Questions about Trans Texas Cooridor / NAFTA Superhighway [Archive]

zaphod2016

23rd June 2008, 08:39 PM

(Note: I am not allowed to link yet, so I will quote instead)

In Ron Paul's latest column, he writes:

"I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway. According to the Texas Transportation Commissioner, consideration is no longer being given to new corridors and other proposals for a new highway footprint for this project. A major looming threat to property rights and national sovereignty is removed with this encouraging announcement."

I have seen many people say that the "NAFTA Superhighway" is a conspiracy theory, and yet, this one seems to check out.

Considering that Canada and Mexico do incredible amounts of trade with the US, especially post-NAFTA, I see nothing strange about a highway designed to better facilitate this trade.

However, as I understand it, Dr. Paul takes a pro-free trade stance. Therefore, I don't understand he would oppose this highway. He specifically mentions "the I-69 project", so I wonder if there is some specific aspect of this plan he objects to.

To be clear: I'm not interested in debating the merits of NAFTA, nor am I interested in Ad Hominem. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this mess.

Thanks in advance.

DaN K. StAnLeY

23rd June 2008, 08:50 PM

Well, they may say they aren't taking land, but they are. I know that here in TX we already paid for the roads to be improved and now we are going to have to pay over and over again to use them. That seems like a good reason to oppose them. They are also pushing to charge us the highest possible toll rate. I'm not sure exactly what Paul particular beef is, but I can go on and on about why I'm getting "boned" on this deal.

gtc

23rd June 2008, 08:52 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116108
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116114

Here are the latest threads to discuss the NAFTA superhighway but some of it is in the context of the NAU.

This is a pretty good article from the Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes/3) (though it is a while since I read it).

As far as I can tell, the Paulist opposition has something to do with the idea that private investment may be used even though the government might need to resume private property (why this is different to the existing railways I don't know), something to do with the idea that foreigners could use the highway to do something (take American jobs, invade, who knows) and something to do with the idea that it is a stalking horse for the NAU (the USA, Russia, Australia, the UK, were each created with poor to non-existent internal transport facilities while Switzerland has both excellent transport links with its neighbours and is fiercely independent).

I would also have thought that libertarians would have been pro-trade, pro-transport and pro-private investment. I would also have thought that they would be interested in debating the necessity of the link, the cost-benefit ratio and so forth.

WildCat

23rd June 2008, 09:43 PM

However, as I understand it, Dr. Paul takes a pro-free trade stance.
Except when it comes to those stinking job-stealing Mexicans and beady-eyed flapping-headed Canadians.

ronpaulisright

23rd June 2008, 10:08 PM

Maybe these "paultards" are making a difference after all?

Keep up the good work Ron:)

zaphod2016

24th June 2008, 01:34 AM

Let me make sure I have my facts right:

1. The NAFTA super-highway (aka Trans Texas Corridor) is 100% real. There is no debate on this.

2. Some plans have included the privatization of existing roads. In other words, existing public roads, owned by the citizens of Texas, are to be converted into toll roads. The tolls collected will be used to further fund this trade route. Texas citizens wishing to use these roads will be forced to pay a toll, even though they have already purchased these roads via taxes.

3. Eminent domain is being used to seize the private property of Texas citizens. This land is then sold to a private company for use by the corridor.

Do I have my facts right?

If so, I can certainly see why people would be upset about this.

If not, please correct me.

Thanks to all for the informative links.

And for the record- I have much love for Ron Paul. I think he is the only one making any sense in regards to current foreign policy. However, that debate belongs over in "politics", for now I'm just trying to make sure my understanding of the NAFTA highway is 100% woo-free.

Travis

24th June 2008, 01:56 AM

Let me make sure I have my facts right:

1. The NAFTA super-highway (aka Trans Texas Corridor) is 100% real. There is no debate on this.

Correct.

2. Some plans have included the privatization of existing roads. In other words, existing public roads, owned by the citizens of Texas, are to be converted into toll roads. The tolls collected will be used to further fund this trade route. Texas citizens wishing to use these roads will be forced to pay a toll, even though they have already purchased these roads via taxes.

I don't know of any plans to take existing free highways and convert them into tolled freeways. Some plans do propose co-opting planned highways and making them part of the I-69 corridor. For example in Houston there is a proposal to use the Grand Parkway, a long planned third beltway, and make that a tolled section of I-69. However the Grand Parkway was likely going to be tolled regardless of the I-69 project.

3. Eminent domain is being used to seize the private property of Texas citizens. This land is then sold to a private company for use by the corridor.

This happens already and as an issue is much larger than the I-69 project. The I-69 project can proceed without such a procedure but would have to be publicly funded and the advantage of the toll roads is that they get funded by bonds by the Toll Authorities and not by the Texas Department of Transportation. So you have to pick your poison, fund it with taxes and have it free or let a Toll Authority fund it with bonds. If the Toll Authority is going to do it the need of eminent domain will still exist although the Toll Authority would be paying for the purchase.

Do I have my facts right?

If so, I can certainly see why people would be upset about this.

