• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Questions about Trans Texas Cooridor / NAFTA Superhighway

zaphod2016 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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"
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
jaydeehess said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
zaphod2016 said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
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.
 
Yeah, I would be interested to see how often it occurs that nuts oppossing something drowns out the legitimate opposition.
 
gtc said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
I would absolutely support the project if it involved a conveyor belt from Mexico to Canada.
 
zaphod2016 said:
1. NAFTA is now 14 years old. It has had plenty of time to prove itself one way or another.
Click to expand...
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.

zaphod2016 said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.

zaphod2016 said:
3. However, despite 14 years of "free trade", the percentage of Mexicans living in poverty has not decreased.
Click to expand...
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?


jaydeehess said:
I wonder how a "Trans-Texas Corridor" magically becomes a NAFTA superhighway.
Click to expand...
This article from Maclean's magazine may shed some light on that.
 
me said:
3. However, despite 14 years of "free trade", the percentage of Mexicans living in poverty has not decreased.
Click to expand...

Corsair 115 said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
zaphod2016 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom