Balance of trade, globalization, and unemployment

Actually no. NAFTA caused corn prices to go up to unaffordable levels in Mexico, because the U.S. was a net importer of corn. Most of this corn went to things like making high fructose corn syrup as an ingredient to sweeten foods and beverages, or towards ethanol production to meet federal mandates for car fuel. It got so bad there were several "corn protests" held in Mexico's capital.

What NAFTA did do was flood the Mexican market with low priced wheat, which drove many small peasant farmers out of business.
Unfortunately it's much more difficult to grow corn than wheat because corn is much more water intensive to grow, so much of the cheaper, drier land in the North where the Mexican peasant farmers live is off limits to corn production. Furthermore, corn flour is a traditional food and the Mexican poor prefer it to wheat. To some extent there is also a genetic component, as they may have a more difficult time being able to digest wheat than corn because of their ethnic heritage (especially the poorer Mexicans with less Spanish heritage).

 

Not quite true is it? e.g. Mexico "imported 13.8 million metric tons of U.S. corn in 2016"

 

Interesting. If Mexico was importing so much corn from the US, why were corn prices in Mexico going up?

https://www.cnbc.com/id/48996423

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080604-mexico-food.html


If the US was dumping cheap corn in Mexico, the corn prices should have been going down, no?

 

You stated a fallacy. You stated "NAFTA caused corn prices to go up to unaffordable levels in Mexico". That is nonsense. I believe the Mexicans are diversifying, but that reflects the likes of Trump and a failure in negotiations.

 

in term of economic thought conservatives support capitalism and freedom. Libs commies fascists monarchs etc don't support capitalism and freedom.

 

Government intervention was responsible; government intervention should resolve it.

 

You are attacked because they are clueless about the intricacies of globalization and are simply rooting for their political team du jour. Most people need to find, or better yet, create evil instead of truly defining our problems and being open-minded to the solutions. Why discuss a complex solution when it's easier and sexier to follow a group of idiots? I repeat this ad nauseam but IMO humans have not evolved enough, especially those who prefer to be in groups, to be capable of solving today's enormous and complex issues. A 'group' might include political parties or government, etc. I'm guessing if we had the best and brightest person interested in being president of the USA, or a member of Congress, no matter all of their intelligence and problem-solving skills, they will quickly become 99% ineffective once forced to function with under-evolved Americans/humans. If this can be true then we and most everyone else are screwed...

 

People have conflicting interests.
It's not the case that if you discuss something open mindedly that you are going to find a solution.

Genius is the art of reducing something complex to it's simplest forms. Too often complexity is used to bamboozle or to demonstrate superiority of mind to your rivals.
It is the mark of a conman to over complicate.

So I may reduce the conversation to lefty vs righty if that is the essence of the conflict of opinion. There simply is no need to elaborate in a discussion about rivalries that are fundamental in nature.
No 44 page essay on the nature of socialism vs liberalism is required. We've all heard it before. We've all said it before. And we've all argued back wards and forwards all arround and all up and down that tree 100 times before. We know where that gets us. No where.
So better to simplify. Say "F off lefty" or whatever.

44 pages of complexity reduced to it's core component.

 

so are the under evolved liberals or conservatives and why.

 

wrong I think. Yes, the battle evolves very very slowly but there is more freedom and prosperity on earth today than ever in human history precisely because we have been willing to take the time to point out in great detail over and over again how stupid liberalism really is. Look at the blood and gore in human history. It is obvious that most humans were very very stupid so why be surprised or discouraged that we still have liberals all around us today?

 

Not always. There is both credible orthodox and heterodox arguments in favour and against globalisation.

One thing I'll certainly agree with, mind you, is that globalisation is used as a mantra to demand that neoliberalism goes unchecked. It becomes a narrative merely to tell Joe Pleb that he has no other choice but to go with the status quo.

 

Unemployment compensation on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States is one solution to that equation.

Do we need, "Russian mathematical intervention"?

 

Yes we can find positive ideas for and against globalization. There are probably positive ideas why we should eliminate fiat money and use gold...but in the best interests of the USA and the world will this be practical? I'll always be open-minded to input from all sides but on top of this input is another layer of practicality. This is the area which we in the USA are now incapable of finding dialogue and consensus...

 

Certainly the US is a different kettle of fish. I've seen little rational anti-globalisation comment. It ranges from utopianism to vicious nationalism. The debate, overall, is controlled by pressure groups that pander to mercantilism. Good luck!

 

Our FISH is rotting from the head...

 

The right wing has Nothing but Red Herrings for their "learning how to fish" work ethic from the Age of Iron.

 

"When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win". Some idiot...

 

Trump is right. A surplus county has more to lose in a trade war though both lose in the end.

 

Nope. All lose immediately. Trade isn't a zero sum game. You seem to think mercantilist games work.

 

debate has been won by conservatives who increasingly have supported free trade since Depression. In fact Trump is for free trade too, among nations and states within the USA.

 

nobody said it was zero sum??????

 

how do you propose we get fair trade deals ???

 

Conservatives do not support free trade. You see that, for example, with their reliance on bilateralism rather than multilateralism. Of course, Conservatives also have to take into account the voting behaviour of nationalist idiocy.

 

You can only get fair trade through multilateralism. You divs have blubbered away from that as it would involve support for developing countries.

 

Trump is giving Mercantilist 101.