CITIZEN AGENDA 180 °
Lorenzo Meyer 
6 May. 10 reforma.com
6 May. 10 reforma.com There are two ways to appreciate the TLC as a victory and a defeat
Objectivity desirable but impossible
From the philosophy of science, some argue that objective knowledge is simply impossible, even in disciplines who claim to accuracy. But if a statement as strong as E = mc2, the relationship between mass and energy that made Albert Einstein, can be subjective, then very little can be expected from the more inaccurate the science: the social, where the same phenomenon can be perceived, explained and projected into the future in ways so different that are contradictory.
This is a case for the reasons given at a conference last week in Mexico gave Sidney Weintraub, a renowned specialist on the status of the economic relationship between Mexico and its powerful northern neighbor. Weintraub is a member of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington and, after working in the Department of State, joined the academic world where he has written many books and articles about the current economic relations Mexico-United States.
The eye of the beholder
In his latest book, entitled Unequal Partners: the United States and Mexico (Unequal partners: The United States and Mexico [2010]), Weintraub divided into six areas that constitute the essence of the relationship between the two countries that share the Rio Grande as the border: trade, investment and finance, narcotics, energy, migration and border management. Once Upon a cultural area to cover all interactions between the two countries; interactions that take place within the framework of a power relationship characterized by three elements: asymmetry, dependency and domination. This framework itself from the perspective of the realist school of international relations, explains well the great difficulty that has historically been, and will, Mexico to defend its national interest and the essence of nationhood: sovereignty. Different interpretations
Weintraub believes that the change of 180 ° that the government of Mexico made following the collapse of its economy in 1982 on trade was a success, because in a short period ended a type of industrialization irrational protectionism based on a small domestic market and poor. It was a hit that ended with the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA meant accepting that only free trade rules Mexico could fully exploit the advantages of having as close to the largest national market worldwide.
Something very similar happened to the foreign direct investment (FDI). For years the Mexican government was determined to limit the fields and the percentage of FDI, which since the end of World War I was basically American, with the aim of protecting the national capital. But the great crisis of 1982 forced Mexico to open fully to foreign capital and, today, a large foreign investment is present in all branches of the economy, including banking, which was first privatized in favor of Mexicans a very good price from -3 to 1 relative to book value, and then, after a new crisis "in 1995 - surrendered to the international banks almost entirely-now there is only one large bank in Mexico is Mexican : Banorte, which does not happen in any other country.
The other interpretation is unquestionable that in the past five decades Mexico took a major shift in its economic project, but from a nationalist perspective is difficult to applaud. The change of 180 ° in a short time put us on the path of neoliberalism was not following a democratic debate, as it did in Canada before signing the FTA with the United States but as the response of an authoritarian regime to the great defeat of the national project was designed and launched with the Cardenas.
postrevolutionary nationalism The defeat was due to the perversion of the model. The big beneficiary of the initial protection was Mexican-cost business was given by Mexican consumers, who for decades was low-quality goods at high cost, but these entrepreneurs did not correspond to the effort as they should: efforts to prepare for, little little protective hatch to lead the country to be competitive and operate in foreign markets without having to pay unconditionally the square, as was the case since the disaster 1982. No, on the contrary, businessmen and politicians are locked up and exploited their privileges to the fullest, without change, until that network privileges without responsibilities are torn and Salinas, using all its power, NAFTA imposed but negotiated before some new niches privilege for near-Telmex group, banks, broadcasters and others, and revitalized the authoritarian presidency until the next disaster, the 1995 - ended with him.
Mexican nationalism was now like a memory in a field taken by the interests of the fierce nationalism of the modern world: the U.S.. And if this were not already somewhat unfortunate that neither the NAFTA foreignized banking and carried out what they promised: to lead Mexico to a new growth phase material, because the average annual increase of per capita from 1995 to date has been tragically insignificant, less than 1%, a mere 0.89 %.
A country is more than a market, although one can argue that the market is the column in which sits the rest of the national identity. However, the nature of the Mexican economy changed as the biblical right of offspring: a simple dish of lentils are barely surviving as a nation, but proud to be owners and managers of the essence of the environment in which they live.
At the time, Carlos Salinas argued, if the U.S. does not allow Mexico to increase exports through NAFTA, like it or not, Mexico would increase its export of undocumented workers. The proposal implied that if Mexico were denationalized opening its economy to foreign capital and free trade, in exchange achieved an increase in their material and labor sources to the point that their young people no longer need to seek individual salvation in the Diaspora to United States.
Reality has been the opposite: the vast export but it has been matched by a large import-trade between firms, no jobs have been created in the quality and quantity promised. It turns out that today in Mexico's informal economy is creating jobs, but not the quantity nor the compensation necessary to prevent young Mexicans continue going to the United States illegally in mass quantities, or worse yet, join the ranks of organized crime in drug trafficking and has set up a business of 40 billion dollars annually.
Mexican migration to the NAFTA partners is, as is well known, between 400 thousand and 500 thousand people per year. Of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States nearly half are Mexican. This massive influx of undocumented immigrants is causing a very adverse reaction in the neighboring country, whose latest manifestation is the law that intends to move the state of Arizona and making it a crime to be undocumented in this region and, therefore, permits and required its police demand identification papers to anyone who, by their physical traits, attitude or way of dressing, it can be presumed to be an illegal immigrant. According to a recent national survey, 51% of Americans support the proposed legislation to implement parts of Arizona and
see undocumented immigrants as an economic burden and not as a cheap labor and discipline, which helps to keep alive branches of the U.S. economy not easily survive without a job who assumes duties and remuneration most natives reject (The New York Times, May 3).