Opposition to this is really about opposition to NAFTA and opposition to NAFTA is all about xenophobia and racism. NAFTA opponents just can't stand the idea of free trade with those racially inferior Mexicans.

gtc

24th June 2008, 02:19 AM

Hi,

Let me make sure I have my facts right:

1. The NAFTA super-highway (aka Trans Texas Corridor) is 100% real. There is no debate on this.

I think using the term NAFTA super-highway can confuse the issue. I understand there are several proposals and even existing roads that have been referred to as the NAFTA super-highway; also the name suggests it is designed to link all three nations.

The TTC is a real proposal for a corridor through Texas; obviously the state handles a lot of international trade and a lot of domestic North-South traffic goes via Texas.

I work in transport in Australia; so I have some experience with proposals like this but I don't have on the spot expertise. However, it seems to me to be a proposal that is more than 'pie-in-the-sky' but less than 'will actually happen'.

2. Some plans have included the privatization of existing roads.

Privatization is a bit of tricky concept when it comes to infrastructure. It is not like selling a factory or a block of land as many, if not most, private infrastructure projects will eventually end up back in government hands. I believe some of the proposals are for BOT (Build, Operate, Transfer) schemes. This means that the new routes will be built by a company that will then operate the scheme for a fixed period of time before transfering the operation back to the government. You sometimes here the term 'concession' or 'franchise' being used.

In other words, existing public roads, owned by the citizens of Texas, are to be converted into toll roads.

This may well be part of some of the proposals. It is not unusual for existing links in a transport network to be incorporated into a bigger scheme that includes new construction.

This happened recently in Sydney, where a few miles of existing untolled parkway was incorporated into a new tollroad that is something like twenty miles long. This meant that some trips were more expensive but overall many more trips are now quicker and cheaper thanks to the new road. This meant that few, if any, people complained.

On the other hand, a different toll road was built in a different part of Sydney and the government used the opportunity to remove lanes from some of the existing streets (to create bike lanes and extended footpaths etc). Not coincidentally, this forced quite a few people to change to the new toll road. The overall benefit was very low and many people complained.

Obviously people will complain if they are worse off but not if they are better off.

The tolls collected will be used to further fund this trade route.

And create a return on investment for the toll road company. Governments are able to set limits for tolls and/or limit the return on investment for the company. This should be seriously considered before the project is built. Concessions or free travel for locals and/or alternative local access routes are also issues that can be addressed up front.

Texas citizens wishing to use these roads will be forced to pay a toll, even though they have already purchased these roads via taxes.

Possibly, again whether this is a bad thing or not will depend on whether those Texas citizens who wouldn't have paid a toll before also benefit at other times. This comes down to equity. Is it equitable that some people pay tolls now when they wouldn't have before? Would it be more equitable for people who use the new roads to pay all the costs or should those costs be spread around society?

3. Eminent domain is being used to seize the private property of Texas citizens. This land is then sold to a private company for use by the corridor.

I can't answer that question, but I don't think this is particularly uncommon. Aren't most of the railroad corridors privately owned?

If so, I can certainly see why people would be upset about this.

Really it comes down to costs and benefits. How many people are better off and how much are they better off; versus how many people are worse off and how much are they worse off.

And for the record- I have much love for Ron Paul. I think he is the only one making any sense in regards to current foreign policy. However, that debate belongs over in "politics", for now I'm just trying to make sure my understanding of the NAFTA highway is 100% woo-free.

It makes sense to have all the facts and I always like to see someone with an interest in transport!

By the way, I think some of the opposition is just irrational hating on NAFTA. However, there is scope for a legitimate debate about the costs (economic, social, environmental) vs the benefits of this particular project and that can be placed in the context of a wider debate about the merits of private investment in infrastructure (although most economists have moved onto discussion about the right way to structure private investment in infrastructure).

zaphod2016

24th June 2008, 03:37 AM

Opposition to this is really about opposition to NAFTA and opposition to NAFTA is all about xenophobia and racism. NAFTA opponents just can't stand the idea of free trade with those racially inferior Mexicans.

Primero, viva la razo!

Which is to say: rest assured, any opposition I may have towards NAFTA has nothing to do with xenophobia or racism. I live in Central Florida, and have nothing but love for my (many) Latino and Cubano neighbors.

I also agree that a cost/benefit analysis is the only way to judge something like the TTC. Sadly, I am very ignorant regarding transport, and I appreciate the solid information. JREF is living up to its reputation as a no-BS haven for freethinkers. :D

This comes down to equity. Is it equitable that some people pay tolls now when they wouldn't have before? Would it be more equitable for people who use the new roads to pay all the costs or should those costs be spread around society?

Valid point. If I use this toll road to commute to my job, and this saves me time and helps me earn more money, it is perfectly reasonable for me to pay a toll for this privilege. Likewise, if I live in the area, but never use the road myself, why should I be expected to pay for it via taxes? I can certainly understand why privatization makes sense in certain circumstances.

However, I would assume that whoever is purchasing the original road (Company X) is offering some form of compensation to whichever county or municipality owns it. Is that a correct assumption?

Assuming yes- is this compensation then added to a general fund? Is a dividend issued to taxpayers? Are the Joe and Jane Blow homeowners/taxpayers getting a fair piece of the pie?

(re: eminent domain) This happens already and as an issue is much larger than the I-69 project.

