WSJ: Mexico Retaliates

Ilion

'Opinion Journal' of the WSJ: Mexico Retaliates[^] (or, What is it with those damned fool Democrats and their Teleprompter Jesus?)

Oakman

Wonderful! Now it's our turn. Let's put a tariff on any goods coming into the U.S. that is produced by a company that closed down a plant in the states and opened one up in Ol' Mehico! Nafta was followed by Cafta and the next one is Shaftyah.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Mike Gaskey

Oakman wrote:

Wonderful! Now it's our turn

Déjà vu all over again. History is simply wonderful.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Rob Graham

The penultimate cause of the retaliation by Mexico was the late insertion of a bone thrown to Obama's Union friends, in clear violation of a ratified treaty. It does not make me particularly happy that the US can no longer be trusted to abide by the treaties it makes, regardless of the merits or demerits of the canceled program. The fact that this funding change was smuggled in under cover of the recent stimulus bill (how does de-funding a truck inspection/admission program stimulate the economy?) just makes it all the more disgustingly dishonorable. A trade war is exactly what we need right now, never mind that one helped prolong the last great depression.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

A trade war is exactly what we need right now, never mind that one helped prolong the last great depression.

Rob, in my humble opinion, we have been in a trade war with much of the world for quite some time. And we have been losing, badly. The Mexican aspects of NAFTA have never been what was written into the treaty, and I suspect they never can be. A treaty is a contract and either both sides live up to it or none should. Isn't there a small amount of irony in Mexico declaring a trade war with us while begging for millions (billions?) in aid?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

73Zeppelin

I was going to reprimand you for the accent on the final 'a', but then I realized you were right! :laugh: You googled that, didn't you?

Rob Graham

There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. If the treaty is flawed, or Mexico isn't living up to the provisions of the treaty, then withdraw from the treaty. The wrong way is to not live up to our side of the deal by slipping some dumb provision to cancel funding into a stimulus bill just to please the teamsters union. My point had nothing to do with whether NAFTA was good, smart, or beneficial to US. It has to do with how nations this nation should behave with respect to the agreements it makes with others. We certainly can't expect Mexico, Canada, or any others to abide by their agreements with us if we sneak out from under our obligations.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

We certainly can't expect Mexico, Canada, or any others to abide by their agreements with us if we sneak out from under our obligations.

I hear you and want to agree with you. But when Mexico doesn't live up to their side of the agreement, why should they expect us to do so? I believe the answer is that we are so concerned about not being seen as a bully that we ignore being taken advantage of, time and time again. One of the things I have heard no-one say is that American drivers are making deliveries deep inside Mexico, even in the pilot program. As long as we are talking about obligations, shouldn't we expect Mexico to stop aiding and abetting illegal entry into the U.S.? I don't mean that they should do anything to stop it, just stop providing government assistance to those who attempt to enter our country illegally.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

But when Mexico doesn't live up to their side of the agreement, why should they expect us to do so? I believe the answer is that we are so concerned about not being seen as a bully that we ignore being taken advantage of, time and time again.

When Mexico doesn't live up to their side of the treaty we should point that out clearly, give them a deadline for compliance, then cancel the agreement when they fail to. What we should not do is behave just like them and try to cheat on the treaty. As to the bully business, we get "credit" for that anyway. We should just be forthright and insist on mutual compliance.

Oakman wrote:

One of the things I have heard no-one say is that American drivers are making deliveries deep inside Mexico, even in the pilot program.

Given the Narco-revolution going on down there, I doubt you could pay enough to get an American trucker to deliver there. But if they are being prevented from doing so by the Mexican government, then the above reply applies.

Oakman

Rob, it has occurred to me that we are battling should against possible. It's an argument I deal with every day since I truly believe that a libertarian society is the only rational alternative to the cycle of republic-democracy-dictatorship-republic-etc. that seems to have been the choice of civilized humans for quite some time. When i think of our world's and/or our nation's problems I know what I think should be the answer, but I am also aware of what can be the answer. Right now you are saying, we should keep our word, and I cannot argue with that. When I said that as soon as one can no longer count on contracts as being enforceable, one of the basic premises of our society is broken, I meant it. I am saying only that given the way the rest of the world works, that may be a recipe for a national death by a thousand cuts. And I am asking, in a world of oath-breakers, can we afford to play by the rules? Heinlein's answer was: "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you." Obama's answer seems to be it doesn't matter how you play the game; it only matters whether you win or lose.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Yeah, but I still like Heinlein's answer better than Obama's. I think Heinlein's point was that somebody has to take the initiative or nothing will ever improve. I think we're capable of being a cut above the rest, and just want us to live up to our potential. I'm not saying we should willingly suffer fools and the thousand cuts they deliver, but rather that we should play rough, but honest and aboveboard. Given the politicians that are running the show, that is probably a pretty silly hope on my part. Like all the rest Obama talked a much better line than he's walking. Too bad. I happen to think that how one plays the game may be the most important thing of all, but then that comes from an old fashioned sense of honor and it's importance to how men and nations should behave. You hardly ever hear that word mentioned any more. I just wish I thought there was any serious contemplation of outcomes and consequences involved in most of the crap going on these days, and provoking our neighbors with the NAFTA duplicity is just a tiny example.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

but rather that we should play rough, but honest and aboveboard.

I agree, but I immediately have to wonder what the political life-expectancy of an administration that followed that precept would be. When you think of the people this country elects, I am afraid we'll never see anyone in power again who will value honesty or integrity or honor. It would seem the prevailing opinion is Stan's: "Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing."

Rob Graham wrote:

I just wish I thought there was any serious contemplation of outcomes and consequences involved in most of the crap going on these days, and provoking our neighbors with the NAFTA duplicity is just a tiny example.

Well, it's cold comfort, but I suspect that once inflation reaches 20% @ year - on its way to 100% @ year, what our southern neighbors think of us won't matter a lot. But I confess I will smile a bit when they start to nationalize all those factories the internationals built for them. Not because it'd be good for the US, but because I can say, 'I told you so," one more time. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

but I suspect that once inflation reaches 20% @ year - on its way to 100% @ year, what our southern neighbors think of us won't matter a lot.

I don't worry too much about them either. I do worry what the Chinese will do about us monetizing their Treasury bond holdings into worthless paper. I suspect they didn't really see that as a likely outcome when they bought them. The same probably goes for some Saudi royalty, but they don't have the wherwithall to show us just how pissed they might be. Do you suppose it will be hard to adapt to Mandarin as the official language?

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

Do you suppose it will be hard to adapt to Mandarin as the official language?

I let you whippersnappers worry about that. Babel Fish can probably teach me everything I need to know. I mean, how hard is it to learn to say, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on?" in any language?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

It would seem the prevailing opinion is Stan's: "Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing."

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Perhaps so, more's the pity.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

Mike Gaskey

73Zeppelin wrote:

You googled that, didn't you?

:-\ good call.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

Rob Graham

Oakman wrote:

I mean, how hard is it to learn to say, "f*** you and the horse you rode in on?" in any language?

Yeah, that's pretty much a single digit statement in any language... I don't think I qualify for the whippersnapper part any more, having reached the age of 26.

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

Perhaps so, more's the pity.

Yeah, because its really too bad that we don't live in a world controlled by slave owning Nazis.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Rob Graham wrote:

I don't think I qualify for the whippersnapper part any more, having reached the age of 26.

I can remember when I was that age. I wondered last night; had you seen the need to learn Mandarin coming from finacial or military conquest? I assumed the latter, probably just because that's the way my mind works.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface