Merging the Canadian Dollar, American Dollar and the Mexican Peso

[Eric is God]

edit: Oh, and I have a feeling you have more knowledge (perhaps your waving of your degree) of this anyway :grin:

And is it really that difficult to make things a little more even?

Normally that might be the case but it was an innocent reference. A lot of people (yourself included) have demonstrated more than a basic level of economics knowledge so there is no need to dismiss anyone's opinion by waving my degree around

Unfortunately it is THAT difficult to make things a little better. It's difficult because anything as complicated as free trade is going to involve almost every special interest group in a country. Politics is a necessary evil, it's just more evil than necessary. That's the reason I almost never vote. Very rarely can any political party (in Canada anyways) bring about significant social change for better or worse. But then again I'm extremely cynical so don't listen to me.

[Galleleo]

Even worse are those CEO's that are brought in to lead big companies, don't reach any of the main goals or targets that were set, and still leave with a huge bonus after 4 years.

Really? I was planning on being one of them.

[Cops]

Yeah, sure the Adam Smith model of capitalism is supposed to work without interference, but that's applying Social Darwinism to human beings which doesn't really work.

Well, it works for those with callous hearts.

I completely agree, this is pretty much the same debate as the Health Care thread.

[Squeezer]

I'm not going to argue with anything you said. If there's anything I've learned from my undergrad degree in economics it's that real life is very far from the tidy equilibrium points we set. All I ever hope for is that society takes 2 steps forward for every 1 step back.

I get pissed thinking about how the two CEO's of my company have personally made $4-5 billion in the last 5 months due to stock pricine increases while the average employee will see a bump in their performance bonus of $200-300. I'm not trying to compare myself to a Mexican worker, but it's all relative as there are many people in Canada who barely get by on $30-40k a year. The point is you see people getting screwed at almost every level of society because it's a very flawed system we live in.

Alright, fair enough. I'm not going to drag out an argument, and I guess on one level you and I disagree.

edit: Oh, and I have a feeling you have more knowledge (perhaps your waving of your degree) of this anyway :grin:

And is it really that difficult to make things a little more even?

[Zerzera]

Even worse are those CEO's that are brought in to lead big companies, don't reach any of the main goals or targets that were set, and still leave with a huge bonus after 4 years.

[Eric is God]

Tell that to the Mexican making $.40 an hour so that "CEO of random fortune 500 company" can make almost 100 times more than the American that works for them, never mind the egregious gap between the wages being made by those actually manufacturing the goods. I mean christ, they struggle to make a living wage by their standards (less than a dollar an hour is not a sizable living wage...Even in Mexico.)

I get where you're coming from and have heard the positives of NAFTA first hand. I agree it's a good idea, but at the same time it's not hard to see who's really benefiting from the agreement, and who isn't.

I'm not going to argue with anything you said. If there's anything I've learned from my undergrad degree in economics it's that real life is very far from the tidy equilibrium points we set. All I ever hope for is that society takes 2 steps forward for every 1 step back.

I get pissed thinking about how the two CEO's of my company have personally made $4-5 billion in the last 5 months due to stock pricine increases while the average employee will see a bump in their performance bonus of $200-300. I'm not trying to compare myself to a Mexican worker, but it's all relative as there are many people in Canada who barely get by on $30-40k a year. The point is you see people getting screwed at almost every level of society because it's a very flawed system we live in.

[Squeezer]

It all depends on what corner you are coming from, but pure Capitalism is supposed to work on it's own not with interference from the Government making rules and what not.

Yeah, sure the Adam Smith model of capitalism is supposed to work without interference, but that's applying Social Darwinism to human beings which doesn't really work.

Well, it works for those with callous hearts.

[Galleleo]

It all depends on what corner you are coming from, but pure Capitalism is supposed to work on it's own not with interference from the Government making rules and what not.

[Squeezer]

I definetely agree that NAFTA is far from perfect, but I believe it's impact has been largely beneficial. Free trade is something that works best when applied gradually; 10 years is a very short time. I might be missing something but I don't understand why free trade would ever be of great benefit to small businesses. Allowing for free exchange of capital between countries should be benefical to businesses that would like to move one or all stages of their production process to another country. What percentage of small businesses operate outside their state let alone country? There are going to be transition pains anytime you make a sweeping change like NAFTA, but as long as the new equilibrium is above the old one I'd say it's worth it.

Tell that to the Mexican making $.40 an hour so that "CEO of random fortune 500 company" can make almost 100 times more than the American that works for them, never mind the egregious gap between the wages being made by those actually manufacturing the goods. I mean christ, they struggle to make a living wage by their standards (less than a dollar an hour is not a sizable living wage...Even in Mexico.)

I get where you're coming from and have heard the positives of NAFTA first hand. I agree it's a good idea, but at the same time it's not hard to see who's really benefiting from the agreement, and who isn't.

[Eric is God]

right and wrong... NAFTA isn't capitalism, it's an economic regime.

A real "North American Free Trade Agreement" would have been an agreement between our three countries to abolish tariffs, taxes, quotas, and other protectionist measures.

As much as I have faith in our leaders that they know what they're doing, it's be pretty nice to let businesses choose where they produce, and let consumers decide how much they want to pay for goods.

I think these sort of free trade agreements are very mercantilist and very protectionist/isolationist. Yes, America, Mexico and Canada are now forced into a collective economic pool, and therefore we are not 'protectionist', but zoom out and you'll see that these sort of free trade agreements have not 'opened' our countries up, but merely created four new economic blocs - North America, Asia, Europe, and Russia/post-USSR countries.