Agreed 100%. I am very uncomfortable with the concept of eminent domain.

As I understand it, the land/homeowner is offered "market value" for any property seized via ED. What I don't understand is how this "market value" is determined.

For argument's sake, let's say I own a typical home near the planned TTC route, and that in 2007, homes in the area sold for $250k. I would assume once the TTC project has been approved, it would become impossible to sell my house- why would anyone purchase a home already scheduled for an ED seizure?

I am now in the strange circumstance of owning a home without any "free market" to sell to. Who or what determines the value of my home? And, should a corrupt authority offer me $50 cash for my house, what possible recourse do I have? I cannot sell it to a higher bidder, and I cannot expect the courts to enforce my property rights if the same courts have already transferred deed to the new buyer.

In the immortal words of Patrick Henry: I smell a rat. Or, at the very least, some potential rats.

Regarding NAFTA, I suppose that debate belongs over in "politics". However, my objection can be summed up thusly:

1. NAFTA is now 14 years old. It has had plenty of time to prove itself one way or another.

2. The purpose of NAFTA is to lower the barriers to trade between the US, Canada and Mexico. In theory, this should increase the economies of all involved (more customers, more producers, more competition = good).

3. However, despite 14 years of "free trade", the percentage of Mexicans living in poverty has not decreased. Quite the contrary, illegal immigration to the USA has skyrocketed. Being that this immigration is fueled by economics (people seeking a living wage- just like me and my family) I see the two issues (NAFTA/immigration) as very much intertwined.

4. Assuming you support open immigration, and amnesty for illegal immigrants, what about the 90 million people left in Mexico, ~30% of whom are still living in poverty? Don't they deserve a living wage too? For that matter, what about the ~10% of Americans living in poverty? Where should they immigrate to?

I would like to live in a world where anyone who is willing to work 40 hours per week can afford a home, food, savings, and education for their children. If free trade is the best way to achieve this, fine. If open immigration is the best way to achieve this, fine again. However, after 14 years of NAFTA policies and illegal immigration, I see the situation getting worse, not better. I think perhaps we should reconsider our approach.

I also agree that NAFTA gets a lot of blame it doesn't deserve. For example, America has lost millions of service jobs to India, and China has taken a good chunk of our retail manufacturing- and neither of these countries belong in NAFTA. However, I think the strategy behind NAFTA also fuels similar agreements. To be clear: I favor free trade. However, if it turns out to be a case of either-or, I favor a strong and growing middle class more.

And lest I be pigeonholed as one of the "anti-NWO" types, I roundly reject the anti-globalism argument, simply because that argument is about 100 years too late. Case in point, I am watching the sun come up here in Florida USA, taking with a gentleman in Australia- literally on the other side of the planet. Globalism is here, has been here, and will remain here. That said, our current strategy is certainly not perfect, and deserves scrutiny.

Praktik

24th June 2008, 09:53 AM

And lest I be pigeonholed as one of the "anti-NWO" types, I roundly reject the anti-globalism argument, simply because that argument is about 100 years too late. Case in point, I am watching the sun come up here in Florida USA, taking with a gentleman in Australia- literally on the other side of the planet. Globalism is here, has been here, and will remain here. That said, our current strategy is certainly not perfect, and deserves scrutiny.

You make some excellent points and I commend you on some well written posts here. What you touch on with this last point is important. Having majored in International Relations however, I have developed a sensitivity to the nonmenclature typically used in the globalization debates. Strictly speaking, I have come to understand "globalism" as a reference to the increasingly interconnected world we live in - the fact that you're talking with an Australian, the greater networking between not just corporations but also trade unions, cities (like city twinning) and sub-state governments (provincial/state trade missions) and non-state actors (NGOs etc). Globalism, then, is not usually something the "anti-globalization" protesters are really protesting, since they themselves are intimately tied to these processes (collaborating with the like minded on the internet to organize action and share information. It speaks to the transportation and communication revolutions and growing "globalist" mindset that sees disparate people coming to understand their shared concerns.

Globalization on the other hand is kind of the big umbrella term that incorporates not just "globalism", but trade liberalization and macro-regional trading blocs, the changes in policy enacted by governments and bodies that represent "pooled sovereignty" of nations - and this is where my pet peeve comes in. What the protesters are protesting is not "globalization", they're protesting trade liberalization and first world/third world inequities. They are protesting against one component of globalization, not the whole thing. The way this term is used though leads the casual, uninformed reader to believe that they are protesting all of globalization. And this mis-use of the term pervades the movement itself where they have come to self-identify as "anti-globalization" protesters. I've debated with these people and tried to highlight the fact that what they're really protesting is trade liberalization and the agents of that process: NAFTA, the IMF, the World Bank etc but you'll often here them use the word "globalization" in disparaging terms. How many of them protest the UN or the ICC? You'll find strong support for those organizations among the movement.

The wider effect of this I think serves to marginalize the movement somewhat and prevent inroads into the wider public. The 90s were when we were told unceasingly about the wonders of the internet, how the world was now "smaller", we saw pictures of tribesmen with cellphones and really, who would ever be against that? The fact that "anti globalization" has stuck as a label kind of leaves one with the impression that the protesters are "anti modernization" (and some of them are I concede, especially the "back to the land" neo-hippie agrarianists).

