- Are Iran and Israel trading places?
- Morocco’s mentally ill await deliverance from their demons
- Bangkok’s ‘Mexican’ Gangsters (think about the infinite promise of globalization while you browse through this short, mostly photographic, essay)
- ¿Qué tiene de malo el muro?
- 10 Questions Libertarians Can’t Answer, and Hope You Won’t Ask!
Mexico
Quick thoughts on Mexico and trade
I just got back from a crazy trip in Mexico a couple of days ago, so my presence has been limited here. I hitched a ride down with a buddy of mine (I wanted to get down to LA and thought that Mexico would be nice pit stop).
My buddy’s van broke down outside of Ensenada and it took us a while to get out of there, but not too much longer than it would here in the US. Our problem had more to do with language barriers than with getting parts or getting ripped off. When we finally got to a mechanic shop it was about four o’clock, and the shop closed at 5.
They sent a guy out with us to do work on-site (we tagged along in the company’s truck and there was no charge for gasoline) and about a half-hour to five he called it quits and towed the van (himself) to the shop, where they told us it would be ready about 1 PM the next day.
As typical gringos do, we showed up at 1 they had everything ready for us. They even repaired the leaky radiator at no extra charge.
I think this is a small, anecdotal story that shows just how incredibly beneficial economic integration has been for both the US and Mexico. Imagine that there was no NAFTA in place when my buddy’s van broke down. My story would be radically different. I may have been “stuck” in Mexico waiting two or even three weeks for the right part to be shipped to that particular shop from some parochial partsmaker in Mexico.
Instead, I got to hang out in Ensenada and enjoy the beautiful weather and wonderful people who live in that city.
I think there needs to be more integration between the two countries. Dr Delacroix has a co-authored piece on how we can do just that, although I think that there is no reason not to have a full-fledged union.
Le nouveau racisme américain et l’impérialisme français
La tache est infinie d’eduquer les Francais pour leur faire jeter aux orties les cliches anti-Americains plus ou moins malveillants qu’ils trainent depuis soixante ans. Comme personne d’autre ne le fait, je me porte volontaire, de temps en temps, pour les aider a les remplacer par des cliches plus frais sur les Etats-Unis.
La Cour d’Appel qui correspond a la region de San Francisco vient de donner raison au directeur d’une ecole secondaire qui avait interdit a ses eleves le port ou l’affichage du drapeau …americain. Le tribunal a donne pour raison que ce drapeau risquait d’offenser les “Mexicains” de l’ecole.
Le debut de l’histoire remonte a Cinco de Mayo (en Espagnol dans le texte) de l’annee derniere. Il s’agit d’un fete officielle de l’Etat de Californie qui commemore une victoire militaire Mexicaine de 1862. C’est une fete qui passe inapercue presque partout au Mexique.
L’Etat de Californie l’a adoptee on ne sait plus trop pourquoi. Peut-etre que c’etait sous l’impulsion propre de la gauche cul-cul bien pensante locale aussi ignorante qu’avide demontrer sa sensibilite vis-a-vis des “minorites.” Peut-etre que cela a ete impose par un groupe de pression de Mexicano-Americains, raciste et fascisant qui se nomme lui-meme: “La Raza, ” “la Race.” (Ai-je meme l’imagination d’inventer de telles insanites?) En tous cas, selon mes sondages, forcement peu scientifiques mais tres frequents, le pourcentage d’Anglos capable de d’identifier les evenements ainsi commemores tourne autour de 0. Le pourcentage des jeunes d’origine hispanique monte jusqu’a 5. Il me faut ajouter pour etre honnete, qu’un 5% additionnel de ces derniers est en mesure d’affirmer: “Je ne sais pas ce que c’est mais je sais que ce n’est pas l’anniversaire de l’independance mexicaine.” En tous cas, cette commemoration a des effets positifs sur la consommation californienne de bieres mexicaines (d’ailleurs tres bonnes).
