Mess with your consumers, will you?

[D'kian]

The North america Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ratified by the US in 1994 allows, among other things, Mexican trucks to travel unimpeded through the US and Canada. It also allows US and Canadian trucks to travel unimpeded in Mexico. This is eminently sensible, as a lot of exports move through trucks.

Alas, the teamster union(s) have successfully blocked Mexican trucks from doing just that. Such trucks can only travel within a narrow border zone. If their exports are going elsewhere, like to the other 99% of the continental US, they muct be unloaded at a warehouse and uploaded to a different truck. Bush created an exception through a demonstration program (temporary) for a grand total of 96 Mexican trucks.

This week the US government struck down that exception.

That means higher costs from Mexican exports (you'd be surprised what Mexico exports tot he US beyond oil and agricultural products). Which means higher prices for US consumers.

Not to be outdone, the Mexican government retaliated by imposing tariffs on some US exports to Mexico. That means higher costs for such exports, and that means higher prices to Mexican consumers.

A trade war is the only kind of war where no matter what happens both sides loose. So why people keep engaging in them is beyond me.

[gags]

This is no surprise, Obama is just delivering on his campaign promises and sucking up to his union buddies.

[softwareNerd]

Obama delivers for the unions, and somewhere Ron Paul is cheering.

[Zip]

Obama's cutting off his economic nose to spite his socialist face.

NAFTA has been very good to the USA, too bad that message doesn't get played in the media.

[RussK]

Alas, the teamster union(s) have successfully blocked Mexican trucks from doing just that. Such trucks can only travel within a narrow border zone. If their exports are going elsewhere, like to the other 99% of the continental US, they muct be unloaded at a warehouse and uploaded to a different truck. Bush created an exception through a demonstration program (temporary) for a grand total of 96 Mexican trucks.

Was the Teamsters' blocking of the Mexican trucks allowed by NAFTA or some other policy of the United States, or do the Teamsters do it on their own? *I just had a horrific memory recall of traveling from South Florida to Ohio and back during one of the Teamsters' strikes--it was a very long trip to say the least.

[RachelColoredGlasses]

Obama delivers for the unions, and somewhere Ron Paul is cheering.

Please pardon my ignorance, but can you help me understand what you mean by "Ron Paul is cheering"? I know that he's essentially (officially?) a Libertarian, but what is his stance on this issue?

[D'kian]

Was the Teamsters' blocking of the Mexican trucks allowed by NAFTA or some other policy of the United States, or do the Teamsters do it on their own?

There are no teamsters physically blocking the border, no. But they've pressured the government not to allow them in. This began in 1994 shortly after the treaty was ratified. Bush and the GOP Congress could ahve changed it. I think a mixture of Bush's political ineptitude and the GOP's xenophobic wing (you know, those who are against immigration), along with pressure by the teamsters, prevented it. Bush did allow a pilot program, but that was like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound; ie not very effective.

As Zip said, NAFTA's been good to the US. It's been more than good for Mexico and I'm assuming it's been good for Canada. IN Mexico lots of companies have set up manufacturing plants in order to export to the US. Some of these are american, but a lot are from Europe, Japan and Korea. They've increased employment and raised average salaries.

NAFTA, despite its name, is not a free trade agreement. But it does make trade between the three countries freer than it used to be. It has resulted in less restrictions and less money lost to tariffs and fees, therefore it has increased trade, which has increased production and productivity.

A real free trade agreement would be great, particularly if it allowed free movement of people between the three countries, as happens in the European Union.

In light of NAFTA's success, too, it's ahrd to see why the Democrats are so opposed to further trade liberalization, like a free trade treaty with Colombia, not to mention the Central American Free Trade Area (essentially NAFTA plus Central America). Implementing such policies would do much more to damage Castro and Chavez than anything else short of a military invasion of Cuba and Venezuela.

[gags]

In light of NAFTA's success, too, it's ahrd to see why the Democrats are so opposed to further trade liberalization, like a free trade treaty with Colombia, not to mention the Central American Free Trade Area (essentially NAFTA plus Central America). Implementing such policies would do much more to damage Castro and Chavez than anything else short of a military invasion of Cuba and Venezuela.

The Democrat's refusal to allow a free trade agreement with Columbia is a particular tragedy. It would benefit the US as well as give a hand to a fairly decent US friend in the region. Instead, the unions continue to successfully pressure the Dems to avoid such an agreement based on absurd claims that union organizers are disproportionately targeted for violence in Columbia. The whole thing should be an embarrassment for Obama and the Dems, but nobody seems to notice or care.

[Zip]

Canada has a free trade pact with Columbia. Keep going America, let the Canadian hegemony begin! <insert evil laugh here>

[gags]

I've got half a mind to come up there and drink all your beer. Then what would you Canadians do with yourselves?

[Zip]

I've got half a mind to come up there and drink all your beer. Then what would you Canadians do with yourselves?

Come on now, I was joking.

Sheesh, you make a simple joke and people start threatening the beer supply.

Some people have no sense of humour.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Zip

[utabintarbo]

Some people have no sense of humor.

Fixed that for you.

[Zip]

Fixed that for you.

LOL!