México: ¡Tierra y Libertad!

I vote no to both acts. The free trade act would be a betrayal of our workers and businessmen, while the reformed Juarez plan might up science funding, but also involves more involvement of government in local concerns than palatable. Let's not forget the excellent essay by don pelayo on the dangers of federal spending on the local economy - if we create a dependence of local government on federal money, then the central government can use the money as a bargaining chip to undermine the authority of the local government.
 
I vote yea on both acts. Even though the latter pains me, cooperation is a necessary part of politics. I do have a few comments to Senator Morales, however. You say you fight against government spending, but this comprehensive reform of the Juarez Plan is setting a timeline to end this government spending. If it does not pass the Juarez Plan will continue on for even longer, which I assume is not what you want. I agree it is against the common ideal to let federal government have too much say in local matters, which is the reason we need this reformed plan, otherwise it will continue.

On the Free Trade Act, the people of Mexico have had a chance to grow, but the market is too small for them to continue to flourish. They are being stunted by being prohibited outside trade. A more free policy would allow Mexican workers to sell their goods overseas for cheaper than European counterparts, allowing the Mexican economy to flourish.



(There is a stability penalty for having open borders with a free market nation if you're a mercantilist nation. At this stage in the game, as well, a nation will make a significantly larger amount of money, because almost every nation will also have free market, thus allowing nations to trade with each other and make more money.)
 
Top Bottom