Et l’imperialisme francais alors, vous dites-vous? Et bien voila, en 1861, l’armee francaise du soi-disant Empereur Napoleon II (socialiste pour une bonne partie de sa carriere ploitique) a recu l’ordre d’aller attaquer la Prusse. Manque de chance, elle a tourne a doite au lieu d’a gauche. Elle s’est donc retrouvee au Mexique. De fil en aiguille, ell a fini par conquerir brievement tout le pays et a y installer un empereur fantome, un Autrichien obscur et palot. Ell profitait alors bien sur du fait que les Etat-Unis etaient eux-memes preocupes par le projet de s’entretuer pendant leur propre guerre civile. En attendant, au debut, les Mexicains de presidet Benito Juarez avaient bel et bien gagne contre le corps expeditionaire francais.
Pour en revenir a la Californie, le 5 Mai de l’annee derniere, dans une ecole sans importance d’une ville sans importance situee au sud de San Jose (Silicon Valley), des eleves d’origine mexicaine s’etaient presentes en class a portant des t-shirt figurant le drapeau mexicain. Des eleves Anglos avaient replique en enfilant des t-shirts a l ‘image du drapeau americain. Il y avait eu des bousculades entres eleves des deux groupes sans nulle doute echauffes par la presence de filles, aussi des deux groupes, en t-shirts sans dessins particuliers mais bien moulants.
La Cour d’Appel, en interdisant de fait de montrer le drapeau americain en Amerique a elle-meme fait la preuve d’une sorte de racisme, anti-blanc, cette fois-ci. En plus, elle a bien demontre son prejuge racial inconscient en identifiant comme “Mexicains” la categorie sociale que sa decision est censee proteger des bobos spirituels. Il est certain qu’elle voulait dire: “Americains d’origine mexicaine” car il n’y probablement pas ou que tres peu de “Mexicains” dans cette ecole. (N.B.: Toute personne nee aux Etats-Unis est citoyenne americaine, un point, c’est tout.)
PS Moi-meme, je suis tres satisfait de l’existence en Californie d’une forte emigration d’origine mexicaine (30% ou plus de la population de ‘Etat.) , y compris les sans-papiers. D’une part, se sont de gens faciles a aimer. D’autre part, ils apportent beacoup. Je crois meme bien que les enfants qu’ils font aujourd’hui supporteront la majeure partie du poids financier de la retraite Securite Social de mes propres enfants, vers 2045.
Around the Web
- Recent Mexican reforms and the impact on the United States. From Gary Becker.
- Is the Pope’s Capitalism Catholic? Read this for the concise history lesson on Argentina rather than for the Pope’s opinion about public policy.
- Sandy Ikeda asks: Who is really threatened by innovation? Rick’s recent musing on political entrepreneurs can also shed some light on Ikeda’s question.
- The Liberty Constitution, Or, What About Slavery? Some libertarian legal theory for dat ass.
- “Diplomacy.” A transcript of Rand Paul’s recent speech on US foreign policy.
- Why the world needs more globalization, not less.
Is free trade an expediency?
Jacques Delacroix makes an odd argument over at his blog Facts Matter:
Free trade is not a moral principle, it’s an expediency; violating the principle just costs money.
This argument comes after he admits that he would be very, very open to protectionism because of Mexico’s recent decision to denationalize its oil and natural gas industries.
Before I continue, who does Dr Delacroix think would benefit from a protectionist union with the United States?
Would he really advocate denationalizing the Mexican energy sector simply to force resources north of the border through a protectionist union? This seems to be the implication of his argument. If expediency is indeed Dr Delacroix’s excuse for free trade, then he automatically loses the argument to mercantilists (what, for example, sounds more expedient to you: A nationalized energy sector or free trade?).