A conclusion is not necessarily more objective than other
<00be> After all, changing direction 180 degrees of economic policy in Mexico in the last quarter century, and motivated more by the failure of the power elites a genuine will of the majority, is not proving a great solution for Mexico that his supporters accounted for, but ironically, not for America, for while Mexico does not really solve their development problems will be increasingly uncomfortable partner.
Kikka-roja.blogspot.com /
In his latest book, entitled Unequal Partners: the United States and Mexico (Unequal partners: The United States and Mexico [2010]), Weintraub divided into six areas that constitute the essence of the relationship between the two countries that share the Rio Grande as the border: trade, investment and finance, narcotics, energy, migration and border management. Once Upon a cultural area to cover all interactions between the two countries; interactions that take place within the framework of a power relationship characterized by three elements: asymmetry, dependency and domination. This framework itself from the perspective of the realist school of international relations, explains well the great difficulty that has historically been, and will, Mexico to defend its national interest and the essence of nationhood: sovereignty. Different interpretations
Weintraub believes that the change of 180 ° that the government of Mexico made following the collapse of its economy in 1982 on trade was a success, because in a short period ended a type of industrialization irrational protectionism based on a small domestic market and poor. It was a hit that ended with the signing of the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA meant accepting that only free trade rules Mexico could fully exploit the advantages of having as close to the largest national market worldwide.
Something very similar happened to the foreign direct investment (FDI). For years the Mexican government was determined to limit the fields and the percentage of FDI, which since the end of World War I was basically American, with the aim of protecting the national capital. But the great crisis of 1982 forced Mexico to open fully to foreign capital and, today, a large foreign investment is present in all branches of the economy, including banking, which was first privatized in favor of Mexicans a very good price from -3 to 1 relative to book value, and then, after a new crisis "in 1995 - surrendered to the international banks almost entirely-now there is only one large bank in Mexico is Mexican : Banorte, which does not happen in any other country.
The other interpretation is unquestionable that in the past five decades Mexico took a major shift in its economic project, but from a nationalist perspective is difficult to applaud. The change of 180 ° in a short time put us on the path of neoliberalism was not following a democratic debate, as it did in Canada before signing the FTA with the United States but as the response of an authoritarian regime to the great defeat of the national project was designed and launched with the Cardenas.
postrevolutionary nationalism The defeat was due to the perversion of the model. The big beneficiary of the initial protection was Mexican-cost business was given by Mexican consumers, who for decades was low-quality goods at high cost, but these entrepreneurs did not correspond to the effort as they should: efforts to prepare for, little little protective hatch to lead the country to be competitive and operate in foreign markets without having to pay unconditionally the square, as was the case since the disaster 1982. No, on the contrary, businessmen and politicians are locked up and exploited their privileges to the fullest, without change, until that network privileges without responsibilities are torn and Salinas, using all its power, NAFTA imposed but negotiated before some new niches privilege for near-Telmex group, banks, broadcasters and others, and revitalized the authoritarian presidency until the next disaster, the 1995 - ended with him.
Mexican nationalism was now like a memory in a field taken by the interests of the fierce nationalism of the modern world: the U.S.. And if this were not already somewhat unfortunate that neither the NAFTA foreignized banking and carried out what they promised: to lead Mexico to a new growth phase material, because the average annual increase of per capita from 1995 to date has been tragically insignificant, less than 1%, a mere 0.89 %.
A country is more than a market, although one can argue that the market is the column in which sits the rest of the national identity. However, the nature of the Mexican economy changed as the biblical right of offspring: a simple dish of lentils are barely surviving as a nation, but proud to be owners and managers of the essence of the environment in which they live.
At the time, Carlos Salinas argued, if the U.S. does not allow Mexico to increase exports through NAFTA, like it or not, Mexico would increase its export of undocumented workers. The proposal implied that if Mexico were denationalized opening its economy to foreign capital and free trade, in exchange achieved an increase in their material and labor sources to the point that their young people no longer need to seek individual salvation in the Diaspora to United States.
Reality has been the opposite: the vast export but it has been matched by a large import-trade between firms, no jobs have been created in the quality and quantity promised. It turns out that today in Mexico's informal economy is creating jobs, but not the quantity nor the compensation necessary to prevent young Mexicans continue going to the United States illegally in mass quantities, or worse yet, join the ranks of organized crime in drug trafficking and has set up a business of 40 billion dollars annually.
Mexican migration to the NAFTA partners is, as is well known, between 400 thousand and 500 thousand people per year. Of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States nearly half are Mexican. This massive influx of undocumented immigrants is causing a very adverse reaction in the neighboring country, whose latest manifestation is the law that intends to move the state of Arizona and making it a crime to be undocumented in this region and, therefore, permits and required its police demand identification papers to anyone who, by their physical traits, attitude or way of dressing, it can be presumed to be an illegal immigrant. According to a recent national survey, 51% of Americans support the proposed legislation to implement parts of Arizona and
see undocumented immigrants as an economic burden and not as a cheap labor and discipline, which helps to keep alive branches of the U.S. economy not easily survive without a job who assumes duties and remuneration most natives reject (The New York Times, May 3).
A conclusion is not necessarily more objective than other
<00be> After all, changing direction 180 degrees of economic policy in Mexico in the last quarter century, and motivated more by the failure of the power elites a genuine will of the majority, is not proving a great solution for Mexico that his supporters accounted for, but ironically, not for America, for while Mexico does not really solve their development problems will be increasingly uncomfortable partner.
Kikka-roja.blogspot.com /
0 comments:
Post a Comment