Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Commodities - The Coming Bull Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (1147)	3/18/2002 10:57:37 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1643

NAFTA: Magna Charta of Mexico's Cartels buchanan.org According to ABC's May 7th Nightline, Mexico's drug cartels, in anticipation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993, bought up businesses all along the U. S. border. Our Drug Enforcement Agency knew the cartels had plans to use these companies as fronts to smuggle drugs into the United States, but when the DEA informed the Clintonites, it was told to shut up. ABC's source: Phil Jordan, recently retired DEA intelligence chief. Post-NAFTA, Mexico quickly became the port of entry for 70% of the cocaine entering the United States. No wonder the cartels are as pro-free trade and open borders as The Wall Street Journal. ......................................................................................................................... "The reports are blowing the roof off claims that the NAFTA trade deal is good for working families. . . . NAFTA has created a new pipeline of drugs into our schools and communities," says Teamsters President Ron Carey. Congress ought to stan an investigation into who knew what, when, for Bill Clinton's NAFTA partner was Mexican President Carlos Salinas, whose own family allegedly profited to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars from connections to the cartels ......................................................................................................................... And there is a safety factor. Mexican trucks run twice the size of U.S. trucks and average three times the age. U.S. border inspections, in the rare cases they are done, disqualify half of these trucks for American roads. Their brakes are often faulty, their tires unsafe, and their emissions standards abysmal. Their drivers lack the training and experience of U.S. drivers. According to the Teamsters Union, some Mexican drivers are paid as little as $7.00 a day. As there is no shortage of U.S. trucks, why would we permit vehicles like this in the United States? Why would we want them? In a word: cheapness. By replacing American trucks and drivers with Mexicans, U.S. big trucking firms could haul freight more cheaply. Profits would soar; presumably, the consumer would benefit. So, too, of course, would the drug cartels, which would find the U.S. border even less of an impediment than it is today.

To: craig crawford who wrote (1147)	3/18/2002 11:03:55 PM
From: grusum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1643

So do i understand you to say that the 'war' need not be fought by the federal or any other government? Then drugs should obviously be legal, right? If drugs are legal, should they then be regulated? On education, i think that kids 'could' be taught better at home than any school. Still, i don't think that they 'would' be taught any better just because they 'could' be taught better. If parents can't or won't teach their kids at home, then the kids need a school to go to. I think that local communities 'could' teach well. And even if they didn't, they couldn't do much worse of a job than the state and federal governments do right now. On balance then, we would probably better off without the department of education. gru