3/19/2008

Mexican official says NAFTA includes superhighways

'Transportation linking the United States,
Mexico and Canada is key to the future'


By Jerome R. Corsi, WorldNetDaily

While President Bush and other U.S. officials have derided fears of a NAFTA superhighway as merely conspiracy theory, a Mexican transportation expert contends the trade agreement includes plans for a network of international ship, rail and truck connections to deliver consumer goods from China and the Far East to Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.

"Transportation linking the United States, Mexico and Canada is key to the future of NAFTA," Eduardo Aspero, president of the Mexican Intermodal Association, told a recent luncheon sponsored by the Free Trade Alliance San Antonio.

Read the rest of the article HERE.

7 comments:

Chase Irving said...

Generally speaking, is more integration with Mexico and Canada bad policy?

Anonymous said...

Jobs lost, even less of an accountable government (if that's possible), more illegal imigration and more.

Just google (nafta failures).

Anonymous said...

The TTC way of more integration is bad. All of the money is siphoned from ordinary hard working Americans to a few in-the-know, lazy, unaccountable policymakers and foreign CEOs. It's a land and money grab. Taxed, tolled and tracked. The TTC certainly isn't this. I'm all for cultural integration- we should all take time to travel and learn more languages. Austin's blessed with Latin American music, food, and more. But the TTC isn't about this. It's about diverting our tax dollars to help Wal-Mart have lower prices than the competition. Why is the US government loaning and giving billions of dollars to Cintra, a foreign corporation, to build a TOLL road? NO! This is ridiculous. If we're paying for the road with our tax dollars, it shouldn't be tolled. End of story.

Chase Irving said...

Can't argue much with the last comment. It's a shame that good ideas fall prey to those crooked rent seekers.

I can't say I'm opposed to the TTC altogether. But I guess it's a lot like free trade. It has the potential to do so much good, but in reality what we end up with is something far from "free."

Anonymous said...

Chase,

Things gravitate to the least common denominator. Integration by definition lowers US standards to Mexican standards; it doesn't bring Mexico up to US standards. The US is well on its way to losing its middle class and becoming a debt-ridden, third world banana republic.

Chase Irving said...

Although I share your sentiments concerning our withering middle class, I can't say I agree that integration is a bad thing all the way around. It's been positive for Europe, at least following the transfer of power from the Bundesbank to the ECB. It's also done a lot for valley cities in Texas. Pharr may just now be getting its sewage problems looked at, but who knows if it ever would have in the absence of a port of entry.

The middle class issue is, in my opinion, one of the most difficult issues we're facing, structurally and politically. Greenspan made sense to me when he said it's not a question of if we can reenergize our manufacturing sector, it's one of how long we can protect it before it becomes another arm of our government. There's no doubt we'll still be debating it a generation from now. Three generations from now, the scene may be different. It's troubling and unfortunate and, to me, doesn't have any workable solutions in the present. Hopefully the smart people in DC can come up with something better.

Anonymous said...

It could be argued that there's a disparity in culture among Europeans, but there wasn't a huge disparity in the standard of living among Europeans. At least, nothing like the SOL disparity between the US and Mexico. So integration in Europe seems to have made more sense.

As far as solving things, we tax production rather than consumption. The Chinese don't pay US income tax, SS, medicare, tolls or anything else. The jobs left end up shouldering a larger burden as each incremental one is exported.

Every job that's been outsourced was important enough to someone to show up and do it every day, and the job hasn't been 'eliminated.' It's being done by someone somewhere else, with the US buyer of that good or sevice now not paying the true cost of producing the thing consumed. We end up increasing the need for government services while decreasing the ability of a worker to contribute and pay for them.

A national sales tax would put it all on an equal footing, with it ceasing to matter where something is produced. If a worker couldn't, in this scenario, defend his product from foreign competition on his own turf, he would deserve to lose his job.

All rights, boiled down are property rights. Mexico and the rest of the world doesn't have many. Ours are endangered. That's what this fight is about.