I'm writing two research papers on NAFTA at the moment.
One is about the increase in illegal migration from Mexico as a result of the treaty and another is on the economic damages it caused in Mexico, especially to the agricultural sector.
Even after living in Mexico where NAFTA and the word for "Satan" are interchangeable, my knowledge of the treaty was not what it should have been and I am now taking action to change that.
My inspiration came from a huge and very public row I had with my International Econ professor at grad school.
The professor stated that NAFTA wasn't all that bad and that dismissing it as such was irresponsible.
This led me to raise my hand and say that it might not have been that bad for the U.S. but that things had turned out very differently in Mexico.
I stated that I had lived in Mexico during the time when a spike in the price of corn had caused the price of tortillas to skyrocket with devastating results for thousands of poor Mexicans.
I also added that maquiladoras weren't some wonderful cure-all for Mexicans because they were labor intensive and those who couldn't keep up with demand or were injured could be fired and easily replaced. I also pointed out that they had no social safety net to protect them when this happened. (Not to mention that their wages don't provide some sort of stepping stone to a better life).
She answered me by saying, "let me debunk that.." at which point I lost my proverbial shit and replied, "you can't debunk the truth."
Then she decided to throw some Latin at me. "There's a term called ceteris paribus," she began.
"Ceteris paribus," I said, Latin for 'all things being considered equal,' only between Mexico and the U.S. things have never been equal."
She went on to say that without NAFTA, Mexico would have been worse off and suffered from more poverty and that, "Things in Mexico are better now."
At that point I realized that it was futile to stay in the class and that doing so carried the risk of my saying something I might regret later. So I walked out.
This was not the first time I had listened to this particular professor gloss over ugly economic realities.
When I spoke of a town where I used to live that had been devastated by competition from China she dismissed my story by saying there were government programs to help the unemployed.
Only things didn't happen that way and government assistance programs are not a long-term fix.
Her complete unwillingness to accept criticism on economic policies always seemed suspect but her attempt to "debunk" what I had seen first-hand was the final straw.
I marched over to my adviser's officer and spoke with both her and the dean of my school. I told them I was dropping my Econ class and that I refused to take any other classes with someone who was so biased and ignorant. I likened her teaching credibility to someone who claims that the earth is flat. For good measure I threw in a "how dare she" when referencing her attempts to nullify my personal experiences in Mexico.
After my soul-baring experience in that office, I sought out my favorite professor who happens to be Mexican and to have worked with the Mexican government during the drafting and revision of NAFTA.
The results of that conversation were extremely vindicating.
I have written before about the willingness of some of my classmates to accept awful policies and economic practices in the name of "development" or "Capitalism" but I am particularly horrified by this practice in recognized authorities such as economics professors. Especially professors who are teaching future policy makers.
A friend of mine who graduated from Yale law school told me he had seen countless econ students take up the teachings of their econ idols and act as if they were sacred and infallible.
I have seen various economists state over and over again that NAFTA "isn't bad but..."
What is it about this treaty that makes economists first point out its failings and then back peddle like mad to defend it?
I started out writing my paper on NAFTA-induced migration with an unfurrowed brow and a sense of benign curiosity.
Then something dreadful happened on page four.
After reading a NYT article in which no less than three economist essentially said, "NAFTA isn't bad but..." something in me snapped and the following paragraph was formed:
Who can say really? All I know is that I'm leaving off the paper writing until I've had a good night's sleep.
One is about the increase in illegal migration from Mexico as a result of the treaty and another is on the economic damages it caused in Mexico, especially to the agricultural sector.
Even after living in Mexico where NAFTA and the word for "Satan" are interchangeable, my knowledge of the treaty was not what it should have been and I am now taking action to change that.
My inspiration came from a huge and very public row I had with my International Econ professor at grad school.
The professor stated that NAFTA wasn't all that bad and that dismissing it as such was irresponsible.
This led me to raise my hand and say that it might not have been that bad for the U.S. but that things had turned out very differently in Mexico.
I stated that I had lived in Mexico during the time when a spike in the price of corn had caused the price of tortillas to skyrocket with devastating results for thousands of poor Mexicans.
I also added that maquiladoras weren't some wonderful cure-all for Mexicans because they were labor intensive and those who couldn't keep up with demand or were injured could be fired and easily replaced. I also pointed out that they had no social safety net to protect them when this happened. (Not to mention that their wages don't provide some sort of stepping stone to a better life).
She answered me by saying, "let me debunk that.." at which point I lost my proverbial shit and replied, "you can't debunk the truth."
Then she decided to throw some Latin at me. "There's a term called ceteris paribus," she began.
"Ceteris paribus," I said, Latin for 'all things being considered equal,' only between Mexico and the U.S. things have never been equal."
She went on to say that without NAFTA, Mexico would have been worse off and suffered from more poverty and that, "Things in Mexico are better now."
At that point I realized that it was futile to stay in the class and that doing so carried the risk of my saying something I might regret later. So I walked out.
This was not the first time I had listened to this particular professor gloss over ugly economic realities.
When I spoke of a town where I used to live that had been devastated by competition from China she dismissed my story by saying there were government programs to help the unemployed.
Only things didn't happen that way and government assistance programs are not a long-term fix.
Her complete unwillingness to accept criticism on economic policies always seemed suspect but her attempt to "debunk" what I had seen first-hand was the final straw.
I marched over to my adviser's officer and spoke with both her and the dean of my school. I told them I was dropping my Econ class and that I refused to take any other classes with someone who was so biased and ignorant. I likened her teaching credibility to someone who claims that the earth is flat. For good measure I threw in a "how dare she" when referencing her attempts to nullify my personal experiences in Mexico.
After my soul-baring experience in that office, I sought out my favorite professor who happens to be Mexican and to have worked with the Mexican government during the drafting and revision of NAFTA.
The results of that conversation were extremely vindicating.
I have written before about the willingness of some of my classmates to accept awful policies and economic practices in the name of "development" or "Capitalism" but I am particularly horrified by this practice in recognized authorities such as economics professors. Especially professors who are teaching future policy makers.
A friend of mine who graduated from Yale law school told me he had seen countless econ students take up the teachings of their econ idols and act as if they were sacred and infallible.
I have seen various economists state over and over again that NAFTA "isn't bad but..."
What is it about this treaty that makes economists first point out its failings and then back peddle like mad to defend it?
I started out writing my paper on NAFTA-induced migration with an unfurrowed brow and a sense of benign curiosity.
Then something dreadful happened on page four.
After reading a NYT article in which no less than three economist essentially said, "NAFTA isn't bad but..." something in me snapped and the following paragraph was formed:
I
am surprised by economists’ repeated defense of NAFTA even while saying things
like “NAFTA isn’t bad but… (Insert shortcoming here).” If a trade agreement is
being crafted between nations without due diligence then, in my book, it's a
bad agreement. I often think there must be some secret pact between economists
to never admit to NAFTA failure for fear that it would somehow draw attention
to the fact that many of them are nothing more than fortune tellers working
with improper assumptions, faulty math, and a complete blindness to human
suffering caused in the name of Capitalism.
Perhaps this sudden nastiness has to do with the lateness of the hour or perhaps the seeds of discontent were sown months ago when a certain economics professor decided to "debunk" the suffering of thousands of Mexicans.
Who can say really? All I know is that I'm leaving off the paper writing until I've had a good night's sleep.
No comments:
Post a Comment