From the January 2017 issue: Bury Their Future at Standing Rock - by @NaomiSRiley https://t.co/LEY9LfFZss pic.twitter.com/YAaeH4hCMO
— Commentary Magazine (@Commentary) December 15, 2016
We can improve the conditions of the working class. Raising low productivity by enabling human creativity is what has mainly worked. By contrast, taking from the rich and giving to the poor helps only a little — and anyway expropriation is a one-time trick. Enrichment from market-tested betterment will go on and on and, over the next century or so, will bring comfort in essentials to virtually everyone on the planet, and more to an expanding middle class.RTWT.
Look at the astonishing improvements in China since 1978 and in India since 1991. Between them, the countries are home to about four out of every 10 humans. Even in the United States, real wages have continued to grow — if slowly — in recent decades, contrary to what you might have heard. Donald Boudreaux, an economist at George Mason University, and others who have looked beyond the superficial have shown that real wages are continuing to rise, thanks largely to major improvements in the quality of goods and services, and to nonwage benefits. Real purchasing power is double what it was in the fondly remembered 1950s — when many American children went to bed hungry.
What, then, caused this Great Enrichment?
Not exploitation of the poor, not investment, not existing institutions, but a mere idea, which the philosopher and economist Adam Smith called “the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In a word, it was liberalism, in the free-market European sense. Give masses of ordinary people equality before the law and equality of social dignity, and leave them alone, and it turns out that they become extraordinarily creative and energetic...
Does Ryan Lochte owe Rio and the #Olympics an apology? @cbrennansports says yes! https://t.co/RMYsuxtK8J pic.twitter.com/TWaZIx57VK
— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) August 19, 2016
Here’s #RyanLochte statement on Twitter pic.twitter.com/LWIvrLQf2e
— Ryan Smith (@ryansmithtv) August 19, 2016
Rio 2016: The Green Water Spreads to Water Polo Pool - WSJ https://t.co/x5isF39taJ
— SnewsHound (@SnewsHound) August 10, 2016
RIO DE JANEIRO—The Rio Olympics’ green-water crisis claimed another victim: the water polo pool.Well, maybe not.
Officials scrambled to contain the new embarrassment, which shocked television viewers and spectators Tuesday when the pool hosting the women’s 10-meter synchronized diving finals turned a deep, bright green. Wednesday, even as officials insisted they had the problem under control, they acknowledged that the problem was also affecting the adjoining water polo pool, which also displayed a greenish tint.
“Yesterday mid-afternoon there was a sudden decrease in the alkalinity of the pool,” said Mario Andrada, spokesman for the Rio 2016 Organizing Committee. “Obviously, the people in charge of maintaining the pool and of checking could and should have done more intensive tests.”
Andrada said the pool color would get back to normal “very shortly.” However, he added, Wednesday’s rain in Rio was complicating things.
Several possible explanations emerged on Wednesday, though not all seemed to fit together.
FINA, swimming and diving’s world governing body, said the change occurred, because “the water tanks ran out of some of the chemicals used in the water treatment process. As a result the pH level of the water was outside the usual range, causing the discolouration.”
FINA also added that its sport medicine committee had deemed the water safe for competition...
Why is the diving pool water green? @vickihallch tries to get to the bottom of it. (The question, not the pool.) https://t.co/9BQv44wiXL— National Post (@nationalpost) August 10, 2016
RIO DE JANEIRO — An unsettling thing happened at the Olympic diving pool on Tuesday: the water inexplicably turned green, just in time for the women’s synchronized 10-meter platform diving competition.More.
Officials said they did not know what caused the trouble, exactly. But they declared the water had been tested and was not dangerous. It was an unsettling sight, appearing to become greener and murkier as the day went on, having been a lovely light blue on Monday.
The British diver Tom Daley, who won a bronze medal in the same pool the day before, posted a photograph on Twitter showing the contrast between the colors of the pools. “Ermmmm – what happened?” he said.
The adjoining pool at the aquatic center, used for synchronized swimming and water polo, remained its normal blue color, which made the extreme greenness of the diving pool all the more striking.
Meanwhile, diving practice went on as planned, and so did the women’s synchronized event. Competitors generally said that the swampiness of the water did not put them off their form, although they found it weird and puzzling.
