Hacker News Reader

Comment by lefstathiou | Hacker News Reader

So what do you believe is the solution that prevents hard drugs from running “unchecked” while not fostering a black market? “Education” about how bad drugs are for you?

View on HN

Remove the profit motive by letting junkies get their fix at pharmacies just like the rest of us.

Start with not forcing producer countries into disastrous trade agreements that upend their labor markets (especially in agriculture) and food sovereignty.

How are they forced? Would they be better off if they didn’t sell to the US?

Are you better off if I punch you in the face or kick you in the groin? It's a false choice, and it's pretty psychopathic.

The US meddles directly in the politics of other countries to ensure that pro-US business leaders take power. That’s not a secret. Other countries can sell to the US while maintaining strong industrial policy, just look at Switzerland.

They'd be better off with free flow of both labor AND capital; in my humble opinion. Allowing flow of goods/capital but not (in general) labor seems pretty cruel IMO, as all the capital can get sucked out to where it can see highest profits (US) while labor is left to languish and compete to the bottom due to losing the efficiencies their capital provided. NAFTA and its successors are a nasty deal to the common Mexican.

I don't think they were fucked over by the US so much as their own politicians, though. Their government could have said "we're not gonna sign NAFTA unless there is generous visa-free flow of non-criminals across the border" or whatever and honestly I think they could have strong armed America into agreeing to it, we're "greedy" enough we would have went with it.

"their own politicians" gained power with the help of the US, and paid them back with policies that benefitted the US:

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-05-20-mn-4009-s...

It's absurd to suggest Mexico could have strong-armed the US.

I mean realistically the US has little to lose by letting Mexicans (actual Mexicans with Mexican citizenship) into the US the sort of way an (USA)American can go the other way. Frankly it's a pretty weak concession. I think we would have done it in exchange for free flow of capital if pressed.

I think that’s completely off the table in the US politically. Look at how hard it is to even get existing quotas raised or legal immigration processes streamlined. Most of the country would be extremely opposed to such a policy, and many for less “noble” reasons than economics. What matters is real life, and when a huge part of the population suddenly has to contend with labor competition willing to work for 1/4 the price, you’re talking about a civil war.

You may be right but i think the 1/4 the price notion is misplaced. It's when they are in Mexico that they're 1/4 the price, and that's already legal due to free flow of goods with NAFTA. I can pay $2, $3 an hour and have the Mexican produce the widget and import it. If the Mexican is allowed to come to USA, now I have to either pay more to the remaining Mexicans (supply vs demand) or pay them minimum wage in the USA, which actually makes them MORE EXPENSIVE competition and thus the (USA)American working stiff relatively more attractive to employ.

When Mexicans can come work in the US they generally have to be paid more (at the very least due to minimum wage). So we'd be angry because now we're competing against.... more expensive labor? It's not the voting masses of people at the bottom that benefit from current policy, it's those at the top. NAFTA is the worst of both worlds for labor on both sides, which makes it democratically unattractive.

This is an Econ 101 hypothetical scenario. In the real world, there would be several years (or more) of massive economic dislocation. The bottom line is you would immediately be increasing the labor pool vastly in a certain number of trades/industries. You're also only focused on the US-- Mexico would suffer even more by having more of its most mobile, ambitious laborers flee the country.

Do you think the decisions developing countries make are screened through their citizens? They're typically corrupt authoritarian regimes, only the hands of the political and rich elites are greased, the general public has little power.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com