Sunday, April 19, 2009

Right now I am feeling very sad about the state of affairs in Mexico. Mexicans are suffering because of our fucked-up gun and drug policies. If we did not allow the flow of drugs up here and the flow of guns down there (not to mention Nafta) they would not be getting slaughtered by these barbaric drug traffickers. But why should we care that brown people are getting killed as long as we have our guns to protect our families from those black criminals, right?

24 comments:

  1. I'm convinced that nothing in life has a simple straightforward answer, as much as we would like it to. Not to sidestep your thoughts on Mexico, I have been trying to grapple with the sorry state of the Mexican economy.

    NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) was promoted not only as a positive for the US and Canada, but the Mexicans embraced it almost as a panacea to solve their underdevelopment. Over the years, I have been working with colleagues that have been researching the Mexican automobile industry (I should actually say the Mexican auto TRANS-plants, since it isn't an indigenous industry but a series of multinationals which include Japanese, European and US auto plants).

    It was precisely the auto industry that was to be the platform upon which NAFTA would bring unbridled industrialization and modernity to Mexico. Mexicans were talking about replicating the Korean miracle or the Asian Tigers' path to industrial prosperity. And... the jewels in the crown of the Mexican auto industry were the General Motors Delphi plants!

    That was in 1995. Things have since come tumbling down, not only in Mexico but across the border in the US. General Motors is now heading toward bankruptcy while Mexico is heading to hard economic times and, as you point out, being overrun by drug gangs.

    What went wrong?

    Why (1) didn't the GM strategy prosper, and by extension (2) Why didn't Mexico become like Korea, Taiwan or Korea? Plant managers tell me all the time that it has to do with rampant corruption in the Mexican society, but the answer cannot, I believe, be reduced to any one thing.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You want to stop drug violence? Legalize drugs. It's the only way. Take the money we are spending on prosecuting and jailing drug crimes and use it on rehab and education.

    About Nafta, if the house wins every hand of black jack at a casino, then they are using a stacked deck. The same principle applies to why the same people keep winning no matter how many treaties or laws they say will change things.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Take the money we are spending on prosecuting and jailing drug crimes and use it on rehab and education...either that are spend it to buy everybody drugs. Ha Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joe
    I have no evidence whatsoever to back up my hunch (if I did, I would probably be six feet under ground): I strongly believe that the drug cartels are the principle force actively preventing legalization. They saw how the end of prohibition pulled the "exorbitant profits" rug out from under the illegal distillers of yore, and have vowed not to let that happen to them!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maracatu:

    That may be true, but the hypocrisy and ignorance about this issue(and many others)don't help making good policy. It would be political suicide for any United States politician to appear that he is weak on the "War on Drugs".

    ReplyDelete
  6. Check out "The Wire" season
    3 "Hamsterdam".

    ReplyDelete
  7. "What went wrong?

    Why (1) didn't the GM strategy prosper, and by extension (2) Why didn't Mexico become like Korea, Taiwan or Korea? Plant managers tell me all the time that it has to do with rampant corruption in the Mexican society, but the answer cannot, I believe, be reduced to any one thing." Maracatu

    You can call this simplistic if you like, however it reflects the facts. You cannot bring prosperity by the neocolonial model - it is not the same as the industrialization of Taiwan or Korea. This is because there is no national program of protection provided for the people, but crushing debt through loans with stringent destructive stipulations. I have told the dumbass Anand this same point many times, but he chooses to ignore the facts.

    The Mexican government is not trying to stop drug trade, it is trying to gain control of it for a specific elite. That is, those who have been appointed by the beast north of the border. People who ignore this do so at their own peril, and quite frankly show their immense ignorance. Not knowing how this is laundered through the banking system is another issue. It is time to stop with "conventional" answers, because this is not a conventional problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The plan is not to have a monolith of manufacturing arise in the Americas. Just a sub-class of slaves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. One needs to ask why, for such a long period of time, as this manufacturing "Mecca" was arising in Mexico - the people used the paltry sums that they earned as a stepping stone to get out of the country. Of course that answer is, once again, the manufacturing "haven" was not set up for the advance of the people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Putting aside the drugs thing and focusing on manufacturing, research has tended to focus on the Korean chaebol, the Japanese keiretsu, among other models which weren't reproduced in the Mexican case. Now you have China and India rising. Just goes to show there isn't any single "recipe".

    I think we need to look at industrial policy again, which by the way is anathema to conservatives that see no role for government in the economy. Fortunately free market orthodoxy is on the way out and more pragmatic views favoring at least some sort of industrial policy are finding their way back into the US mainstream (pdf).

    ReplyDelete
  11. the manufacturing "haven" was not set up for the advance of the peopleWell, it was set up on the basis of profit maximization, as it was in Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "profit maximization" for whom?