It is precisely because of this automatic defeat that an 18th century moral philosopher (Adam Smith) decided to write a book on the moral superiority of free trade over protectionism (The Wealth of Nations). At its core, free trade is about the freedom of the individual to do what she pleases so long as no force nor fraud is involved. Once this underlying moral argument is understood, free trade can easily be seen as the natural outgrowth of such a philosophy.
Here is something to look out for as you read arguments put forth in the press: The moral argument. If an argument claims to have no moral underpinning it doesn’t mean there is no moral underpinning. It just means that the proponent of a said argument does not care for opposing or alternative arguments.
Ugh, this is getting convoluted so let me see if I can use an example. Suppose a politician or an academic is making an argument in favor of a policy (the policy itself is irrelevant). Suppose the proponent of this policy argues that the best reason to show support for his policy is because it will make everybody better off (it doesn’t matter how). Suppose further that this politician or academic claims that his policy is expedient rather moral, and that this in and of itself is one of the policy’s main features.
Would you support it?
Because throughout history most people have. This support is why we see a stagnation – of incomes, of years lived, and of innovation – for thousands of years in human history. The impact on mores that the expediency-over-morality outlook had on humanity can also be reflected in our utterly violent past.
I point out the difference between arguing from a moral standpoint and arguing from an expedient one because of the consequences that each of these approaches tend to produce. For example, Dr Delacroix also advocates military adventurism abroad in the name of expediency rather than morality. Can you guess why he still defends the actions of the Bush administration? But the Iraqis held elections, right guys? Right?
The moral thing to do – secure the lives and liberties of individuals first and foremost – is usually also the hardest thing to do, especially when people continually wave expedient choices in the faces of those who must choose. Yet I think that when and where this simple moral principle is able to gain a foothold in the minds of enough people, the rewards are ample.
Speaking of rewards, the ‘comments’ section at Dr Delacroix’s blog is currently inundated with speculation about whether or not Santa Claus was (was) really white-skinned. One reaps what one sows, after all!
What do Mexicans read for intellectual nourishment?
I asked an old friend of mine (I think he’s a professional economist these days, but I deactivated my FB and haven’t been able to keep up with anyone) to help me find some Mexican media outlets to troll for knowledge and information. I also wanted to know how influential Mexico’s press is outside of Mexico (especially in regards to her smaller neighbors in Central America but also to Spain). He gave me the following heads up:
I’d recommend searching for articles in Nexos and Letras Libres magazines, which are something like the The Atlantic.
Mexico is very insular and there is almost no influence from media outside or from here to other places. However, I believe El País from Spain usually does a good job reporting about Mexico.
My friend and I actually met at a summer seminar put on by the Institute for Humane Studies back in 2009. It’s the same seminar that I met Rick at as well. If you are young and want to be a competent defender of liberty then I would highly suggest checking out the IHS’s programs.
From the Comments: Liberalization is about much more than just the economy
Andrew is skeptical of NAFTA’s achievements:
NAFTA isn’t the only major factor at play, although you’re right that it has provided Mexico with some huge economic benefits. This is especially true in the factory towns along the US border, which are able to absorb a much larger absolute amount of surplus labor from poorer, less developed parts of the country today than they could a generation ago. That said, I’m still ambivalent about NAFTA on account of the severe short-term economic and social dislocation it caused, e.g. to US factory workers who were undercut by Mexican competitors and to small Mexican farmers who were undercut by major US agribusinesses. It strikes me as a hastily and abruptly implemented policy change that caused a lot of needless collateral damage in the short term. Whether this damage was worthwhile in the long term depends a lot on one’s role in the North American economy at the time. On the whole, I’d say NAFTA has been a mixed bag.
This, I think, is in response to the 2003 academic paper (published by three economists) that I cited in defense of NAFTA’s success. It is a paper that only focuses on economic indicators (such as per capita income or total factor productivity). Here is what it found: NAFTA has not had a discernible effect on the US or Mexican economies. The displacement of US factory workers and Mexican farmers that Andrew mentions had been going on long before the implementation of NAFTA. Basically, NAFTA merely reduced the amount of paperwork associated with the changes in both economies. It has not hastened the changes.
