anything. Both the EU and the US pointing fingers at the other saying "if they don't drop 'em, we won't either". And no-one does anything while 3rd world farmers starve.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.economist.com/displayStor...ory_id=3524948

Good article, summarizes the causes and effects of the 1995 crisis quite well without going into too much (boring) detail. Its conclusion regarding the need for structural reform above anything else is also right on the money.

See Mr Fun? You CAN argue with facts