I guess at the end of the day that I wish we'd be more careful with our language and that we start to use terms like "pro/anti trade liberalization" instead of "pro/anti globalization" since trade practises are really at the root of these debates, NOT globalism which I think people of many different political viewpoints agree is a good thing. There's not too many people out there arguing against the internet, there's trade unions linking up with foreign counterparts (such as the American unions involved with unions in central and south America) just as there are religious groups linking up, and corporations and governments finding shared interest.

ronpaulisright

24th June 2008, 03:12 PM

I think he is the only one making any sense in regards to current foreign policy.

Being that 72% of Americans are against the war, that is usually the first thing that pull people Ron Paul's way.

That's what got me interested in RP in the first place.

ronpaulisright

24th June 2008, 03:16 PM

Ron Paul '08!

gnome

24th June 2008, 05:10 PM

My concern about "free trade" and "globalism" is not so much the idea itself, but the concern that the people who are setting up its institutions tend to want to operate in secret and I worry they're trying to get in on the game early to make sure it's permanently favorable to THEIR interests, rather than actually "free trade".

I want more transparency, and checks and balances.

gtc

24th June 2008, 05:13 PM

However, I would assume that whoever is purchasing the original road (Company X) is offering some form of compensation to whichever county or municipality owns it. Is that a correct assumption?

It is up to the government to ensure that this is taken into account but it may not be a straight forward transaction. It really depends on how the contract is specified and how well the various layers of government handle the contract.

I'll give you a brief overview of the costs of such a project and the way it might run.

Initially there is the cost of planning the route, specifying the contract, assessing the bids and so on. There will also be a long term cost from managing the contract.

Then there is the cost of aquiring the land and any existing roads that need to be taken over. Next will be the cost of construction, this includes items like landscaping and sound proofing as well as less obvious costs like increased maintenance on existing roads due to construction traffic (maintenance of existing roads might be less than otherwise the new road is actually operating). There may be costs to divert traffic onto the new road and away from existing roads.

During operation there will be the costs of maintenance as well as costs of running the tolling system and policing the road, enforcing fines etc. There will also be revenue from those fines and from the toll.

If it is a fixed term contract, it will usually include a clause that the road is handed over to the government at a certain date and in a certain condition (to stop the company from avoiding maintenance costs in the last years). There may be additional maintenance costs involved in getting the road up to scratch and in assessing the condition of the road.

This is the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the company goes bust during construction or during operation. If no other buyer can be found then the government will have to step into run the show. The risks of this should be costed by the governments involved.

As you can see there is a lot of different costs and a pot of revenue. The first issue is who pays for what. The second issue is what happens to the toll revenue: does it go to the road company (pretty common I think) or does it go to the government (quite common in public transport contracts) or is it shared. In public transport there is sometimes a top up subsidy paied if revenue is less than costs. There will usually be a discussion about who sets the toll; can the toll road charge what they like (obviously this can be very unpopular) or is the toll capped in some way. Finally there may be a payment to or from the toll company at the beggining of the project, during the project or at the end of the project. The road company may also demand that no other project (road, public transport etc) be allowed to be developed in the vicinity of its project.

Loss Leader

24th June 2008, 05:24 PM

"I am pleased to report that last week we received notice that the Texas Department of Transportation will recommend the I-69 Project be developed using existing highway facilities instead of the proposed massive new Trans Texas Corridor/NAFTA Superhighway.

OMG! Ron Paul thinks the phrase "NAFTA superhighway" means a real road! LOLZ!

Seriously, the phrase "NAFTA superhighway" evolved long, long before any road project got that nickname.

DaN K. StAnLeY

24th June 2008, 05:42 PM

Here are some good links to show you whats going on in Texas: http://satollparty.com/index.php

or...

http://texasturf.org/index.php

soak it up! It will tick you off I think.

I just get mad because, here in San Antonio, we already paid for the expansion/improvements to HWY 281N. It has actually been paid for since 04, if memory serves, and now nobody seems to know where the money went. Gov. Rick Perry, is pushing this TTC because all of the companies involved contributed to his campaign. Actually, they have contributed millions of dollars, to several local campaigns, all of which are now pushing this highway robbery (no pun intended, okay it was intended).

Our public servants have betrayed their posts, and are no longer speaking/fighting for the people of my city. It's not about racism, I'm already surrounded by Mexicans and loving it. My girl's parents were both illegal immigrants from Mexico (touchy subject, I'm not for amnesty). I just hate paying a crap load of money to go visit my family on tolls, and on top of that, I'm getting boned on gas too...... where does it end?

To clear things up:

1) Yes, TTC is absolutely real.
2) Yes, it is taking over already existing roads.
3) There has NEVER been a single vote on any of this.
4) We ARE looking at paying the highest tolls possible, "Market Based Tolls."
5) Business' and homes, ARE being displaced to expand on the roads we have in place now.
6) Yes, Mexicans are awesome!
7) This IS criminal! Or should be.....

DaN K. StAnLeY

24th June 2008, 05:45 PM

Also, the company building the road is entitled to tolls for the next 50 years. There is nothing in the contract that says they can't raise these tolls as high as they want.