Similarly, it appears that the growth of Mexican and American purchasing power parity are simply part of a hemisphere-wide trend that has also been going on for decades. In short, economists have found the economic effects of NAFTA to be negligible. So why do they continue to overwhelmingly support it?
My answer to this question can be found, I think, in Andrew’s keen perception of the changes in Mexican society:
Over the same time that NAFTA has been in place, Mexico has also become much more Protestant and nondenominational in religious affiliation, better educated, and, as I understand it, somewhat better governed and administered. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I have no reason to suspect that the religious shift had anything in particular to do with Mexico’s improving economy or trade liberalization. “Church-planting” missionaries of the sort that have evangelized Latin America don’t look for a particular economic or policy profile in a country before imposing themselves on it, although they do generally appreciate a certain amount of poverty and dysfunction, as long as they’re reasonably reasonably safe in country, since people in economically healthy, well-governed countries are less receptive to their pitches. This is a very cynical analysis, but the cravenness in “mission field” circles can be mindblowing.
What’s happened in much of Latin America in the last decade or so is that these evangelism programs have hit critical mass. They’re now self-sustaining operations being run mainly by Latin American evangelists pestering their own countrymen, or sometimes people in nearby countries. Gringo missionaries are still working in Latin America, but they’re no longer critical to the growth of evangelical churches there. (Besides, there’s much more street cred to be had in evangelizing a recently restive Muslim village in Northern Ghana, or, as my relatives and everybody at their church called it, Africa. I bless the rains….)
Liberalization is about much, much more than economic growth. The decline of Catholicism in Mexico, for example, is an incredibly good trend. This is not because Catholics suck, but because Mexican society is becoming more diverse. Liberalization means opening a state’s political, economic and social institutions to the world.
Undertaking liberalization thus exposes a society to changes. Sometimes societies may have a tough time with changes, especially if there are deeply entrenched political structures in place. Most often, though, these changes tend towards more political liberty (see “1994 Mexican Elections: Manifestation of a Divided Society?” and “Institutionalizing Mexico’s New Democracy,” both by Joseph Klesner, and be sure to read between the lines), more social diversity and, yes, more economic growth.
Of course, with new and overall positive changes come new challenges. The differences between the old challenges and the new, however, are cavernous. Politically, gridlock supplants revolution. Socially, vice replaces desperation. And economically, policy replaces cronyism.
Now, this is a broad view, but I think it is a concrete one nonetheless. There are two major objections to liberalization that I would like to briefly discuss.
The first is my assumption that diversity is, in and of itself, a good thing. Some people simply cannot stand diversity, whether it be of the ethnic and linguistic variety or of the intellectual variety. The former form of intolerance is often to be found among conservatives; the latter in Leftist circles. However, the fact that people I don’t like disapprove of diversity is not a good excuse for being a proponent of diversity.
So what follows is my concise defense of diversity. Diversity opens individuals up to higher degrees of tolerance. It gives individuals more choices. Its very nature makes people smarter by exposing them to more points of view. Added together, these benefits are a recipe for wealth and stability and peace.
There is a tendency, however, for diverse organizations (including societies) to have more conflict. It is this conflict that conservatives and Leftists alike point to as proof that diversity is an undesirable plague. Yet, under the right framework, conflict from diversity produces immeasurable amounts of wealth (see also this paper by economists Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor). This framework revolves largely around well-protected property rights and the protection of a handful of other rights (free speech, free press, etc.).
It is this framework that, conveniently enough, allows me to segue into the next most common objection to liberalization: that it doesn’t work and often makes things worse for a society. The data in this regard is not much clearer than the data on NAFTA’s effects on Mexico. That is to say, there is not enough evidence to prove conclusively that trade liberalization leads to economic growth. However, data over the past 30 years or so does suggest that states which undergo liberalization efforts tend to have economies that grow steadier, polities that oppress less and societies that adapt to cultural change more easily. If you can find evidence that you think may refute my argument (“that the rough overall trend of liberalization is beneficial to mankind”), you know where the ‘comments’ section is.
