Originally Posted by issodhos
He is probably referring to the claim that because of NAFTA, US subsidized corn drove Mexican corn farmers (mainly indigenous people) off the land, who then headed north to take jobs in the border factories and in the US.
Yours,
Issodhos

As you indirectly point out, part of the concept of NAFTA was to likewise encourage a flowering of Mexican Manufacture IE the border maquidoras (sp?). And in fact one of the ideas of the plan was that in agreeing to this arrangement it would lower immigration by creating jobs in Mexico.

Even if one ignores the jobs added in Mexico because of NAFTA, one would still have to explain what Mexico would do with an additional 12 million corn farmers. What sort of living would these farmers make dividing up Mexico's vast farmlands? And what sort of corn price would be required to support these millions? And at what cost to the non-farmers of Mexico?

Assuming a population of 100million Mexicans, and 12 million farmers earning $5,000 each, then each Mexican citizen will pay about $500 per year just for corn. By the way, the $500 per head cost of corn is what it costs for corn from the farm, all processing, handling, packaging, transportation and other costs are extra. To put it in perspective, the wheat farmer may receive 25 cents for the wheat in a loaf of bread. So the actual cost per citizen for corn in Mexico would more likely be of $1500 per capita. Can we be certain that such a circumstance would not cause any immigration to neighboring countries where you could buy the same corn for $100 and make 10x wages.

"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel