Crack Based Editorials
I'm reading the editorial "Tex Mex Marshall Plan" in today's Washington Post, and wondering, how much crack did the writer (Steven Hill) smoke before he wrote this thing?
I say that, in all seriousness, because he either believes absolutely no one is capable of finding information on the internet, or he was high, that's all I can figure.
The basis of his article is that if the US invested billions (of tax payer dollars) in the Mexican Economy, and built a "North American Union" similar to the European Union it would solve our economic and immigration problems.
There's a serious flaw in his logic though, and he basically lies about it in his last paragraph:
Old Europe doesn't look spry, in fact it looks rather flat, with an economic growth in the Franco-Germanic end of the EU looking to be around 2% again, while this quarter the US economy will grow by a 5% annualized rate.
Contrary to his assertations, jobs haven't stayed in Germany and France, and Italy, they've left them for the other countries that just joined the EU. Along with that, immigration isn't equalizing between old and new Europe. Instead, because of the social benefits structures of the old European countries, they are still seeing large number of immigrants vying for fewer jobs. While a lot of that immigration is from North Africa, there is just as much from the new EU members, where the investment still hasn't kept them home.
A spry "Old Europe" wouldn't have unemployment rates in the double digits, it would look more like the "sluggish American" rate of 4.7%.
The truth is, the only "Old Europe" economies that are experiencing growth like the US are the one's that have gone to a more supply sided economic method. Denmark and Britain have low unemployment, and double the growth of France, Germany and Spain.
The other truth he's ignoring is that the US has been investing billions per year in Mexico for a couple of decades. From the maquiladoras plants along the border, to energy exploration, and manufacturing, and tourist businesses. The difference is instead of coming from government coffers, it's been spent by the industries that wish to be there.
That investment has helped lift the Mexican standard living, not to the US level, but light years from where it was. The major problem with getting to the rest of their people is a corrupt government and patronage system that makes Illinois look like some sort of model of honesty.
This is a better model for both the US, and Mexico. It doesn't stress US taxpayers for the bill of building Mexican plants, and infrastructure, and it allows Mexico the ability to decide what is best for it's own country. However, they need to work on their own corruption problems before it will work for the benefit of the whole country.
On the idea of a regional government, he obviously missed the news that the EU can't decide on it's own constitution, government subsidies, etc. In fact, it's basically a shell of what it's supposed to be because of the infighting between the members. Why he thinks it will work in North America is beyond me. Each of the three major players on this continent has it's own agenda, and they are vastly different, which would make that type of union pretty difficult.
Technorati Tags: Visa, jobs and labor, amnesty, congress, immigration, mexico, guest workers, illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants
I say that, in all seriousness, because he either believes absolutely no one is capable of finding information on the internet, or he was high, that's all I can figure.
The basis of his article is that if the US invested billions (of tax payer dollars) in the Mexican Economy, and built a "North American Union" similar to the European Union it would solve our economic and immigration problems.
There's a serious flaw in his logic though, and he basically lies about it in his last paragraph:
In the meantime, the United States is missing out on huge economic opportunities while the European Union has grown to the largest trading bloc in the world, poised for the 21st century. Old Europe is looking spry on its feet, while the United States is looking clumsy and stuck to the flypaper of old ideas.
Old Europe doesn't look spry, in fact it looks rather flat, with an economic growth in the Franco-Germanic end of the EU looking to be around 2% again, while this quarter the US economy will grow by a 5% annualized rate.
Contrary to his assertations, jobs haven't stayed in Germany and France, and Italy, they've left them for the other countries that just joined the EU. Along with that, immigration isn't equalizing between old and new Europe. Instead, because of the social benefits structures of the old European countries, they are still seeing large number of immigrants vying for fewer jobs. While a lot of that immigration is from North Africa, there is just as much from the new EU members, where the investment still hasn't kept them home.
A spry "Old Europe" wouldn't have unemployment rates in the double digits, it would look more like the "sluggish American" rate of 4.7%.
The truth is, the only "Old Europe" economies that are experiencing growth like the US are the one's that have gone to a more supply sided economic method. Denmark and Britain have low unemployment, and double the growth of France, Germany and Spain.
The other truth he's ignoring is that the US has been investing billions per year in Mexico for a couple of decades. From the maquiladoras plants along the border, to energy exploration, and manufacturing, and tourist businesses. The difference is instead of coming from government coffers, it's been spent by the industries that wish to be there.
That investment has helped lift the Mexican standard living, not to the US level, but light years from where it was. The major problem with getting to the rest of their people is a corrupt government and patronage system that makes Illinois look like some sort of model of honesty.
This is a better model for both the US, and Mexico. It doesn't stress US taxpayers for the bill of building Mexican plants, and infrastructure, and it allows Mexico the ability to decide what is best for it's own country. However, they need to work on their own corruption problems before it will work for the benefit of the whole country.
On the idea of a regional government, he obviously missed the news that the EU can't decide on it's own constitution, government subsidies, etc. In fact, it's basically a shell of what it's supposed to be because of the infighting between the members. Why he thinks it will work in North America is beyond me. Each of the three major players on this continent has it's own agenda, and they are vastly different, which would make that type of union pretty difficult.
Technorati Tags: Visa, jobs and labor, amnesty, congress, immigration, mexico, guest workers, illegal aliens, undocumented immigrants
posted by Crazy Politico at 4:43 PM
2Comments:
I think he's guilty of wishful thinking and treating it as reality. I would have Dr. Sanity evaluate him as he is clearly in denial. His writing is based on what he thinks should be rather than what is.
What I mean is some leftists are so sure of their ideology that they cannot see any reality that does not fit that ideology.
Another point he overlooked is that the nations of eastern Europe joined the European Union before they got the goodies. Is Mexico going to have to join the USA in this scenario? It is a relevant question.
He was High. You got Europe pegged. He obviously is writing out of dreams and illusion and not fact.
If I had to choose between our two neighbors I would take Canada. Their recent return to a more conservative bent makes them a far superior choice. When was the last time you heard of smugglers and drug runners from Canada? Can you even recall a Canadian Illegal as a rapist or murderer?
Post a Comment
<< Home