Vote in Congress Tues. or Wed to stop Mexican trucks

[ag]

Well, we just have to hope the Senate shoots this down. It would be an awful mess if it passed.

[ag]

So this Amendement already passed 75-23? Great stuff! Every Democrat voted in favor.

Another example of why Byron Dorgan is one of the best politicians in Washington, he always has the best interests of the middle class and working people in mind.

Very bad. BTW, Mexico will, likely, retaliate - probably, painfully for all those concerned.  For one, Mexican government is right now under an enormous domestic pressure to backtrack from the agricultural trade liberalization provisions of NAFTA that are due to enter into force next year.  It's job resisting the pressure has just been made enormously harder, if not impossible (this would mean humongous losses for American farmers).

Overall, the loosers are: overwhelming majority of Americans (including the truck drivers), overwhelming majority of Mexicans, reputation of the U.S. Congress, Mexican-U.S relations.   Winners - small group of union bureaucrats and populist politicians, who are willing to lie in order to induce major losses on everyone else for minor personal gain. The only other group that, possibly, gains (though indirectly) are the Chinese manufacturers, whose relative disadvantage in transportation costs will remain smaller than technologically necessary.

Whatever the bullsh**t the proponents of the ammendment may put forward, the likely result is a) fewer jobs BOTH in the U.S. and Mexico b) higher store prices for everywone c) HIGHER accident rate on both sides of the border.  When I am saying that well over 99% of Americans will be directly hurt by this, I am not really exagerrating.  Indirectly, any sort of cooperation w/ Mexican authorities on numerous matters is going to be undermined. For one, U.S. has demonstrated that it is unable to stick to signed agreements - next time it will have to pay in cash on the spot for any concessions.

[ag]

Mexican trucks driving in the US should be subject to the same labor and environmental regulations as American trucks driving in the US.

You know, this could be interpreted as a call to actually relax the standards. 

[ag]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

If done immediately this would imply either (a) mass starvation in Mexico or a 10% income tax surcharge in the U.S. to finance the social payments to the 80% of Mexico's population that is going to be unemployed and starving.  Of course, in the medium term (ie, in about a year) it would also imply 50 million Mexicans moving to the U.S. to avoid unemployment. 12 thousand pesos/ month (basically, the U.S. minimal wage after the forthcoming increase) is more than a young university graduate is likely to make in Mexico. Imposing it would be equivalent to posting a big sign: "All those without a university degree: die ASAP, we don't need you".

[ag]

Annex mexico and force them to adhere to our standards.

If done immediately this would imply either (a) mass starvation in Mexico or a 10% income tax surcharge in the U.S. to finance the social payments to the 80% of Mexico's population that is going to be unemployed and starving.  Of course, in the medium term (ie, in about a year) it would also imply 50 million Mexicans moving to the U.S. to avoid unemployment. 12 thousand pesos/ month (basically, the U.S. minimal wage after the forthcoming increase) is more than a young university graduate is likely to make in Mexico. Imposing it would be equivalent to posting a big sign: "All those without a university degree: die ASAP, we don't need you".

I was thinking a 10-20 year process of rapid modernization(Something in between PR or MS for the pre-annexation goal would be the target)/infrastructure building(including linking US-mexican infrastructure)/harmonizing mexico's laws with US norms. Immediente annexation would be epic fail beyond belief for the reasons you say.

You are willing to spend that much money to make it work? Ok, let me tell you: it would be a lot cheaper (and much more efficient and realistic) to develop NAFTA in EU style (in fact, that's exactly what EU is about). Still, it would, probably, take more than 20 years, but the economies would, likely, converge eventually.

But one thing for sure, even after 10 years of pumping Mexico w/ cash through its nose you wouldn't be able to make the 7-dollar/hour minimal wage work there (hint: Spain has been in the EU for over 20 years now, and 1000 euro/month wage is still considered decent there; and Spain is RICH compared to Portugal).  And if you insist on keeping protectionist barriers (like the truck nonsense) up until that happens, it won't happen  even after a 100 years of the same: you could transfer 10% of US GDP in direct handouts to Mexicans until fifty years past the Last Judgement, and it still won't do much good if you insist on "protecting the domestic workers" in the meantime.

The best thing that can be done for Mexico is letting the countries trade (pressure to harmonize laws is fine - in fact, essential to make that work; but "harmonization" does not mean imposing every single piece of U.S. regulation that Mexico can't possibly afford).  

[ag]

You're ignoring one of the most basic principles of economics: the invisible hand.

Sorry, though I agree w/ your point (globalization is, indeed, good for most of us, and, of course, not only for the rich), you are wrong about basic economics.  The modern formalization of the "invisible hand" hypothesis is what economists call the First Welfare Theorem.  It says that if you free the markets do their job, and if all people do the best for themselves, the resultant outcome will be Pareto Efficient. Even if you take it that all the assumptions of the theorem hold (and they are non-trivial), the rub is in the meaning of Pareto Efficiency.