“I’ve never dived in anything like it,” said Britain’s Tonia Couch, who finished fifth, along with Lois Coulson.
The situation overshadowed the news conference after the event, with reporters more interested in the state of the water than in the quality of the diving. Officials released a brief statement that did not address the main questions: what had happened, why had it happened so quickly, and why wasn’t there a simple explanation, given that this is the sort of thing that commonly happens to swimming pools?
“To ensure a high quality field of play is mandatory to the Rio 2016 organizing committee,” the statement said. “Water tests at Maria Lenk Aquatic Center diving pool were conducted and found to be no risk to the athletes’ health. We’re investigating what the cause of the situation was.”
The statement also said, “We’re pleased to say the competition was successfully completed.”
Officials at the news conference declined to take questions from the news media about the water.
Steve Henderson, who owns AAA Pool Service in Santa Rosa, Calif., said that although he was not an expert on Brazilian swimming pools, there were two likely causes: a sudden algae bloom, which could be eradicated by zapping the pool with extra chlorine overnight; or a chemical reaction between chlorine and a metal in the water, most likely manganese.
“If they have manganese in the water, you will get a reaction depending on level of chlorination,” Henderson said. He said that it was a normal occurrence, as even a slight imbalance can cause a violent color change, and not a cause of alarm.
Still, he said, he found it puzzling that officials at the Games did not have a better explanation...
The 2016 Olympic Games kicked off in Rio de Janeiro on the weekend without major incidents. That seemed a near miracle after weeks of grim reports about shoddy construction, an unprepared security detail and monstrous traffic jams. Whether the athletes, visitors and Cariocas (as Rio residents are known) can get through the next two weeks without a catastrophe remains an open question.Still more.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Then again, when Rio won the competition in 2009 to host these games, Brazil wasn’t forecast to look like it does today—with a budget deficit equal to some 8% of gross domestic product, inflation near 10%, two years of economic contraction and a cesspool of corruption scandals.
In 2009, President Lula da Silva of the Workers’ Party (PT) had been at the helm for more than six years and was somewhat of a world rock star. His hip rhetoric denigrated the economic liberalism of the 1990s while hyping a new and improved brand of socialism with a samba twist.
Much of the region bought Lula’s 2.0 version of big government. Concerns about the return of left-wing Latin populism and its potential damage to entrepreneurship and economic growth were met with assurances that this time would be different.
Lula was a man of the left but he wasn’t Hugo Chávez, conventional wisdom explained. A November 2009 Economist magazine cover story was titled “Brazil takes off.” It cited a forecast by the consulting firm PwC that by 2025 São Paulo would be the world’s fifth-wealthiest city. Most of punditry agreed: Brazil was on course to take its rightful place as a world economic superpower.
Lula stepped down after two terms in 2011, handing power to his PT successor, President Dilma Rousseff. The 2016 Olympics were supposed to showcase the socialist paradise he had cultivated: an urban utopia mixing affordable housing, national industrial champions and orderly public-transportation networks to provide a tranquil—and environmentally approved—living experience.
Instead, at the Olympic Village, just weeks before the opening, sinks fell off the walls and there were various other plumbing disasters. The Australian national team fled from its quarters upon arrival because it found, among other things, exposed electrical wires next to indoor puddles of water. Guanabara Bay, the venue for open-water swimming and sailing races, is a giant petri dish of bacteria. A new metro line that was supposed to take visitors to the games ends eight miles short of its promised destination.
The Rio security company that was hired to screen spectators was fired 10 days ago for noncompliance with its contract. Organizers scrambled last week to hire and train a replacement team.
The world seems stunned. It shouldn’t be. Rio is a microcosm of Lula’s Brazil, where bureaucracy runs things from the top down and human beings are an afterthought. The only thing missing in this Rio analogy—so far—is the corruption that flourished at the federal level during 14 years of PT government...
Child brides being sold for cows: The price of being a girl in South Sudan https://t.co/XjbtCuQayw pic.twitter.com/UFwgiimPOm— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) July 30, 2016
To the editor: On the front page of The Times this week was one of the simplest, yet most spectacular photos that I, a designer, have seen. (“What daughters are worth,” August 1)That's very nice.
