Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: A clueless Vatican chancellor didn't mean to step into US politics and [View all]nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)70. You mean the NEO LIBERAL PRESIDENT of Mexico did
the Mexican people disagree.
And those better jobs and better economy are ghosts. Don't tell me I have no idea, I go to Mexico often.
But what about Mexico? Didn't Mexico at least benefit from the agreement? Well if we look at the past 20 years, it's not a pretty picture. The most basic measure of economic progress, especially for a developing country like Mexico, is the growth of income (or GDP) per person. Out of 20 Latin American countries (South and Central America plus Mexico), Mexico ranks 18, with growth of less than 1% annually since 1994. It is, of course, possible to argue that Mexico would have done even worse without NAFTA, but then the question would be, why?
From 1960-80 Mexico's GDP per capita nearly doubled. This amounted to huge increases in living standards for the vast majority of Mexicans. If the country had continued to grow at this rate, it would have European living standards today. This is what happened in South Korea, for example. But Mexico, like the rest of the region, began a long period of neoliberal policy changes that, beginning with its handling of the early 1980s debt crisis, got rid of industrial and development policies, gave a bigger role to de-regulated international trade and investment, and prioritized tighter fiscal and monetary policies (sometimes even in recessions). These policies put an end to the prior period of growth and development. The region as a whole grew just 6% per capita from 1980-2000; and Mexico grew by 16% a far cry from the 99% of the previous 20 years.
For Mexico, NAFTA helped to consolidate the neo-liberal, anti-development economic policies that had already been implemented in the prior decade, enshrining them in an international treaty. It also tied Mexico even further to the US economy, which was especially unlucky in the two decades that followed: the Fed's interest rate increases in 1994, the US stock market bust (2000-2002) and recession (2001), and especially, the housing bubble collapse and Great Recession of 2008-9 had a bigger impact on Mexico than almost anywhere else in the region.
From 1960-80 Mexico's GDP per capita nearly doubled. This amounted to huge increases in living standards for the vast majority of Mexicans. If the country had continued to grow at this rate, it would have European living standards today. This is what happened in South Korea, for example. But Mexico, like the rest of the region, began a long period of neoliberal policy changes that, beginning with its handling of the early 1980s debt crisis, got rid of industrial and development policies, gave a bigger role to de-regulated international trade and investment, and prioritized tighter fiscal and monetary policies (sometimes even in recessions). These policies put an end to the prior period of growth and development. The region as a whole grew just 6% per capita from 1980-2000; and Mexico grew by 16% a far cry from the 99% of the previous 20 years.
For Mexico, NAFTA helped to consolidate the neo-liberal, anti-development economic policies that had already been implemented in the prior decade, enshrining them in an international treaty. It also tied Mexico even further to the US economy, which was especially unlucky in the two decades that followed: the Fed's interest rate increases in 1994, the US stock market bust (2000-2002) and recession (2001), and especially, the housing bubble collapse and Great Recession of 2008-9 had a bigger impact on Mexico than almost anywhere else in the region.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/nafta-20-years-mexico-regret
There is more than just the Guardian. And it has also been a disaster for the environment... and education.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
81 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A clueless Vatican chancellor didn't mean to step into US politics and [View all]
pnwmom
Apr 2016
OP
He's going to the Vatican. Lots of people lied about this. They're not going to the Vatican.
DisgustipatedinCA
Apr 2016
#2
Where did anyone say he wasn't going to the Vatican? The dispute was in how the invitation
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#3
He will be going to the Vatican. Many people lied about him. They will not be going to the Vatican.
DisgustipatedinCA
Apr 2016
#9
Climate change and the sixth global mass-extinction event is happening now
SoLeftIAmRight
Apr 2016
#51
This chancellor said "it is a little impossible to understand." He is recognizing his cluelessness.
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#10
OMG. Let it go. Of course there's a political component to it. It's what politicians do!
reformist2
Apr 2016
#8
She didn't lobby for an invitation, as the President of the Academy says Bernie did. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#14
I believe her because that is much more in keeping with the Church's general policy NEVER
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#21
There is no reason to think they've made a special exception in this case -- especially in view
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#33
They might interfere behind the scenes but not publicly. Their public position is always neutral. n/
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#35
Archer and Sorondo's comments are the very definition of a private spat gone public nt
riderinthestorm
Apr 2016
#43
You might remember that a reporter questioned him about Trump -- he didn't insert himself into
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#63
He asked for an invitation, according to the President of the Academy, and so they sent one. n/t
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#77
He is not listed on the website as a speaker or a participant. In an odd wording,
pnwmom
Apr 2016
#17
He want's to give all Hillary supporters a respite from his socialist presences in the country for
Autumn
Apr 2016
#67
Another Sanders' Nationalist. America First and all that junk. I hope this conference
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#46
I'd suggest you look at out history in Latin America...and Bernies positions over the years
Armstead
Apr 2016
#53
NAFTA has helped. Most telling is Mexico begged to be part of TPP because they know it's the only
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#61
I mean officials elected by the people. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a neo-liberal.
Hoyt
Apr 2016
#71
"Clueless Vatican chancellor": Three words seldom seen in proximity to one another
Fumesucker
Apr 2016
#31
Jews, Mormons and atheists/agnostics are the most knowledgeable groups in America about religion
Fumesucker
Apr 2016
#48
We aren't worried at all. We are wonks...and people are curious about the choice.
Lucinda
Apr 2016
#74