From the Comments: Open Borders, Immigration and the Sociology of Gradualism
Dr Delacroix takes issue with my woefully inadequate summary of his work on open borders in the Independent Review. He writes:
Small yet somewhat important correction: In our piece in the Independent Review, Nikiforov and I argue for somewhat more than a guest worker program and our reference is not a to a EU “guest worker program.” (I am not sure whether there is one.) Rather, we argue that little harm would be done and, as we see now, much harm avoided, by simply agreeing that citizens of Canada, the US and Mexico (especially Mexico) can freely move across the common borders of the three countries. including for the long term. What we have seen in the EU for now more than twenty years shows that there is no reason to attach this free movement principle to citizenship.
That you may work, open a business, pay taxes in Mexico does not logically imply that you may vote in Mexican elections. That you may not does not deprive you of any “rights.” As an immigrant into Mexico you knew what you were doing. You moved under your own power. It’s unlikely anyone even invited you. If you crashed the party, you have no moral right to complain that the food is not kosher (or hallal, you decide).
Several years later, I think that the only reason for this insistence on tying residence to citizenship is the Democratic Party’s totalitarian aspirations. Observing the drift in the Obama administration toward non-legality clarified the picture for me, personally. (I am not speaking for my co-author, here. He just spent three years in Russia; I will ask him.)
Historical precedents matter, and a preference for gradualism may make it desirable -in this country- to transition through a somewhat familiar “guest worker program” rather than directly decree open borders for the citizens of the three NAFTA countries.
I am for whatever works but we must keep concepts distinct from each other: A tomato is not really a fruit, not really.
PS I am glad Notes On Liberty publishes my essays (and even my stories) and that it links to my blog. When I grow up, I want a readership like Notes’ readership!
The Immigration “Reform” Bill: RINOs, Labor Unions and a Libertarian Alternative
Nobody is happy with the current immigration reform package being shoved through Congress at the moment. I don’t know too much about the specifics of the bill, or even about immigration itself (except that immigrants make good drinking buddies), so I’ll just outsource some ideas and arguments I’ve read elsewhere. First up is our very own Jacques Delacroix, an immigrant from France, who writes:
The main objective of the bill is to install in this country an unbeatable Democratic majority for the foreseeable future. The intent is to turn this polity into a one-party system. Everyone assumes, of course, that the electoral benefits of the bill will redound to the Democratic Party. If you don’t believe it, conduct a simple mental experiment: Tell yourself under what circumstances the implementation of the present bill, or of one similar to it, would cause a net increase in the number of Republican voters?
At best, at the very best, the admission of ten million formerly illegal immigrants and of their dependents would have no effect on American electoral politics. There is no scenario whereas it would help the conservative cause.
New immigrants vote Democrat. Immigrants from societies with authoritarian traditions vote Left unless their societies have gone through violent purging convulsions such as happened in “communist” Eastern Europe in the nineties. The idea that the government should leave people alone is a sophisticated one. It does not grow naturally out of the experience of oppression.
Indeed. Is this analysis wrong? If so, feel free to elaborate why you think so in the ‘comments’ section. I highly recommend reading the whole thing. Angelo Codevilla, an immigrant from Italy (and one of Dr Delacroix’s fellow academics), also elaborates on the bill:
Beginning in the 1960s, increasingly dandified native youths shunned agricultural and service jobs. So did the new legal immigrants. This made room for a growing number of laborers from Mexico who came and went freely and seasonally across a basically un-patrolled 2000 mile border. These were not “immigrants,” but rather mostly young men who yearned to get back to their families. They did not come to stay, much less take part in American politics. America came to rely on them to the point that, were a magic wand to eliminate them, whole industries would stop, including California agriculture.