The portrait of Lucca Poni and her child in South Sudan accompanied a fine article by Robyn Dixon on young girls’ plight in that part of the world.
I had to look twice to be sure it was not a painting.
Photographer Sara Hylton’s attention to subject matter illustrating the article, composition, light and color are worthy of Pulitzer consideration to my mind.
Marty Huyette, Dana Point
One of California’s largest energy utilities took a bold step in the 21st century electricity revolution with an agreement to close its last operating nuclear plant and develop more solar, wind and other clean power technologies.More.
The decision announced Tuesday by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to close its beleaguered Diablo Canyon nuclear plant within the next decade runs counter to the nuclear industry’s arguments that curbing carbon emissions and combating climate change require use of nuclear power, which generates the most electricity without harmful emissions.
Instead, PG&E joined with longtime adversaries such as the Friends of the Earth environmental group to craft a deal that will bring the company closer to the mandate that 50% of California’s electricity generation come from renewable energy sources by 2030.
PG&E’s agreement will close the book on the state’s history as a nuclear pioneer, but adds to its clean energy reputation. California already leads the nation by far in use of solar energy generated by rooftop panels and by sprawling power arrays in the desert.
“California is already a leader in curtailing greenhouse gases,” said Peter Bradford, a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “Now they’re saying they can go even further. That’s potentially a model for other situations.”
Under the proposal, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County would be retired by PG&E after its current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating licenses expire in November 2024 and August 2025.
The power produced by Diablo Canyon’s two nuclear reactors would be replaced with investment in a greenhouse-gas-free portfolio of energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage, PG&E said. The proposal is contingent on a number of regulatory actions, including approvals from the California Public Utilities Commission.
The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built against a seaside cliff near Avila Beach, provides 2,160 megawatts of electricity for Central and Northern California — enough to power more than 1.7 million homes.
Tuesday’s announcement comes after a long debate over the fate of the plant, which sits near several earthquake fault lines. The Hosgri Fault, located three miles from Diablo Canyon, was discovered in 1971, three years after construction of the plant began...
Under Zuma’s leadership, a culture of impunity has taken root at the highest levels of the ANC. https://t.co/OoLfVbjOJa
— Foreign Affairs (@ForeignAffairs) May 22, 2016
South Africa is in the middle of a period of political and economic unrest unlike anything the country has experienced since the end of apartheid in 1994. In March 2015, students at the University of Cape Town launched the #Rhodesmustfall campaign, aimed at bringing down a statue of the British imperialist Cecil Rhodes. Since then, students have regularly stormed the nation’s universities, labor unions have held strikes, and populist social movements have taken to the streets. The protesters have called for wholesale reform of the country’s economy and directly challenged the ruling African National Congress. And the ANC itself is in crisis, divided between supporters and detractors of South African President Jacob Zuma. On March 31, the country’s highest court ruled that Zuma had failed to uphold the constitution when he ignored a state order to repay government funds used in a $23 million upgrade to his private residence at Nkandla in KwaZulu Natal. And on April 29, the High Court in Pretoria ruled that the former head of the National Prosecuting Authority, Mokotedi Mpshe, had acted irrationally when he had dropped corruption charges against Zuma in 2009. Although the opposition failed in its bid to impeach Zuma, the National Assembly remains fractious and divided. The Nkandla revelations and growing dissatisfaction with Zuma have sparked broader protests about poor living standards, low economic growth, high unemployment, and political stagnation.Keep reading.
The roots of the current crisis lie in the country’s tortured past. Since the end of apartheid, the number of people who live in absolute poverty has fallen, and access to and quality of services has improved, but unemployment, crime, and housing remain the top three concerns of South Africans, as they have been since the mid-1990s. In fact, the gap between rich and poor has widened: South Africa’s Gini coefficient, a measure of economic inequality ranging from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality), increased from 0.62 in 2008 to 0.70 in 2013; by contrast, Brazil’s has fallen from 0.55 in 2009 to 0.53 in 2013. For all of those who expected great progress since 1994, the slow pace of change has been bitterly disappointing.