Elizabeth I

24th June 2008, 06:38 PM

Except when it comes to those stinking job-stealing Mexicans and beady-eyed flapping-headed Canadians.

"flapping-headed"? What a great phrase! ROFL!

Travis

24th June 2008, 11:44 PM

Incidentally here (http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/index.php/trans-texas_corridor) is a good website about the TTC/I-69 project.

KoihimeNakamura

24th June 2008, 11:50 PM

Is there any way the contract is subject to revision?

jaydeehess

25th June 2008, 07:49 AM

Let me make sure I have my facts right:

1. The NAFTA super-highway (aka Trans Texas Corridor) is 100% real. There is no debate on this.

........I'm just trying to make sure my understanding of the NAFTA highway is 100% woo-free.

I wonder how a "Trans-Texas Corridor" magically becomes a NAFTA superhighway. The northern most border of Texas is still a thousand or so miles from the closest border with Canada is it not?

jaydeehess

25th June 2008, 07:51 AM

"flapping-headed"? What a great phrase! ROFL!

Hey, those hats with ears are warm and at 40 below fashion counts for squat!:D You sunburned 'Yoo-all'!:D

jaydeehess

28th June 2008, 10:27 AM

Three days and no one can come up with an explanation as to how a Trans-Texas Corridor becomes a NAFTA superhighway, which would have to include Canada which is a thousand miles from Texas.

Hmmmm.

Now to be sure I have read that this supposed superhighway will go all the way up to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St.Paul in Minnesota. I know that to many an American that means on the border with Canada but it should be pointed out that the closest that gets to the Canadian border is still several hundred miles and that would only get one to Thunder Bay, Ontario population about 150,000 or Winnipeg, Manitoba, population about 500,000 and it would leave one short of the major industrial area near the Great Lakes by about 750 miles in one direction and short of the major oil/gas regions in Alberta and Saskatchewan by the same distance in the other direction. So its still NOT gonna have much utility as a NAFTA "Superhighway"

gtc

29th June 2008, 06:34 AM

Three days and no one can come up with an explanation as to how a Trans-Texas Corridor becomes a NAFTA superhighway, which would have to include Canada which is a thousand miles from Texas.

Well it can speed up trips between Canada and Texas or between Mexico and the US or between Canada and Mexico without having to actually run the entire distance.

I think it is marketing on the behalf of the proponents and hyperbole on behalf of the NWO fearers (which was probably your point).

zaphod2016

29th June 2008, 09:55 AM

Three days and no one can come up with an explanation as to how a Trans-Texas Corridor becomes a NAFTA superhighway, which would have to include Canada which is a thousand miles from Texas.

As others have said, it is an issue of semantics, or "branding". Regardless of any NWO conspiracies, the two very legitimate issues at play are:

1. eminent domain

2. taxpayer equity

Discounting these issues as "conspiracy theory" is ad hominem at best, and willful ignorance at worst.

Those who claim that the TTC somehow equates to a direct loss of U.S. sovereignty to the NWO must explain to me: a) how and why the U.S. and Texas are not the undisputed sovereigns of this road b) who at the NWO has assumed this authority and c) that this NWO authority has been vindicated within the U.S. court system. Until then, I will assume that the above 2 points cover all non-woo aspects of this issue.

As always, please correct me if I am wrong.

Horatius

29th June 2008, 12:40 PM

As others have said, it is an issue of semantics, or "branding". Regardless of any NWO conspiracies, the two very legitimate issues at play are:

1. eminent domain

2. taxpayer equity

Discounting these issues as "conspiracy theory" is ad hominem at best, and willful ignorance at worst.

Those who claim that the TTC somehow equates to a direct loss of U.S. sovereignty to the NWO must explain to me: a) how and why the U.S. and Texas are not the undisputed sovereigns of this road b) who at the NWO has assumed this authority and c) that this NWO authority has been vindicated within the U.S. court system. Until then, I will assume that the above 2 points cover all non-woo aspects of this issue.

As always, please correct me if I am wrong.

I don't disagree that your two points above are the real issues with the TTC. However, I haven't seen anyone discounting those points as a "CT". In fact, this highlights the problem with CTists - there are real issues out there, that are being conflated in their minds with the whole NWO/Loss of sovereignty BS, and as such, any discussion of the real issues gets lost in the woo-woo noise.

What the CTists have done is take a real (although speculative) project, and inflated it in their minds into some Frankenstein's Monster of a boondoggle, and then act as if we don't care about the impacts of the real project if we dismiss their monster ravings out of hand.

The value/impact of the TTC (as a real project) is a legitimate issue for discussion (at least among Texans, who will bear the brunt of its impact), but I'm not going to get all in a tizzy over it, as it will have no impact on my life. And that's what really drives the CTists crazy.

Travis

29th June 2008, 10:42 PM

I think in a weird warped way CT's think that if they can hype up whatever their pet peeve is into a world ending Mega Conspiracy it will get the masses on their side of that particular issue. Thing is it backfires on them by simply making most people think the only opponents of, whatever it is, are emotionally unstable nutjobs. Then people stop taking the issue as a whole seriously.