And then of course you have the political aspect of NAFTA - a 1,200 page document dictating who can sell what to whom. Many political agendas have been buried into the document. For instance, regulations have had a sharp impact on the amount of money being invested into Alaska and New Hampshire, and alot of small businesses are hurt each year thanks to increased costs in labor and legal fees - small businesses have literally gone out of business because they couldn't afford the lawyer necessary to sift through the legal red tape.

This is where Canada, for once, didn't drop the ball on this sort of thing - they actually refused to agree to the provisions of the "Commission on Economic Cooperation", whose secretariat can pass policy and regulation on even the North American governments.

I do not think we should attempt to help Mexico when our own economy is sliding... but now, I'm sure there are millions of people to the north and south of America whose lives depend on NAFTA, and so now to disengage and attempt to rebuild our economy first would wind up hurting and probably killing alot of people.

NAFTA is a free trade agreement, but it benefits everyone except who really benefits from free trade. It benefits politicians who now weild wider economic and, therefore, political powers. It benefits big businesses who have special priveledge, and it benefits the international banks who can find more territories to conquer and indebt.

The people who need the benefit of free trade most - small businesses and local firms - are the ones impacted negatively by NAFTA the most. In return we also get an international, mercantilist trading bloc. Nice.

It's been over ten years since NAFTA was initially created. Why isn't Mexico a thriving economic power? Ten years would have given the actual markets plenty of time to revamp the nation.

I definetely agree that NAFTA is far from perfect, but I believe it's impact has been largely beneficial. Free trade is something that works best when applied gradually; 10 years is a very short time. I might be missing something but I don't understand why free trade would ever be of great benefit to small businesses. Allowing for free exchange of capital between countries should be benefical to businesses that would like to move one or all stages of their production process to another country. What percentage of small businesses operate outside their state let alone country? There are going to be transition pains anytime you make a sweeping change like NAFTA, but as long as the new equilibrium is above the old one I'd say it's worth it.

[Jerome Scuggs]

People can either accept capitalism for it's positives and negatives or they can try another economic regime.

right and wrong... NAFTA isn't capitalism, it's an economic regime.

A real "North American Free Trade Agreement" would have been an agreement between our three countries to abolish tariffs, taxes, quotas, and other protectionist measures.

As much as I have faith in our leaders that they know what they're doing, it's be pretty nice to let businesses choose where they produce, and let consumers decide how much they want to pay for goods.

I think these sort of free trade agreements are very mercantilist and very protectionist/isolationist. Yes, America, Mexico and Canada are now forced into a collective economic pool, and therefore we are not 'protectionist', but zoom out and you'll see that these sort of free trade agreements have not 'opened' our countries up, but merely created four new economic blocs - North America, Asia, Europe, and Russia/post-USSR countries.

And then of course you have the political aspect of NAFTA - a 1,200 page document dictating who can sell what to whom. Many political agendas have been buried into the document. For instance, regulations have had a sharp impact on the amount of money being invested into Alaska and New Hampshire, and alot of small businesses are hurt each year thanks to increased costs in labor and legal fees - small businesses have literally gone out of business because they couldn't afford the lawyer necessary to sift through the legal red tape.

This is where Canada, for once, didn't drop the ball on this sort of thing - they actually refused to agree to the provisions of the "Commission on Economic Cooperation", whose secretariat can pass policy and regulation on even the North American governments.

I do not think we should attempt to help Mexico when our own economy is sliding... but now, I'm sure there are millions of people to the north and south of America whose lives depend on NAFTA, and so now to disengage and attempt to rebuild our economy first would wind up hurting and probably killing alot of people.

NAFTA is a free trade agreement, but it benefits everyone except who really benefits from free trade. It benefits politicians who now weild wider economic and, therefore, political powers. It benefits big businesses who have special priveledge, and it benefits the international banks who can find more territories to conquer and indebt.

The people who need the benefit of free trade most - small businesses and local firms - are the ones impacted negatively by NAFTA the most. In return we also get an international, mercantilist trading bloc. Nice.

It's been over ten years since NAFTA was initially created. Why isn't Mexico a thriving economic power? Ten years would have given the actual markets plenty of time to revamp the nation.

[Eric is God]

NAFTA does not benefit the average American Industrial worker.

It does however put more money in the pockets of large business owners.

Corporate high ups tend to "help" decide legislation in this country.

As such, NAFTA makes the rich more rich and screws over the poor Mexicans.

I don't like NAFTA either 404, but it will remain because it works perfectly for CEOs looking only to turn a profit.

It benefits the average American worker by lowering the production costs of many goods, which ultimately decreases the price. Do thousands of American manufacturing workers lose their jobs? Of course, because their salaries were too high in the first place. The whole point is to ensure that countries with a relative advantage in something (like costs of production for Mexico) specialize in those jobs. Every country in the world could decide to close it borders and produce from within. The result would be much higher prices, less focus on education as the developed nations would need a lot of unskilled labourers, much less technological progress and reduced quality of life overall. People can either accept capitalism for it's positives and negatives or they can try another economic regime. America's problem is it's under developed social net. Spend money on supporting and retraining people who lose their jobs and the impact isn't as rough.

I'm fairly certain the average Mexican wage has increased a whole lot because of NAFTA. They still aren't making $40k a year, but it's a lot better than it used to be. CEO's aren't the source of all evil... they base their decisions on profits because their investors (largely made up of average Americans) demand it. Would it be better for companies to keep their manufacturing costs high, causing their prices to be high, causing their sales and growth to be low, causing layoffs in the end anyways?

[Material Girl]

Some lucky guy... his father started the company but he really diversified their holdings... banks, construction, mobile phones, etc.

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

[Cops]

No, but that's really impressive. Who is he?

[Material Girl]

Did you guys hear about that Mexican businessman, Carlos Slim, that has surpassed Bill Gates in riches?