 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXT...:338397,00.html
Mexico is in dead doing better since NAFTA was signed. Unemployment is down, tax reciepts are up, Per Capita GDP is up, balance of trade is much better, and the poverty rate has indeed declined modestly. Mexico still suffers from a 50% poverty rate but that's better then the 60% per NAFTA.
|
Unemployment has worsened in the last 2 years and the official data is a huge ruse since the national statistical agency grossly understates it (many people have recently called for a a more accurate methodology in reporting uemployment). I have numerous friends who have failed to find jobs after college and this coming from one of the most prestigious private universities in Latin America. God forbid we graduated from a public one.
Secondly, GDP per capita is up in the nominal sense, it is not up in the real sense and it is hardly up in purchasing power. Like I mentioned before, purchasing power has not yet reached its 1982 levels. That means much more than any numerical increase in GDP.
Also regarding poverty, it has not declined at all, it's been at 50% even before NAFTA. Problem is income inequality, and Mexico has gained a few decimal points on the Gini scale ever since NAFTA came into effect. The rural areas, which the area directly related to my line of work have been considerably worse off since NAFTA.
NAFTA has sadly only benefited foreign multinationals, and the modern sector of the Mexican economy which is capable and skilled enough to take advantage of export possibilities. This sector is, however, a minority, compared to the total employed population. NAFTA wiped out the small domestic industry sector (this is a documented fact) which was the major employer and now threatenes to wipe out the rural sector by 2008 when all agricultural barriers are set to be dropped.
Of course if a certain country stoped massively subsidizing its agro sector we could at least claim to have been defeated by an opponent who fought fair. 
Seriously, don't believe the hype that the WB and the IMF preach. They like to paint Mexico as a success story since free trade and market opening is their main political and ideological drive. The reality on the ground is very different and I see it all too often in my visits to the poor rural towns around here. Tell any Mexican or anyone else who lives here (ask MichaeltheGreat for example) and they'll only confirm what I say.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
Unemployment has worsened in the last 2 years and the official data is a huge ruse since the national statistical agency grossly understates it (many people have recently called for a a more accurate methodology in reporting uemployment). I have numerous friends who have failed to find jobs after college and this coming from one of the most prestigious private universities in Latin America. God forbid we graduated from a public one.
Secondly, GDP per capita is up in the nominal sense, it is not up in the real sense and it is hardly up in purchasing power. Like I mentioned before, purchasing power has not yet reached its 1982 levels. That means much more than any numerical increase in GDP.
Also regarding poverty, it has not declined at all, it's been at 50% even before NAFTA. Problem is income inequality, and Mexico has gained a few decimal points on the Gini scale ever since NAFTA came into effect. The rural areas, which the area directly related to my line of work have been considerably worse off since NAFTA.
NAFTA has sadly only benefited foreign multinationals, and the modern sector of the Mexican economy which is capable and skilled enough to take advantage of export possibilities. This sector is, however, a minority, compared to the total employed population. NAFTA wiped out the small domestic industry sector (this is a documented fact) which was the major employer and now threatenes to wipe out the rural sector by 2008 when all agricultural barriers are set to be dropped.
Of course if a certain country stoped massively subsidizing its agro sector we could at least claim to have been defeated by an opponent who fought fair.
Seriously, don't believe the hype that the WB and the IMF preach. They like to paint Mexico as a success story since free trade and market opening is their main political and ideological drive. The reality on the ground is very different and I see it all too often in my visits to the poor rural towns around here. Tell any Mexican or anyone else who lives here (ask MichaeltheGreat for example) and they'll only confirm what I say. |
Insightful post, Zen. But here, the rules are that you're not allowed to use facts for your arguments. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
From your data:
quote:
During 1993-1998, the TB case rate was 32.9 per 100000 population in foreign-born persons compared with 5.8 per 100000 in US-born persons. Six states reported 73.4% of foreign-born cases (California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois). Approximately two thirds of these cases were originally from Mexico, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, China, Haiti, and South Korea. |
So its poor immigrants, legal or not, who are liekly to develop TB, specially if they are latent carriers, since being a bacteria, you can't really vaccinate against TB.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2005 10:36
Attachment: 
|