Imagine if everyone who opposed off shore oil drilling only did so because they are afraid of super mutants coming up through the oil wells and devouring our flesh. We'd probably be drilling offshore pretty damned quick.

gtc

30th June 2008, 12:32 AM

Yeah, I would be interested to see how often it occurs that nuts oppossing something drowns out the legitimate opposition.

gnome

30th June 2008, 09:42 AM

Case in point: PETA.

jaydeehess

2nd July 2008, 10:25 AM

Well it can speed up trips between Canada and Texas or between Mexico and the US or between Canada and Mexico without having to actually run the entire distance.

I think it is marketing on the behalf of the proponents and hyperbole on behalf of the NWO fearers (which was probably your point).

yes, that was my point

Even though what you point out would be true, that travel time between points which would include using a north-south route through, or to points within, Texas would decrease, just how short can this possibly be made?

The straight line distance from the northernmost Mex/USA(Texas) border to the northernmost Texas/Okl border is 465 miles while continuing on to the closest part of the Can/USA border (at the intersection of the ND/SasK/Alta borders) is 1325 miles. So the absolute minimum travel time through the USA, through Texas, to the Mexican border would be (at 60 mph) a tad over 22 hours of continuous driving.

Just how much distance or travel time is the proposed new highway supposed to shave off the transit time through Texas? Of course one would have to subtract from that, any delay caused by toll stations.

Now the supposed NAFTA superhighway, as I have been told, would intersect the Can/USA border just north of Minneapolis, not at the ND/Sask/Alta border.

If it goes to Thunder Bay Ontario it would still be 1000+ road miles from the industrial centers near Toronto and 1500+ road miles from the energy sector centers in Alta. If instead it had Winnipeg as its Canadian terminus then the road miles to Toronto increase by 600 (and of course the distance to Alberta deceases by the same amount) In fact the distance from the longitudinal center of Canada to either Toronto or Calgary in almost as far as the distance from the northernmost part of Texas to the longitudinal center of the Can/USA border.

Don't get me wrong, I live quite close to the long. center of Canada. Right now it takes 8 hours to drive to Minneapolis. It would take many many more to reach the Texas/Mexico border. I have been to Cancun once in my life and would love to go again but air travel is bothersome and expensive. I would dearly love to see an easy to travel route not only to Minneapolis but also to Cancun. :D

However getting me to Mexico faster is not really going to speed trade between the high density parts of Canada and the USA or Mexico. Well if you want lumber delivery faster it will but the USA is not all that interested in lowering the cost of construction materials it seems.

gtc

2nd July 2008, 06:35 PM

I think I am in agreement with you, but I don't know enough about how much time it could save or whether that would make a significant difference to trade.

roundhead

3rd July 2008, 11:39 AM

Perhaps this was a concern:

Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.

hamelekim

3rd July 2008, 09:52 PM

Arguing semantics is stupid. It's real, and whether or not they use existing roads or build new ones it is still real. The original plan might have had a super highway, but obviously they are going to have a difficult time doing that now. The deal is real, and it will have real consequencs economically for docks on the West Coast of the US.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug

Gazpacho

4th July 2008, 12:13 PM

I would absolutely support the project if it involved a conveyor belt from Mexico to Canada.

Horatius

4th July 2008, 01:11 PM

I would absolutely support the project if it involved a conveyor belt from Mexico to Canada.

Oh, heck yeah! The Roads Must Roll!

jaydeehess

4th July 2008, 02:02 PM

Oh, heck yeah! The Roads Must Roll!

Run through Cleveland and it can both roll and rock.

Horatius

4th July 2008, 09:23 PM

Run through Cleveland and it can both roll and rock.

Sorry, no good, I've been to Cleveland.

Corsair 115

10th July 2008, 01:43 PM

1. NAFTA is now 14 years old. It has had plenty of time to prove itself one way or another. It is worth noting that NAFTA was preceded by the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Canada and the United States, which came into effect at the start of 1989. That agreement laid the foundation for future free trade agreements.

2. The purpose of NAFTA is to lower the barriers to trade between the US, Canada and Mexico. In theory, this should increase the economies of all involved (more customers, more producers, more competition = good). Trade between the three nations has increased considerably since the FTA's and NAFTA's adoption. One need only peruse the official trade data to see ample evidence of that.

However, it is worth noting that the U.S. government has, on occasion, refused to live up to the terms of NAFTA. See Canadian softwood lumber and access to Mexican trucking firms for two prime examples. One may well ask what is the point of signing an agreement with the United States if it feels free to ignore the terms of said agreement whenever domestic political concerns make it expedient to do so.

3. However, despite 14 years of "free trade", the percentage of Mexicans living in poverty has not decreased. How or why should NAFTA be blamed for that? Might not the reasons have more to do with the Mexican government and its domestic policies?

I wonder how a "Trans-Texas Corridor" magically becomes a NAFTA superhighway. This (http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20071008_110123_110123&source=srch) article from Maclean's magazine may shed some light on that.

zaphod2016

12th July 2008, 09:52 AM

3. However, despite 14 years of "free trade", the percentage of Mexicans living in poverty has not decreased.

How or why should NAFTA be blamed for that? Might not the reasons have more to do with the Mexican government and its domestic policies

I have no doubt that the domestic policy of all three nations plays a major part in all of this, probably more directly than NAFTA itself.