After the political stalemate of the late 1980s, the ANC made a bargain with the then ruling National Party: it would take power and focus on postapartheid reconciliation, while committing to economic policies that would disavow the appropriation of land and economic assets from the country’s white elite. In short, the ANC chose political power and social reconciliation over economic restitution and the redistribution of wealth.
The concessions hobbled the party during the critical years immediately following the end of apartheid, when economic restructuring could have had great impact. Apartheid policies had stripped the country of its natural wealth and impoverished its people, and the state had developed the capacity to provide services to only a small portion of the population. The government had pushed responsibility for the black majority to the Bantustans, self-governing territories that the architects of apartheid had established to house the country’s “African” populations. After the transition, the state had to expand its scope to include the millions it had previously excluded.
Yet political freedom did not lead to economic prosperity for the vast majority of South Africans. The ANC had not anticipated how much globalization had constrained the ability of the state to foster economic redistribution. What’s more, the ANC discovered that the state it had inherited lacked the resources to deliver on its 1994 campaign promise, “A Better Life for All.” The dual costs of maintaining the security apparatus and unequal welfare system necessary to sustain the apartheid state had drained the state’s coffers. The ANC had initially adopted a moderately redistributive economic program (the Reconstruction and Development Programme), but in mid-1996 it replaced this with Growth, Employment and Redistribution, which was modeled on the structural adjustment programs that the World Bank promoted in the 1980s. Many South Africans who had been deprived of basic services under apartheid continue to lack housing, electricity, water, and sanitation...
The moment to be wariest of political enthusiasms is precisely when elite opinion is all lined up on one side. So it is with the weekend agreement out of Paris on climate policy, which President Obama declared with his familiar modesty “can be a turning point for the world” and is “the best chance we have to save the one planet that we’ve got.”Lol.
Forgive us for looking through the legacy smoke, but if climate change really does imperil the Earth, and we doubt it does, nothing coming out of a gaggle of governments and the United Nations will save it. What will help is human invention and the entrepreneurial spirit. To the extent the Paris accord increases political control over human and natural resources, it will make the world poorer and technological progress less likely.
***
The climate confab’s self-described political success is rooted in a conceit and a bribe. The conceit is that the terms of the agreement will have some tangible impact on global temperatures. The big breakthrough is supposed to be that for the first time developing and developed countries have committed to reducing carbon emissions. But the commitments by these nations are voluntary with no enforcement mechanism.
China (the No. 1 CO2 emitter) and India (No. 3 after the U.S.) have made commitments that they may or may not honor, depending on whether they can meet them without interfering with economic growth. If the choice is lifting millions out of poverty or reducing CO2, poverty reduction will prevail—as it should.
No less than the supposedly true global-warming believers of Europe are also happy about voluntary commitments because Paris liberates them from the binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Germany’s high energy costs in particular have been driving companies offshore thanks to its renewable energy costs and mandates.
But no one is happier than President Obama, who would have to submit a binding treaty to the Senate for ratification. As we have learned from the Iran nuclear deal and so much else, Mr. Obama is not into winning democratic consent for his policy dreams. Mr. Obama plans to use Paris as a stick to beat Republicans even as he ducks a vote in Congress. We doubt the Paris climate deal would get 40 Senate votes once Democrats in Ohio, Colorado or North Dakota were forced to debate the costs.
Mr. Obama’s U.S. CO2-reduction targets are fanciful in any case, short of a major technological breakthrough. The President promises that the U.S. will reduce carbon emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025, but the specific means he has proposed to get there would only yield about half that. And that’s assuming none of Mr. Obama’s unilateral regulatory policies are declared illegal by U.S. courts.
As for the bribe, rich countries in Paris bought the cooperation of the developing world by promising to send $100 billion a year in climate aid. So the governments of the West are now going to dun their taxpayers to transfer money to the clean and green governments run by the likes of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe. We can’t wait to see New York’s Chuck Schumer make the case on the Senate floor for American aid to China so it can become more energy efficient and economically competitive...
Engage in a discussion with university students or peruse the social media pages they stare at on their devices, and it quickly becomes evident that climate change is the political issue youth are most passionate about. University campuses are home to a sizable contingent of climate justice activists, who proclaim loudly that climate catastrophe is imminent unless we cripple the fossil fuel industry and end capitalism.Keep reading.