    China never followed the neocolonial model (neoliberalism), and India is not an example, it is a disaster waiting to happen. So, where is the neoliberal gain for people ANYWHERE? There are a few who gain, the appointed ones in each area - the group of chosen elites, just like in the USA (which quite frankly has a bit of a wider base, but not due to industrialization, but the people rising to demand democratic rights - but that has all but disappeared presently). The answer is, there is no answer to what I am saying, except one - and it may assault the tender sensibilities of some.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Profit maximization for business, of course, but I reiterate that it is also at work in Taiwan, Korea and Singapore (the touted Asian "Tigers"). They aren't socialist. However wages have observably risen in the latter while they haven't in Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Barbaric drug traffickers? You mean the guys with Armani suits, oister Rollex, limousines, handsome secretaries, private jets, mansions, yatchs, fancy departments in New York and/or Paris, and very high posts within the upper echelons of Mexican politics? Please don't buy into the official narrative Molly. It's for the uninformed, the gullible, the naive, or simply for those not willing to dig beyond appearances and mediatic bullshit. Those who profit the most from drug trafficking in Mexico, are precisely the same "heroically" fighting it. While with one hand they pocket billions from the trade, with the other they pretend to be engaged in a "life and death" battle to defeat so-called "drug cartels", which they themselves direct from the shadows of power. All this charade is probably one of the most monstrous cover-ups today.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Mexican government is not trying to stop drug trade, it is trying to gain control of it for a specific elite. That is, those who have been appointed by the beast north of the border. People who ignore this do so at their own peril, and quite frankly show their immense ignorance. Not knowing how this is laundered through the banking system is another issue. It is time to stop with "conventional" answers, because this is not a conventional problem.
    -------------------------


    Gosh, it's so good to know that at least someone North of the border digs it. Well, there is probably many within the CIA and DEA who know this too, but they will keep the merry-go-round of collective delusion turning for as long as possible. There is so much hypocrisy in all this sordid affair: 1. It's hypocritical, for example, of US authorities to demand countries in Latin America to bleed to death fighting drug traficking, when the main cause for this scourge lies within their own borders; 2. It is also hypocritical to deny the fact that in both Colombia and Mexico, their respective ruling elites are profoundly involved in promoting and controling for their own exclusive benefit this "stupendous" source of profit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "However wages have observably risen in the latter while they haven't in Mexico." Maracatu

    Yes, as I have said - in the nations that have not adopted neoliberal policies. However, if it must be pointed out, neoliberal policies arose because they did not want the same processes taking place in these other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Just in case there is some misunderstanding here Maracatu, neoliberalism is a way to "kick away the ladder", to deprive other countries from following the successful nation(s)(Friedrich List, THE NATIONAL SYSTEM OF POLITICAL ECONOMY). Japan and the other NIC's (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore), got rich more or less the same way as Western Countries. They protected their domestic markets, using high tariff and "non-high tariff barriers" to trade. Brittan did not accept free trade until the 1840's, long after it became the world leading industrial power. From 1790 to 1940 the USA was the most highly protected economy on the planet.

    South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore used the same protectionism. They bought, borrowed and stole other technologies and developed them, and through reverse engineering perfected them. They used state power to support and protect efficient capitalists within their own national boundaries who had the potential to become exporters. They poured subsidies into uncompetitive industries in order to substitute domestically produced goods for imports, at almost any price.

    In short, they did absolutely the OPPOSITE of what the gurus of globalization said they should have done. In places where economic managers had no choice but to follow the guidelines of globalization - "free" trade, sell-offs of public utilities, no controls over capital movements, the end of all national preferences - the results have been catastrophic!

    This is what I mean between the differences of the countries you seem to use in the same paragraphs, that are supposed to be exactly alike - or at least, this is the impression you are giving.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes Moy, I can remember a couple of years ago meeting Bennett the drug czar that was supposed to be the chief honcho against drugs (we will dispense with where and how, lets just say domestic setting). I asked him when, during his illustrious career was he going to arrest senators and congressmen for their involvement? How about the banks in the states that laundered the money? He seemed shocked, and said nothing, just turned around and walked away.

    ReplyDelete
  19. V and Moy, you two need to get a room...

    Perhaps you can share a room at one of Moy's many homes. Right Moy? You do own multiple properties. Perhaps you can live peacefully on your farm in Chile, I believe. Must be nice, a person who cares for the people, having som much money to own farmland...

    Is this your pet project for the decade?

    ReplyDelete
  20. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore used the same protectionism. They bought, borrowed and stole other technologies and developed them, and through reverse engineering perfected them. They used state power to support and protect efficient capitalists within their own national boundaries who had the potential to become exporters. They poured subsidies into uncompetitive industries in order to substitute domestically produced goods for imports, at almost any price.Finally! That is the answer I was looking for!

    That is what is known as "industrial policy".

    ReplyDelete
  21. V and Moy, you two need to get a room...
    ---------------------

    Hey Corey, why don't you go somewhere else and squeeze that pimple between your legs while your mommy sings a lullaby to you?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Can I go to your farm in Chile? Or is it reserved for the those you feel are "worthy". Must be nice being one of the elite you speak of so poorly. By the way, how's the nice uncle of yours? Still beating the help? Like uncle, like nephew...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maybe I can plant your head and see if some potatoes grow...if you can pull it out of your ass first. Now tell me please, you nazi larva, who would that uncle be?

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Finally! That is the answer I was looking for!  
     
    That is what is known as "industrial policy"." maracatu 
      
    Which is definitely not allowed with "neoliberal policy."

    ReplyDelete