However, back when President Clinton was "selling" NAFTA, there were two "talking points" repeated ad naseum:

1. NAFTA will increase trade- indisputably true

2. Increased trade will reduce poverty - I contest this as false

Throughout the past 14 years, the percentage of Mexicans in poverty has stagnated, while the number of Americans in poverty has increased slightly. All the while, both nations have enjoyed record-levels of trade.

Therefore, I reject the notion that a direct corollary exists between trade v. poverty. The two factors appear unrelated, given the past decade of data.

Does this mean NAFTA has failed? That depends on what NAFTA was supposed to do. If NAFTA was supposed to decrease poverty, then yes, it failed. If, however, that was simply political rhetoric, and the purpose of NAFTA was to increase trade, then no, NAFTA has not failed at all, it did exactly what it was designed to do.

It quite possible, I would argue probable, that International trade agreements affect different classes quite differently.

If NAFTA allows me to relocate my production to Mexico, thus cutting my costs by 50%, I can increase profitability while simultaneously dropping price to increase my market share. I would say NAFTA is good.

If NAFTA allows me to purchase quality products at a lower price as a consumer, I would also say NAFTA is good.

If the quality of those goods decreases disproportionately to price (i.e. cheap WalMart crap not worth even the low price they charge) I would say NAFTA is bad.

If my job is outsourced to Mexico, I would say NAFTA is bad.

If my job is created as a result of this relocation, and my new positions as "Director of Mexican Production" allows me to earn more money and advance my career, I would say NAFTA is good.

I would argue that NAFTA is both good and bad, depending on where you fit into the global economy. However, I think the higher-up the chain you find yourself, the more "good" it is for you. Plenty of people have made plenty of money in the last decade. However, plenty of working class folks have lost their jobs, and suffered a decrease in standard of living during this same time.

But- we cannot generalize that NAFTA is bad for the working class. Case in point- with an influx of new jobs to Mexico, I would expect the Mexican working class to be very pro-NAFTA, and enjoying new opportunities for advancement that were unavailable pre-NAFTA.

But this has not happened. Poverty in both countries (USA and Mexico) has either stagnated, or gotten worse. This causes me to question "free trade", and suggest that perhaps some protectionist policies (i.e. Steel tariffs) may be essential to our national economy. On the other hand, perhaps these free trade policies simply need more time to achieve equilibrium.

But after 14 years (and as mentioned, longer with Canada), I have to ask: how long are we supposed to wait? At what point is it reasonable to suggest alternatives?

Corsair 115

12th July 2008, 03:29 PM

But after 14 years (and as mentioned, longer with Canada), I have to ask: how long are we supposed to wait? At what point is it reasonable to suggest alternatives?And what would those alternatives be? If a new U.S. administration decides it wants to re-open NAFTA, fine, but it's worth considering that the other two nations may take that opportunity to request changes the U.S. may not like. It's not as if it's NAFTA is going to be renegotiated so that the U.S. gets everything it wants and the other two nations get nothing. If you open it up, then everything goes onto the table.

It was a contentious enough negotiation the first time. Is a second go at it really necessary?

Horatius

12th July 2008, 03:40 PM

...On the other hand, perhaps these free trade policies simply need more time to achieve equilibrium.

But after 14 years (and as mentioned, longer with Canada), I have to ask: how long are we supposed to wait? At what point is it reasonable to suggest alternatives?

Yes, but we tried non-free trade for how long prior to NAFTA? The entire history of North America? 14 years is a very short time to try to undo over a century of protectionist habits.

And, if you take a look at some of the issues Corsair has mentioned previously, the US hasn't really gone all in for the "Free" part of free trade - it's still very protectionist in some areas, so even though it's been 14 years, it hasn't been 14 years of actual free trade, just sort-of free trade.

zaphod2016

12th July 2008, 11:19 PM

14 years is a very short time to try to undo over a century of protectionist habits.

That is an excellent point.

It's not as if it's NAFTA is going to be renegotiated so that the U.S. gets everything it wants and the other two nations get nothing.

Of course not. But that's my point: things don't look so great for Mexico either. Who, exactly, is NAFTA helping?

It was a contentious enough negotiation the first time. Is a second go at it really necessary?

For that matter, is NAFTA really necessary?

I suppose we are veering into politics now. Is that frowned upon by JREF mods?

EDIT: I just noticed you are from Canada. As I understand it, the USA is one of Canada's best customers, and the CAD has reached equilibrium with the USD due to your surging economy. If I have my facts right, you have been booming this last decade, while the US has stagnated.

Is that a fair assessment?

If so, how much credit does NAFTA deserve?

Clarity: I'm not trying to blame Canada for America's economic woes, I just think this might explain our difference in opinion.

Horatius

13th July 2008, 07:45 AM

Of course not. But that's my point: things don't look so great for Mexico either. Who, exactly, is NAFTA helping?

For that matter, is NAFTA really necessary?

I suppose we are veering into politics now. Is that frowned upon by JREF mods?