A situation is efficient in the Pareto sense if it is impossible to improve anyone's wellbeing without hurting somebody else. That's all: essentially, resources are not wasted, not used inefficiently. However, in principle, it may not be inefficient to give everything in the world to me and make everybody else work for me for the subsistence wage (if makin one person free of my command makes me unhappier, that is).  Pareto efficiency says nothing about equality, nor does it say anything about everybody being happy. It could well be that 99% of the people are happier under the Pareto inefficient state of affairs then they'd be under an efficient one (in fact, democracy routinely contradicts efficiency, as the theory says it should).

I am saying all this not to contradict your main point, but, rather, to defend it. Bad argument in favor is worse than none at all.

Anyway, the situation we have here is very different. A very small but vocal group (mainly, actually, not even workers, but union bureaucrats) stands to gain from blocking a policy that would benefit an overwhelming majority of residents of both countries.  But as they are vocal, and as they are not averse to playing up the worst xenophobic and racist fears of the society, they win.

[ag]

OK - I've heard about this, but haven't seen details - so can somebod summarize for me UNBIASEDLY what the amendment would do?

Haven't read the ammendment, but, if it is blocking what it purports to block, it means blocking a provision of NAFTA under which deliveries of goods accross the national borders can be done without unloading from truck to truck, with the same truck and the same driver continuing from the initial point to the destination (this has long been the case between Canada and the U.S., but not w/ Mexico, though, of course, private Mexican cars can enter and leave the U.S.).  

The provision is already 5 years delayed, as the U.S. was trying to figure out how to implement it. There were several court cases, but, eventually the courts ruled that no U.S. laws are violated and the regulations are adequate.  Finally, the first few trucks crossed from Mexico north (and from the U.S. south) last Monday.  Until now, the usual process was as follows: a truck would travel from an interior point in Mexico (or the U.S.) to the border, but would only be allowed accross the border into a special terminal within a few miles of the border, where it would be offloaded, and a domestic carrier would take over. As the logistics of the loading/unloading process in the border area was sometimes difficult, a lot of the carriers chose to, actually first unload in their own depot the cargo from a long-distance (and expensive) truck to a short-haul rickety ancient truck (that would only have to make it accross the border to the U.S. and then wait there) in order not to have the good trucks spend time in all sort of formalities (thus, paradoxically, the old regulation meant that it would be the worst Mexican trucks that would enter the U.S.). Overall, it is a non-negligible cost imposed on cross-border shippers (and, in the end, on the consumers), and the delay has been widely resented in Mexico.

Under the current regulation, of course, the trucks have to be inspected in both countries, pass all the standard technical tests they'd need to circulate (including those required by the U.S. law - though, of course, the exact procedure and timing might be somewhat different, as they are not certified by any state, but rather, I believe, by the feds), the drivers have to be individually approved and speak both English and Spanish (I suspect some teamster leaders think this gives an unfair advantage to Latino truck drivers in the U.S., as they become more valuable for the American shippers),  each trucking company has to be approved and get the licence, etc., etc.  Of course, certain U.S. regulations (such as work permits and the minimal wage laws) would remain unapplicable (for instance, as the Mexicans are employed by Mexican companies and are not paid in the U.S., the U.S. labor law would not be entirely applicable - though, of course, all the U.S. safety regulations will be enforced while in the U.S., etc.).  At this point we are talking about smthgh like 2 Mexican carriers approved (a few U.S. carriers have also be approved to go South) , though, of course, things should grow in time.

[ag]

But the result was a very weak argument. Hey, the most faithful follower of Adam Smith (at least, methodologically) was Karl Marx - and you aren't going to cite him, are you?

[ag]

Actually, if you've seen an Oaxaca licence plate on a U.S. highway before Monday, it was not a commercial shipment.  I guess, nothing can prevent me from hiring a Mexican truck, load it with my household stuff and drive to New York.  Probably, a small businessman in Guadalajara would be allowed to get his own wares in his own truck to a customer in San Francisco (conditional on paying the customs duties). But no Mexican commercial shippers were authorized to operate north of the border (and no American shippers could go South). The new regulation would enforce the status quo as of late last week - at the cost of explicitly tearing up an important NAFTA provision (that was supposed to have come into force 5 years ago).

[ag]

But the result was a very weak argument. Hey, the most faithful follower of Adam Smith (at least, methodologically) was Karl Marx - and you aren't going to cite him, are you?

I appreciate your critique. I used Marx as a rhetorical tool because he personifies a philosophy that is counter to capitalism. Yes, we both know that the truth is gray, not black and white, so I apologize if I used generalizations to make an otherwise valid point.

