[muserskiy]

Success or failure?

[Sithsaber]

Depends on who we're talking about.

[mikema63]

By what metric are we to measure this?

[Decky]

It is an effective tool of US imperial power. Preventing the Mexican government from using the subsidies and tariffs it needs to develop its economy was a stroke of genius. Keeping them from developing ensures a steady stream of easily exploitable workers flowing over the border to keep wages down and keep profits high.

[mikema63]

stroke of genesis

Quite the opposite actually.

[Decky]

Why do you have to point out my glaringly obvious mistakes?

[mikema63]

[muserskiy]

It is an effective tool of US imperial power. Preventing the Mexican government from using the subsidies and tariffs it needs to develop its economy was a stroke of genius. Keeping them from developing ensures a steady stream of easily exploitable workers flowing over the border to keep wages down and keep profits high.

So you say Mexico would have been better off by imposing tariffs and protectionism? Make me laugh

[Decky]

So you say Mexico would have been better off by imposing tariffs and protectionism?

Yep. Developing their own domestic industries rather than jut existing as a colony for the US would have been better for them. It would have also been better for the US as it wouldn't have a failed state bordering it constantly hemorrhaging people over the border.

[muserskiy]

I'm pretty sure raising tarrifs and closing your economy is as effective for industrialization as putting a band-air on a chopped off arm is effective for curing you

[Decky]

Not like it's ever worked for any one before eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea

[muserskiy]

I'm pretty sure any serious paper on South Korea and Asian industrialization focus on 1) Education and 2) High savings rate

To think it was caused by protectionism or exchange rate is lunacy.. Mexico, with its education rate, did the correct thing. Specialization in commodities and free trade.

[KPres]

Yep. Developing their own domestic industries rather than jut existing as a colony for the US would have been better for them. It would have also been better for the US as it wouldn't have a failed state bordering it constantly hemorrhaging people over the border.

Yeah, it's been terrible for their economy, hasn't it...



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/mexico/ ... capita-ppp

[U184]

Canada and Mexico both went up majorly on the list of largest economies after 1994. I do not have time to grab the data at the moment, but I seem to remember the jump being dramatic. Like 50 places for Canada and 100 places for Mexico. Going from geek to sheek was hardly a bad thing. NAFTA also had particulars about increasing the infrastructure in Mexico, I think the clause title was "innovation and infrastructure".

NAFTA has hardly been bad, for any involved. Building the North American Corridor would vastly increase what is currently the worlds largest economic trading arena. The US trades with Canada to the tune of a billion more in trade ahead of China (around $480 billion), and Mexico is just shy of Chinese levels in American trade.

[Someone5]

So you say Mexico would have been better off by imposing tariffs and protectionism? Make me laugh

It's basically impossible to transition from agriculture and mineral exploitation (as the basis of a national economy) to competitive industry without protectionist policies, tariffs, and land reform.

[Someone5]

I'm pretty sure any serious paper on South Korea and Asian industrialization focus on 1) Education and 2) High savings rate

Pretty sure any serious paper is going to point out that they industrialized rapidly because of a whole basket of essential policies--that included protectionist measures as well. There isn't actually a magic bullet, but certainly it is impossible to build native industrial capacity when established competitors keep destroying your local startups.