Vote in Congress Tues. or Wed to stop Mexican trucks

[opebo]

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.

Great points.  Sadly, this is another example that the three menaces in American politics (protectionism, isolationism, and nativism) are once again rising.

Haha, maybe we'll get back to those dreadful days of Keyensian liberal economics supported electorally by unions.  (must only be a coincidence that the height of american working class well being was around 1969-1973). 

[opebo]

What a joke. Lets put a brake on the economy to earn some political points with the unions.

The economy is improved by redistribution through high union wages, Jake, not by increasing  the enslavement of the working class.  Please try to distinguish what is good for 'the economy' and what is good for the owning elite.

[opebo]

You're ignoring one of the most basic principles of economics: the invisible hand. I don't mean to be pedantic here, but to understand the way business works, you should try to examine what Adam Smith was theorizing. The invisible hand theory asserts that when a businessman seeks to make money for himself (the raw motive of capitalism is profit and the enrichment of the leisure class), even if he cares little for his workers, he's actually improving society. This is because companies hire workers, pay taxes -- even if the companies themselves don't pay taxes, their workers do -- and create a ripple effect that benefits other companies in service sectors like retail and restaurants.

I'm not ignoring the force that is so comically called the 'invisible hand', Markwarner.  Rather, I am recognizing its true nature - the 'invisible hand' is the mechanism of force by which, through ostensibly 'private' actions, the State enslaves the worker for the benefit of the elite.   Do you suggest that the slaveowner was benefiting the slave?  (some do suggest that)  Well, the current situation is precisely the same, just with the lines of force disguised by doublespeak concepts like 'private property' - the nature of the use of force becomes 'invisible' as you say.

Simply put, he who does not toil (with a good deal of alacrity and servility, and in 'competition' with his fellow serfs) for the elite will be killed or jailed.  How is this different from slavery? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the benefits to the rich do not 'help all of society', markWarner.  You are swallowing the most absurd propaganda around, and by doing so licking the boots of your masters.

[opebo]

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.