Yeah, now we're into questions that don't really have anything to do with CTs, and a lot of the folks who know enough about international trade to discuss this issue knowledgeably don't read or post here. I'd suggest going over to Politics or Business, to see what sort of argument* you can start.

*I'm willing to bet you can find people to passionately bash either side of this question, as it's complex enough that it's not easily amenable to analysis. I know I don't know enough to make any pronouncements with great confidence, although I do lean in the "Freer trade is generally better" direction based on what I do know.

Corsair 115

13th July 2008, 03:19 PM

Who, exactly, is NAFTA helping? It's certainly been of assistance to anyone working in an export industry whose tariffs were lowered or removed due to the agreement.

As I understand it, the USA is one of Canada's best customers... Roughly 75%-80% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. But the reverse of your statement is also true: Canada is one of the best customers of the U.S.

Of the $1.1633 trillion dollars worth of goods the U.S. exported in 2007, $248.9 billion, or 21.4% of the total, went to Canada. This was almost twice as much as the next nation. The number two nation was Mexico which took in $136.5 billion of U.S. goods (11.7%); China was a distant third, which purchased $65.2 billion of U.S. goods (5.6%). Indeed, together Canada and Mexico bought more U.S. export goods than the next nine nations combined.

In terms of U.S. imports, for the first time in many years, Canada slipped to the second place position in 2007, as China edged out Canada for the top spot. Of the $1.953.6 trillion worth of goods imported by the United States, $321.5 billion (16.5%) came from China; $313.1 billion (16.0%) came from Canada; and $210.8 billion (10.8%) came from Mexico. Japan was in fourth place with $145.5 billion (7.4%) and Germany fifth with $94.4 billion (4.8%).

In terms of crude oil, Canada was the number one supplier to the U.S. in 2007, accounting for 18.6% of U.S. imports; Saudi Arabia was second with 14.5%; Mexico was third at 14.1%.

...and the CAD has reached equilibrium with the USD due to your surging economy. If I have my facts right, you have been booming this last decade, while the US has stagnated. Less than six years ago, on Jan. 21, 2002, the CAD hit an all-time low of just $0.6179 US. It hit an all-time high of $1.1030 US on Nov. 7, 2007 (since hitting that high the CAD has settled back and has maintained a trading range of about $0.98 US to $1.02 USD). Needless to say, that's an extraordinary swing in a short period of time.

The general reasons for the rise in the CAD relative to the USD stated by most experts is as follows: 1) the rise in the prices of those commodities which Canada happens to have in abundance; 2) a fiscally sound government which has posted budgetary surplusses for many years now; 3) higher interest rates than in the U.S.; and 4) the decline in the U.S. dollar.

In terms of overall economic performance, it varies by region. Alberta, thanks to the rise in oil prices, is doing very well. Ontario, which is manufacturing-based, is hurting due to the higher dollar and more difficulties in getting across the border.

jaydeehess

15th July 2008, 03:36 PM

One of the latest 'hits' to the $US is due to the now dismal state of the banking industry in the USA. This of course has absolutly squat to do with NAFTA. Another 'hit' comes from the fact that the USA is spending huge sums of money fighting a stalemate. or near stalemate, war in Iraq. That again has absolutly squat to do with NAFTA.

If the US gov't institutes sane banking practises (out law mortgages that are more than the present value of the property) and penalties to companies and CEO's (especially personal penalties to CEO's and high execs) who ignore these rules,
AND
manages to find a way out of Iraq so stem the hemmoraging of funds there then the US economy could again rise.

That's just MHO of course.

jaydeehess

15th July 2008, 06:19 PM

If the quality of those goods decreases disproportionately to price (i.e. cheap WalMart crap not worth even the low price they charge) I would say NAFTA is bad.

But this has not happened. Poverty in both countries (USA and Mexico) has either stagnated, or gotten worse. This causes me to question "free trade", and suggest that perhaps some protectionist policies (i.e. Steel tariffs) may be essential to our national economy. On the other hand, perhaps these free trade policies simply need more time to achieve equilibrium.

But after 14 years (and as mentioned, longer with Canada), I have to ask: how long are we supposed to wait? At what point is it reasonable to suggest alternatives?

Given that it seems to me , as I puruse the aisles of the local Wal-Mart in my Canadian city, that the lower priced goods they have for sale are produced in the far east, China, India, Phillipines etc. So NAFTA does not enter into that equation at all.

If poverty in Mexico and the USA has stagnated then NAFTA cannot be at fault either. Freer trade between those two countries could not cause more poverty on both sides. You do not mention any trend in Canada but it is unlikely that a decrease in poverty in Canada would be caused by Canada being the major recipient of job shifting due to NAFTA. On the flip side, if Canada's poverty level also stagnated then all three countries are seeing the same trend. I fail to see how NAFTA could cause that.

Fact is that in N.A. many bastions of industry have moved not only out of Canada and the USA but also not into Mexico. Rather many large industries have moved to China and the developing world. Take a look at your clothing and see if you can find any 'Made in Canada', 'Made in USA', or Hecho en Mexico' labels. Won't be many. When I purchased T-shirts on the Mexican Riviera they were 'Made in China'! Shall we discuss the paper making industry in N.A., how about the auto industry, or the steel industry, and where is your computer, or for that matter your toaster, made?