US labor unions however, supported by the Democratic Party, pressed the US government to restrict this illegal flow. While until the 1980s, the US-Mexican border was patrolled by fewer than 1000 agents – nearly all at a handful of crossing points – that number has grown to some 25,000 in our time. As the border began to tighten, making it impossible for the Mexicans to come and go, many brought their families and stayed put in the US between work seasons […]
The controversy over illegal immigration did not touch the core of the immigration problem, namely the Immigration Act of 1965 and our burgeoning welfare system. Nor did it deal with the fact that the illegal flow of Mexicans was really about labor, not immigration, because most Mexican “illegals” had not come with the intention of staying. A well-crafted guest-worker program would give most of them what they want most [emphasis mine – bc].
Hence the “illegal immigration problem” is an artifact of the US political system: The Democratic Party wants the Mexicans as voters, the labor unions want the Mexicans as members rather than as competitors, and the Chamber of Commerce wants them for as low a wage as it can enforce.
Codevilla has much, much more here. Codevilla attributes the US immigration system to the corporate state, but I am unsure if Dr Delacroix feels the same way.
Delacroix’s piece, like Codevilla’s, also brings attention to an alternative guest worker program. Delacroix, in an article for the Independent Review, points out that the guest worker program has worked extremely well in the pre-central bank European Union (I am unsure if this is still the case).
A guest worker program would eliminate the political implications associated with “illegal immigration reform” and, as a result, enhance the economic benefits of seasonal labor flows coming from Mexico. The Cato Institute has recently come out with a policy report detailing how a guest worker program might be implemented. As I’ve stated before, the Cato Institute is one of three think tanks I actually trust (the other two being Brookings and Hoover).
Illegal Immigration: Bad Faith and Mental Confusion
When I have insomnia, I watch the news and news commentaries in a language other than English. Looking at the same object from different angles makes you smarter, I think. So, the less I sleep, the smarter I become, and the smarter you become, indirectly (to a very small extent, I realize).
Early in the morning, there is a long interactive discussion about immigration on Univisión’s “Despierta America “(“Wake up America”) First comes a badly illustrated, falsely descriptive jeremiad by a Hispanic immigration advocate. He is what I called in academia, a “professional Mexican.” I don’t know what he is getting at. He is not doing anything useful. He only perpetuates a sort of 1970s exploitation narrative that does not even make me feel young. The advocate complains bitterly of course, that today or yesterday, several hundred illegal immigrants, presumably all with a rap-sheet, have been gathered nationwide for deportation. The charming and beautiful anchorpersons play along. Everybody refers to “immigration.” No one ever says, “illegal” immigration or even “undocumented” immigrants. Next comes an immigration lawyer. He takes questions on-air from callers who want help to fix their status as people who entered this country illegally, some, several times. Still, there is no reference to illegal immigration in general; the topic is still simply “immigration.” The show remains on “immigration, “ no qualifier. It makes you wonder if there are any people from Spanish-speaking countries of the Western Hemisphere who ever entered this country legally.
The confusion between immigrant and illegal immigrant in this largest of Spanish-language television networks in the whole world, Univisión, constitutes a massive exercise in collective bad faith. It’s not going to help in the next political stage. No wonder conservative stay pissed off. No wonder their anger at illegal Hispanic immigrants sometimes comes to resemble anger at Hispanics in general.
Speaking of conservatives and of their distaste for illegal immigration, it does not help that they are confused on several important points. The fact that this country does not seem to be able to control its borders, the fact that its official immigration policies do not serve our interests, that’s all bad enough. We, conservatives, don’t need, in addition, to entertain and to propagate false notions of the burden immigrants, legal and illegal impose of us.
