- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Laura Carlsen? Really? A HuffPost contributor, and activist? Are we supposed to take this seriously?
j-mac
NAFTA allowed the US to export our subsidized corn into Mexico to compete with local subsistance farmers. Of course, the Mexican farmers could not compete with the cheaper imported US corn that was dumped on their markets and so millions of small farmers had to abandon their farms to seek work in the cities or in the US. Those that stayed only do so because now they grow illegal crops such as opium and marijuana. Within the last 15 to 20 years, Mexico has gone from a country that fed itself to an importer of 80% of it's food. Thats what the US free trade did to Mexico and why there are so many illegal immigrants risking their lives trying to find work here in the US and why the drug cartels are having a hey day. Our US trade polices and corporate greed created this mess and because of it, we now have a major national security risk at our border with Mexico where once we had a peaceful and friendly neighbor.
The link I provided on NAFTA summarizes it better....
"....Mexico's southern region was exposed to the massive influx of imports that competed with its traditional production, especially corn. Thus NAFTA not only did not work to alleviate poverty where it was the worst but actively deepened it. NAFTA also stripped the government of many tools for promoting a more even integration of varying regions under a coherent national development plan. This led to more profound regional divisions in the country and heavy out-migration from the southern states to other parts of Mexico and to the United States.....snip
Since market access goes both ways, access to the US market for Mexican fruits and vegetables led to high growth in the horticulture sector but came at the expense of losing national markets for other products. While Mexico experienced over 50% growth in the value of its exports of major fruits and vegetables to the United States, the earnings have been more than offset by the cost of its burgeoning imports in grains, especially corn, which tripled. Some domestic sectors have been virtually wiped out - a recent study notes that 99% of soybeans are imported and wheat cultivation fell by half. With imports accounting for 80% of rice, 30% of beef, pork, and chicken and a third of Mexico's staple - beans, serious concerns about food dependency have arisen.
The benefits of fruit and vegetable export have been limited to a very small number of large farmers concentrated in the northern part of the country, while grain imports have devastated thousands of farm livelihoods throughout the country. Nearly two million farmers have left the land since the onset of NAFTA, eight of every 10 live in poverty, and 18 million earn less than $2 a day.
The displacement caused by massive imports can be difficult to calculate and compensate. Mexican planners anticipated a need for maize farmers to convert but overestimated the growth of livelihood alternatives in other sectors and underestimated cultural resistance to abandoning rural communities. The result was emigration to the United States, rural poverty, increased illegal drug production in some regions, and intensification of farm labour, especially for women.
Moreover, liberalised corn imports had an impact on other crops as well. As the price of corn dropped, livestock producers converted to corn as feed, causing devastation in the sorghum sector. Similarly, although Mexico does not import white corn, processors replaced it with cheap yellow corn in foodstuffs, eroding the domestic white corn market.
Providing access for US agricultural products, instead of 'levelling the playing field' as US trade negotiators claim, allows severe distortions in the value of these goods since many US exports are so heavily subsidised. The 2002 US Farm Bill authorises an 80% increase in subsidies over the next 10 years. The United States has refused to discuss its agricultural subsidies in every one of the bilateral FTAs negotiated to date.
Due to these subsidies, particularly grains are being sold on the international market with dumping margins of 25% or more. This puts domestic production in developing countries, where these grains constitute not just products but the staples of the local diet, at an unfair disadvantage. The resulting dependence on imports also poses a serious threat to food security and sovereignty.
Finally, NAFTA did not even necessarily assure fair market access. In key horticultural crops and others, Mexico has met with protectionist measures from the US in the form of dubious phyto-sanitary barriers, anti-dumping complaints, and other pretexts. The US government also has no qualms about protecting sectors it considers politically strategic....read
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/resurgence/182-183/Cover06.doc
Are you serious? Do you know what "subsidized" even means? It means the US government subsidizes US farmers to grow corn and gives them an unfair advantage in the market. It is not "free trade" in any sense of the word.Cheaper food makes people poorer, that seems a great stretch.
The cheaper imported corn undermined the local Mexican farmers and put them out of business. I suggest you educate yourself before trying to have a discussion on trade issues.All of this only talks about farmers and does not talk about the massive benefits that necessarily had to come with cheaper food.
Are you serious? Do you know what "subsidized" even means? It means the US government subsidizes US farmers to grow corn and gives them an unfair advantage in the market. It is not "free trade" in any sense of the word.
The cheaper imported corn undermined the local Mexican farmers and put them out of business. I suggest you educate yourself before trying to have a discussion on trade issues.
Are you under the impression that Mexican corn is only sold to the US.
I can tell you that where I am, there are a lot of corn farms and they are some of the richest farmers around here.
They have all modern equipment and new vehicles every year.
Where exactly did corn farmers go out of business.
Here is a link to a picture of our license plates. Read what it says as our logo.
SINALOA | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Yeah, I thought you lived in Mexico and I'll bet you're living off your SS checks as well. So there you sit, smuggly in your little hacienda whining about US immigration laws on the one hand and then whining that not enough Mexicans are immigrating to the US on the other. And by the sound of it, the farmers you are referring to are the drug lords who own the large farms and of course they would be very rich because they are syphoning the money that was supposed to help the small farmers in the south to enrich themselves....
Haven't you people ever bothered to ask yourself why so many Mexicans would want to risk their lives to cross the US border just to clean your ****ing toilets????
These liberals think that just because the woman can barely speak English it was obvious she illegal. I'm sure there are a lot of Hispanics who were born and raised in the U.S. who can't speak English well.
Assuming that is the reason she was defeated...I doubt it, but you go ahead and spread your lies among other conservatives, they believe that sort of thing.
And, does it matter? Meg Whitman got her ass kicking, because everyone realized what a hypocrite she was.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?