Zorba
Nov 20, 2009, 4:12 AM
Post #2 of 8
(1796 views)
Shortcut
|
Re: [Michaelethan] Another Inequity for Mexico
|
Can't Post | Private Reply
|
I agree. I havent researched it enough, but my guess is that NAFTA was mostly just good for big business. The small farmer gets pushed out. The Mexican government would rather buy cheap food from the U.S. than support their own farmers. After all, the Americans can sell it much cheaper due to economies of scale and the cheap loans they can get. Mexican farmers simply do not have the big subsidies and support from their own government to allow them to compete. Throw in a peso devaluation here and there and forget about it. A Mexican farmer can't get a decent loan for a tractor. He can't afford to buy the parts with pesos, etc. etc. etc. A good rancher friend of mind points out that when you are no longer producing your own food, you are asking for trouble. I agree with that. He pointed out that Mexico imports staples such as corn and beans from the U.S.
It seems like everywhere food production is being monopolized and people are being pushed more and more into urban slavery.
Why not support the small farmer and make it attractive enough to stay in the countryside? That would solve a lot of problems. I think it is not done because that sort of situation does not benefit big business. Better for them to take control of food production and prices and push people into urban areas where they can become employees in their factories and pay their rent and buy their goods and become dependent on them for income.
I bought a ranch in Chiapas myself. I like the independence of it. It produces mangos, chico zapotes and goats for meat. All of these products are not or cannot be produced in the U.S. Hence, there is no competition with them. There is plenty of domestic demand for these products. The big ranchers export their fruit for bigger gains. As a result, the small farmer can still make a living off of the domestic market. I, however, am lucky to have enough capital saved up to develop it. My Mexican counterparts many times sit on unworked fertile land because they simply cannot get the capital to develop it. In the end, many sell it off to big ranchers and, as a result, become slaves to the fragile economy. Others just rent out their land.
However, if the government and the banks supported farmers more in Mexico, they would make more money than just renting out.
I don't know. It just seems to me more beneficial to society as a whole that your food is produced by small farmers than a few huge companies. There are a lot of reasons why this would be beneficial, but I guess it is a philosophical/political question in the end. Personally, I would be willing to pay a bit more for my food if I knew it was keeping small farmers and families employed, alive and independent. Certainly wouldnt hurt the crime rates, for example. But I wouldnt mind going back to horse and buggy, so my view is obviously skewed.
|
Forums Index
Search Posts
Who's Online
Log In or Sign Up