Oh, the world is complicated indeed. But here your conclusion may have been valid - your point was not.

[ag]

No, the impact will not just be psychological. Finally, after 5 year hiatus, they've approved the crossborder traffic. Without the law the goods would become cheaper, the short-haul crossborder trucks will be sent to scrap (as they should be), and the trade between the countries will become much more fluid.  With the law it will stay as before: waste and belching polution on the border.

And, of course, you are right about the general damage that these things do.  Longterm, actually, even to the truckers themselves (the more goods are transported accross the border, the better it will be for the truckers eventually). The only people to gain here are union leaders, who need a cause to excite the union members to stay in power.

[ag]

Keep in mind I'm not aiming for full parity. Something between PR and MS in terms of income/standards of living. Aiming for full parity would be impossible That said part of my plan would involve dropping trade barriers against Mexico.

One word: EU. You must be a big fan of it (I am, actually).

[ag]

Keep in mind I'm not aiming for full parity. Something between PR and MS in terms of income/standards of living. Aiming for full parity would be impossible That said part of my plan would involve dropping trade barriers against Mexico.

One word: EU. You must be a big fan of it (I am, actually).

Not really. The EU is a club of social democracies which are slowly arabizing.

Remarkably, you know even less about EU than about Mexico

[ag]

Compare the birthrates of native born euros and their arab immigrants. Also note how the governments of EU nations keep knucking into islamic demands in the name of PC. I hope I'm wrong but what I'm seeing from the signs doesn'tl ookgodo.

You are wrong, entirely wrong on everything.

1. To begin with, there aren't that many migrants - Europe remains overwhelmingly white, and it would take migration wave of many times the present magnitude to change that.

2. Secondly, there aren't that many "Arab" migrants (not that I find the latter at all objectionable in any respect - perhaps, because I've actually seen them).  In Spain (the case I know best) there are several Catholic migrants for every Muslim: even though there is a common frontier w/ Morocco, the 500 thousand resident Moroccans in Spain barely make 1/8 of the total number of migrants, wheareas the overwhelming majority of the rest is Christian.

2. As you should know from the U.S. experience, there is such a thing called assimilation. Migrants from all countries tend to assimilate in a few generations (though the truth does get obscurred by the fact that it is far easier to observe the unassimilated hardcore minority than the assimilated majority, especially when the racial differences are slight, as they are around the Mediterranean).  Consequently, many of the kids of the first generation migrants will be pretty European (French, Spanish, etc.) in outlook, and among the third generation their ethnic origin will be overwhelmingly a very secondary part of self-identification (if it will be part of it at all).  In Europe it might mean that the temple which these people choose not to attend is a mosque, and not a church, but do you really care which temple they don't go to? There is no reason to believe otherwise - in fact, every single piece of evidence we have leads to this conclusion.

4.  The main difference between Europe and the U.S. is not that Europe is somehow "more accomodating", but that it is far more xenophobic and far less accomodating than the U.S.  The reason it may seem that Europe "succumbs to demands" is that it frequently picks up the fights on matters that would not be controversial at all in the U.S. (the headscarf, the mosque construction, etc.).  True enough, sometimes not to give ground on important thing (that, as I said, would not be even matters of discussion in the U.S.), European governments make ridiculous symbolic concessions.  But on everything that truly matters, Europe is far, far more resistant to migrant demands than they would believe appropriate even in Idaho. To the extent that the recent migration wave has started changing attitudes, it is making Europe look and feel a bit more like the U.S.  Unless you feel that U.S. has gone to dogs some 150 years ago (and never recovered), I don't see your point at all.

To conclude, Americans frequently get misled by the Europeans in this respect. What in the U.S. would have been absolutely normal and has been practiced for generations does, sometimes, seem a dangerous decay to a certain type of European xenophobes. 

[ag]

As the number of U.S. citizens who commit crimes, aid terrorists, etc.,etc. is orders of magnitude larger than the number of illegal migrants who do so (actually, do you have a single example of an illegal migrant from Mexico that has anything to do w/ terror?), I suggest first deporting all U.S. citizens. We can deal w/ relatively law-abiding illegals later.

[ag]

Keep in mind I'm not aiming for full parity. Something between PR and MS in terms of income/standards of living. Aiming for full parity would be impossible That said part of my plan would involve dropping trade barriers against Mexico.

One word: EU. You must be a big fan of it (I am, actually).

The NAU would be much worse because of moe corporatist control.

Now, tell us how corporations are running the show in the EU with a straight face.

You think the EU is not run by corporations?  Talk about naive.  The only things not run by corporations are places like North Korea, Cuba, Burma.

Cuba is a family business, and Burma belongs to a closed group of investors, so it does not let others see the books. NK.... well NK belongs to God the Father and His Son, but they do rely heavily on the SK business to mainain the divine lifestyle.