The object of the previous post's wrath was a single, partial info sheet, part of a sea of material that is being developed and circulated. > Blaming Mexicans for bad food and drugs is a reactionary > approach. The blame is on unregulated markets, not Mexicans. This choice of translation mirrors the mainstream media's characterization of anti- NAFTA sentiment as xenophobic and racist. >> Blaming NAFTA for job losses implies capitalism without NAFTA would be just fine. Self-evident rubbish. It implies there would be jobs without NAFTA that are gone as a result of NAFTA. Nobody thinks the left's work is done if NAFTA goes down. Sheesh. >> Citing 'border ecology' against industry in Mexico > is incredible hypocracy. Why? Because there is ecological destruction within the US proper? The greens, which means Public Citizen, the source of the leaflet, are no less committed to that issue as well. You might want to argue that labor's focus on this is self-serving. On the whole, labor in the U.S. is more in favor of environmental regulation than against it. Certainly the consortium fighting NAFTA reflects narrower interests than that of the workers of the world. Doesn't every social struggle, at least at the start? >> These are yuppie Perot arguments - lets oppose > NAFTA for **good** reasons! Such as? The sheet you criticized spoke to legitimate issues, albeit partially and not in technical econo-speak. If you can do better, by all means make your contribution. It will be appreciated, if it proves of any use. Cheers, MBS =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===================================================
