Skip to main content

View Diary: NAFTA & GORE: An Inconsistent Truth? (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What if I put up a straw man and we pummeled it? (0+ / 0-)
    First, the writer CAN restrict his debate about ecological effects.

    Second, "what if Mexico went bankrupt" is a straw man -- yes, it would have been bad if Mexico went bankrupt, but there are other methods to prevent that than implementing NAFTA. To ask the writer to respond to a hypothetical is just engaging in noise - there is no homework here, just idle speculation.

    Feloneous

    •  All I was looking for was an acknowledgement (0+ / 0-)

      of the Mexican fiscal crisis by the author (meaningful since Gore said it played a key role), who was ready to blame Gore (as he/she has done repeatedly earlier as well).

      •  Difference between... (0+ / 0-)
        ...acknowledging a fiscal crisis and posing a "what if" question.

        Feloneous

        •  BTW, Mexican fiscal crisis was NOT ''what if' (0+ / 0-)

          IIRC, it was on the verge of bankruptcy when the 20 billion bailout was appropriated.

          So "fiscal crisis" existed.

          Bankruptcy was imminent.

          •  You miss the point... (0+ / 0-)
            Acknowledging a fiscal crisis is not the same as "what if Mexico went bankrupt".

            So, yes, "what if Mexico went bankrupt" was a "what if".

            a) Mexico DIDN'T go bankrupt
            b) Being on the verge of going over a cliff is not the same as going over a cliff

            Feloneous

            •  Let me cast the argument in cliff terms (0+ / 0-)

              20 billion bailout helped Mexico stave off Bankruptcy. NAFTA most likely helped Mexico sustain and recover to a functional economy.

              •  Closer to agreement... (0+ / 0-)
                1. Most definitely the bailout of Mexico helped their currency. This is not even debatable.

                2. Whether NAFTA did or didn't help is speculation. There seems to be more evidence indicating that it DIDN'T help (and may have been partially responsible for the fall of the peso). BUT, and I want to stress that, it is PURE SPECULATION on my part as it is on yours.

                3. Whether Mexico would have gone "bankrupt" or not falls in the idle speculation. That is why I was calling it a straw man.

                Feloneous

        •  Gore an OK strawman? (0+ / 0-)

          Here is the deal

          1. Mexico was about to go under
          1. unless you're an isolationist, trading, if done carefully can be mutually beneficial

          if the terms of NAFTA as written were not great, fine. Improve them.

          But a case for outright trashing has not been made.

          I think that larger issue at hand is simply this: capital will flow into newer markets and production enviornments (there is nothing anyone can do to stop it).

          Global growth is something that will happen (and should happen in the interests of people developing nations, and once they pick up, in the interests of continued global economic growth, hopefully in a sustainable fashion).

          In my view, the key problem (economically) stems from the widely varying wage rates and standards of living. Global growth will tend to even out those differences. The only thing we should try to accomplish is the the transient period is not too painful for parties at both ends.

          Banging up on Gore is not the proper stage for such consideration. In that sense, Gore is being made the strawman here (which you seem to have no problem with).

          •  No, the argument about bankruptcy was a straw man (0+ / 0-)
            Here is the deal

            Mexico was about to go under
            unless you're an isolationist, trading, if done carefully can be mutually beneficial

            if the terms of NAFTA as written were not great, fine. Improve them.

            No, HERE is the deal:

            * Mexico DIDN'T go bankrupt
            * The terms of NAFTA were horrible and we are reaping it today

            The ONLY straw man was "what if Mexico went bankrupt". It didn't, therefore any answer would have been speculation.

            In my view, the key problem (economically) stems from the widely varying wage rates and standards of living. Global growth will tend to even out those differences. The only thing we should try to accomplish is the the transient period is not too painful for parties at both ends.

            Actually, varying wage rates and standards of living CAN actually give a people (or an area) a better standard of living.

            That was not the purpose of NAFTA.

            NAFTA's sole purpose was to ensure that trade from the big guns would not be impeded by silly laws intended to protect a country, the environment, or culture.

            I believe that Gore's belief in NAFTA as it was implemented to be wrong. However, neither he, nor NAFTA had anything to do with what I considered to be the straw man.

            The ONLY straw man was "what if Mexico went bankrupt" - it would be just as ludicrous to ask "what if Gore had powers of space and time". They mean nothing, because neither are true.

            GORE: You know, during the Clinton-Gore administration, we faced a couple of big challenges on that front. There was a financial crisis in Mexico and we took the bold step of shoring them up. And then when it came to this agreement to try to strengthen their economy and get more good jobs down there to slow down the flow of immigration, I think we did the right thing.

            Note, Gore at no point even mentions "bankrupt". It is important to also note that we HAD to help shore up their monetary system or it would have wreaked havoc in the U.S.

            However, NAFTA has done nothing to help. In fact, it is cheaper to buy American corn in Mexico than Mexican corn. You think that helps Mexico? Worse, via NAFTA we are contaminating Mexican corn crops.

            I'm sorry you do not like the fact that I feel Gore is wrong on NAFTA. But note that my disagreement is by no means "banging him up". Nor in no way does it imply that he is "the straw man", either in my views or previous postings.

            You posted:

            What if Mexico went bankrupt. (which it probably would have, without the bailout and maybe later NAFTA).

            Which is a straw man. Mexico didn't go bankrupt and it wasn't NAFTA that saved it. The fiscal crisis was in the fall of 1994 and NAFTA was ratified in October of 1993 and went into effect January 1st, 1994.

            So, I would argue, NAFTA didn't make a damn bit of difference.

            Feloneous

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site