First, let me repeat that immigrants earn slightly more money on the average than the native-born. In our economic system, this means straightforwardly that immigrants contribute more, on the average than the native-born. Second, there is a widespread idea that illegal immigrants (illegal) consume government services while they don’t pay taxes. However common this belief, it does not withstand the most superficial examination. Here is why: It’s probably true that illegals avoid paying the federal income tax and also what state income taxes there are. That would be because they fear that filing government paper entails a risk of detection and of deportation. They routinely exaggerate the risk but it’s understandable.
Illegal immigrants however cannot avoid any indirect taxes or most other taxes, be they property taxes (that support schools), sale taxes, or excise taxes, including both federal and state tax on fuels. You might think that’s not much until you remember that 46 or 47 % of Americans do not pay any federal income tax. It’s likely that the % of Americans not paying state income tax is identical or, even higher. Thus, only illegal immigrants who situate themselves somewhere near the top 50% income bracket or within it would have to pay income tax at all if they filed. How many can that be? Think it through, don’t dismiss the thought out of hand.
What am I telling you?
It’s likely that illegal immigrant pay something close to their normal share of all taxes. I mean of the taxes they would have to pay if they were legal immigrants or US citizens. Not worth getting into a tizzy over, I say!
I know I have not dealt with payroll taxes, including taxes that support Social Security and Medicare. It’s likely that, by and large, illegal immigrants don’t pay those either. Reason is fear of detection again (see above). I know what you mean. I am with you. I wish they would pay those, right now, or at least, tomorrow. Please, follow through with this thought also. You will be amazed.
Bad faith, intellectual dishonesty on the one side; utter confusion fed by angry indignation on the other. It does not look good unless some conservatives will come to their senses. (Hint: The Wall Street Journal does a good job on the topic of immigration but it’s doing it so quietly hardly anyone is paying attention.)
PLEASE, THINK OF FORWARDING TO YOUR CONSERVATIVE FRIENDS.
The Year is 1534, and…
…a great deal of Spanish conquistadores are trying to cut up Mexico into personal spheres of wealth and property. I am reading Robert S. Chamberlain’s 1966 book The Conquest and Colonization of Yucatan, 1517-1550, and so far what I have gleaned from it has been great. Check out this passage:
“Attempted conquest with small numbers and insufficient support for expeditions […] were the result of overconfidence on the part of [the would-be conquistadores…] They had a total misconception of the character of many of the Maya. [Two of the conquistadores] had seen a few Spaniards destroy Montezuma’s imposing empire and bring it under the yoke. They were firmly convinced of the invincibility of their arms in face of any odds, and, underestimating the determination and military capacity of the Maya, they believed they could easily be subjugated.
Furthermore, until it was too late, [the conquistadores] failed to understand that many caciques gave fealty only as a temporary expedient, and that they intended to appeal to arms at the first opportunity […] Many mistakes could have been avoided had the [conquistadores] accurately appraised the character of the people with whom he had to deal.”
Now, since the writing of Chamberlain’s book, new statistics and revision of the historical account of the Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire (referred to by specialists as the Triple Alliance rather than the Aztec Empire) has fleshed out his writings. Instead of a handful of Spaniards that brought down the Triple Alliance, it was a combination of Spanish forces and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of indigenous soldiers from rival states that crushed the Triple Alliance. The vast majority of the indigenous soldiers were commanded by indigenous military officers. Continue reading
Race in America Right Now
I live in Northern California where Indian restaurant food and French restaurant food taste alike. That’s because the first is Mexican Indian food and the second is Mexican French food. All the cooks are Mexican. That’s an interesting economic fact. That’s not the whole story by a long shot. America is a great country where menial jobs have for generations led to entrepreneurship and in time, to dignified economic independence. So, Mexican cooks sometimes become Mexican-American restaurant owners.
In my town, there are dozens of Mexican restaurants and taco places. One full-fare restaurant stands among all others. It’s located downtown. It’s spacious and clean. The food there is reasonably good and moderately priced. The restaurant is also perfectly organized for the kind of fare it serves. Scarcely more than five minutes elapse between the moment you place your order and the moment it’s brought to your table. The table is cleaned within one minute of your leaving it so that the next customer does not have to wait.
