NY Times: "Blocking Mexican Trucks."

[muntrv]

Editorial
Blocking Mexican Trucks

Published: September 11, 2007
One way the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement was supposed to encourage free and efficient trade was by allowing long-haul trucks from Canada, Mexico and the United States to deliver goods throughout the three countries. Unfortunately, more than a decade later the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club and their allies in Congress are still working to keep Mexican trucks out.

The Teamsters and their environmental allies claim that the trucks aren’t safe and are dirty. A new pilot program, however, would require that any Mexican trucks approved for entry into the United States be inspected for safety every three months. Environmental regulations that apply to American trucks would also apply to Mexican trucks.

SEE MORE AT LINK BELOW

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/opinion/11tue2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[robinlynne]

1. wow. "Keeping Mexican trucks out only keeps transport costs higher, harming

American businesses and consumers. Well, NYT, how would you like it if we all started reading the New Delhi Times? I'll bet it's cheaper. Would that be better for American consumers and businesses?

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Ok I will agree with them but... there are caveats here

1.- I want ALL side agreements enforced.... yes that means living wages for mexican truckers and canadian truckers and Ameircan Truckers

2.- Unionization must be respected across the board... but, but... don't give me any buts

3.- SAME safety and operational standards across the boaard... either we lower ours, or we raise everybody else's. easy choice really.

Oh but you mean that this will not bring you the desired saving? Tough shit, next case... that is what we agreed to... not for the companies and gov'ments to ignore this.

[OzarkDem]

8. NAFTA is a flawed trade agreement

and when major flaws such as this one come to light, its reasonable to adapt and let safety remain a priority.

Its ok to put the safety of our own country first.

[pampango]

9. NAFTA is indeed a flawed agreement and should be either renegotiated or abrogated.

We should not, however, unilaterally decide that there are provisions that we will not follow.

When you negotiate a treaty or a contract with another country(say Mexico) or entity (say my mortgage company), there are usually parts of the agreement that you don't like (monthly payments), but agree to in order to get something you do like (the money to buy the house). I assume that Mexico gave concessions in the treaty in order to get things they wanted, like access for their truckers. Are we saying now, "Thanks for your concessions, Mexico. However, we had a meeting and a vote and decided that we are not going to implement the concessions that we made to you. We are bigger and meaner than you, so what are you going to do about it?" (Oh, and I wish the Senate would vote that I don't have to make monthly payments anymore ;)

Now that's a real liberal approach to treaties with Third World countries. How about the Senate shows some real courage and votes to withdraw from or renegotiate NAFTA. Do they think that our future negotiating partners - North Korea, Iran, China - don't notice that we reserve the right to renege on our concessions, as we see fit? Perhaps they should insist on the same right to renege on concessions, but that would make the whole purpose of a treaty kind of pointless, if neither side has to follow its provisions.

[OzarkDem]

10. Many third world countries have violated NAFTA

including Mexico. For years Mexico allowed China to violate NAFTA provisions against dumping product by serving as a staging country for Chinese imports into the US.

They've consistently failed to negotiate or ameliorate those violations. What makes you think we'll be able to expect any different in this situation?

NAFTA is fatally flawed and should be scrapped and renegotiated with real enforcement provisions.

[amandabeech]

3. This could have been written by an Indian college student as a first semester econ exam.

Gee, how much do you think the NYT would have had to cough up for the story?

Good god, the Times is so dim and SOOOO predictable.

I don't think that the Times has ever noted that opposition to NAFTA and other so-called free trade agreements is exceptionally strong and only getting strong among average Americans.

I'm guessing that Canadians aren't going to like Mexican trucks much, either. Are they idiots, too?

I feel badly for the average Mexican. Their politicians are corrupt, their police are corrupt, their elites are even greedier than ours and their jobs have gone to China, too.

I would support some sort of trade agreement with them, but it would have to accommodate the reality that the U.S. is a developed country and Mexico is not at this point, and that U.S. workers do not wish to participate in the race to the bottom for wages. even though the NYT and some 18th century economists say that we must.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Just one correction

NAFTA is NOT popular among the working classes in the three countries

And has done incredible damage, to the same level in fact, to the Mexican Economy.

Reality is that the side agreements (lke the one used to push for the trucks) are full of oportunities for labor in the three countries to do what the people who wanted these treaties (and allowed the side agreements in to mollify the critics) don't want them to do

Can you say living wages in the three nations? I knew you could... and given the cost of living in mexico is quite high... what can I say?

It is time for labor to see itself as a class and god dammit work together

Mexican Labor is not the problem, manangement is... just as American and Canadian labor is not the problem..

[amandabeech]

5. Your snarkiness does not enhance your arguments.

I find it exceptionally distasteful when writers and speakers attempt to show the superiority of their arguments by employing a truly nasty parody of the words of a gentle man who seemingly had not a snark nor a nasty bone in his body. Mr. Rogers's goal was to provide a television show during which children would be encouraged to show kindness and respect toward one another in the hopes that such lessons would guide their behavior in adulthood. Apparently, you either did not watch his show or you did not retain his message.

Commentators from time to time bemoan the coarseness that has infiltrated American society in the past decade or two. Democratic Underground to has not shown itself to be immune to that trend. The level of civility and respect in the discourse here appears to be descending into a black hole of rudeness.

There is very little that one person can do to turn back the side, but I choose to do what I can by advising my fellow DUers when they have disgraced themselves by coarseness of their their posts. Consider yourself disgraced.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I am sorry, no snarkiness meant

but the reality is... NAFTA is all but popular in the three countries

And it is high time that people BECOME more than aware of that

If you think that is being snarky... oh fucking well (and that my friend, is snarkiness)

[amandabeech]

7. I'm not your friend.

Using Mr. Rodgers's favorite words in a nasty way is snarky. Using the "f" word is profane.