This Mexican restaurant does not belong to a junior college drop-out, aging surfer as is often the case around here. It was launched and it is staffed by Mexicans immigrants and by their grown children and their buddies. You might say that it’s a great American entrepreneurial ship with a wholly Mexican crew.
One day, I noticed there an old Chinese man bent over a broom, laboriously sweeping the restaurant’s floor. Continue reading
The French Presidentials and Cinco de Mayo
I have been busy producing a legible and clean copy of my memoirs: “I Used to Be French….” It’s an endless process. By the way, if you are an agent, don’t be shy about asking to read this remarkable and witty document.
While my back was turned, the world continued to turn. The French lost the battle of Puebla and they lost an election, all in the same day.
People in California celebrate Cinco de Mayo with beer and more expensive stuff. Few know what they are celebrating, Anglos, never, children of Mexicans, seldom, Mexican immigrants, often but not always. Myself, I celebrate too because I like beer, Mexicans and Mexican beer. I celebrate discretely though.
In the battle of Puebla, in 1862, under the presidency of Benito Juarez, a Mexican army achieved victory over a French expeditionary forces against all expectations. What happened is that the French thought they were on their way to Prussia to beat on that emerging power before it was too late. They turned right instead of left outside Paris by mistake. Somehow, they ended up in Mexico and the rest is history, mostly forgotten history. They left behind in Mexico, probably pan dulces, and less probably, the name for roving musicians in charro costumes, mariachis (“marriage”). Continue reading
France Does not Export Wines, nor Mexico Guacamole, nor Does the US Import Cars, etc. “National Competitiveness” for the Intelligent Ignorant
It’s national election season again. As always happens in this season, in every developed country, the old battle horse of national competitiveness gets a new coat of shiny paint and is led out by its sparkle-strewn tether to support politicians misconceptions and mis-talks. There is a very widespread misconception that nourishes unreasonable thoughts and false notions on the economy.
Sorry but at this time, in this season, I feel a compulsion to resort to teaching, so, pay attention. There might be a quiz.
The misconception: Countries, (or “nation-states”) such as the US, Canada, Mexico, Belgium, or France don’t compete with each other like soccer teams, for example, compete against each other. In soccer, when one team wins a point, the other team loses a point. When the economy of one country picks up speed however, it is not (NOT) the case that the economy of another country (or of several countries) must slow down. The reverse is true. When the Mexican economy grows, some Mexicans are better able to buy American corn, or American video games, making some Americans richer than would be the case if the Mexican economy stagnated.
The confusion has three sources. The first source is simply ignoring that the producers of one country are also potential customers for the producers of all other countries. Those who compete with American workers, are often also buyers of American-made products. If they are not at the moment, the richer they become, the more likely they are to become buyers. One of the international functions of those who compete with American producers is thus to enrich American producers, perhaps different ones. The relationship may be more indirect. Foreign worker A competes with American worker B and he uses the money he gets from beating B to buy from American worker C. If I am C, my interests are not well lined up with those of my fellow American B. That’s a fact, no matter what politicians say in the language of football. However, if I am American worker C, in the long run, I am better off if fellow American worker B becomes richer than if he does not. For one thing, he will be able to support better equipments, such as schools, from which I will profit. Continue reading
Around the Web
Be back to blogging soon. Hope these tide you over.
Speaking of tides, co-editor Fred Foldvary on regulations and swimming pools.
NAFTA has reduced income inequality in Mexico. Just think of what could be created if we continued to liberalize our relations with our neighbors (especially our labor markets).
Hypocrisy in the Democratic Party. See if you can spot it!
The myth of socialist Sweden. Libertarians have been saying this for years, and yet…
May Day: The Conspiracy of Silence Around the Romance of Evil. A nice debunking of the persistent lure of Communism.
Notes On Liberty 