Much of the climate fanaticism is sponsored by the students’ unions. There are campaigns to ban the sale and distribution of plastic water bottles on at least two dozen campuses in Canada. The plastic bottle ban is supported by the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS), which claims that “communities, not corporations, must control water resources and services.” Evidently, the exchange of money for water is so offensive to their socialist sensitivities that it must be purged from campuses. Surely it won’t be long before students’ unions are setting up “safe spaces” students can retreat to when they feel “triggered” by the sight of plastic bottles.
In addition to the bottle ban, there is a strong and growing movement on campuses – also organized in part by the CFS – lobbying for universities to divest from fossil fuels. The fossil fuel industry “is a rogue industry and it’s immoral for our colleges to continue investing in it,” claims the CFS. According to them, fossil fuel companies are “spending millions of dollars to corrupt our political process,” they are “profiting while our children and communities pay the price” and “their greed for profit threatens the entire planet.” All that’s left is for the CFS to launch a campaign to have the scientist-muzzling, climate-denying oil puppet Stephen Harper deported for setting Canada on the path to Armageddon...
India’s prime minister has launched an international solar alliance of over 120 countries with the French president, François Hollande, at the Paris COP21 climate summit.Keep reading.
Narendra Modi told a press conference that as fossil fuels put the planet in peril, hopes for future prosperity in the developing world now rest on bold initiatives.
“Solar technology is evolving, costs are coming down and grid connectivity is improving,” he said. “The dream of universal access to clean energy is becoming more real. This will be the foundation of the new economy of the new century.”
Modi described the solar alliance as “the sunrise of new hope, not just for clean energy but for villages and homes still in darkness, for mornings and evening filled with a clear view of the glory of the sun”.
Earlier, France’s climate change ambassador, Laurence Tubiana, had called the group “a true game-changer”.
While signatory nations mostly hail from the tropics, several European countries are also on board with the initiative, including France.
Hollande described the project as climate justice in action, mobilising public finance from richer states to help deliver universal energy access.
“What we are putting in place is an avant garde of countries that believe in renewable energies,” he told a press conference in Paris. “What we are showing here is an illustration of the future Paris accord, as this initiative gives meaning to sharing technology and mobilising financial resources in an example of what we wish to do in the course of the climate conference.”
The Indian government is investing an initial $30m (£20m) in setting up the alliance’s headquarters in India. The eventual goal is to raise $400m from membership fees, and international agencies.
Companies involved in the project include Areva, Engie, Enel, HSBC France and Tata Steel...
PARIS—World leaders on Monday vowed to finish a deal to curb greenhouse gases and overcome a thorny divide on financing, as they kicked off international climate talks against a backdrop of heavy security.Sounds like a pretty sophisticated shakedown scam to me. Jacob Zuma? The guy's a freakin' crook.
President Barack Obama called on governments to develop a long-term framework to cut greenhouse emissions, saying the time is coming when it will be too late. He pledged the U.S. would do its part to slow the warming of the planet, and urged other countries to “rise to this moment.”
“I’ve come here personally as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter to say that the U.S. not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it,” Mr. Obama said.
At a heavily guarded airport complex just two weeks after terrorist attacks killed 130 people, other leaders from Russian President Vladimir Putin to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon underscored the urgency of addressing global warming in the two-week conference, dubbed the Cop 21.
Evidence of a long-standing divide quickly re-emerged. Developing countries said the richest nations that have emitted the most carbon dioxide must do more to finance a transition to greener energy and help prepare poor countries to stave off the early effects of a changing climate.
Developing countries want their highly industrialized peers to make good on pledges to mobilize $100 billion a year in public and private climate financing from 2020 onward. Some officials have warned they won’t support a deal in Paris that doesn’t deliver high levels of funding. Any agreement would require the consent of nearly 200 countries.
To help bridge the divide, several rich countries unveiled programs to boost funding. Germany, Norway and the U.K. said they would provide $1 billion a year until 2020 for payment based on emissions reductions from forests and improved land use.
Mr. Obama and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates unveiled a multibillion-dollar program involving 20 countries to boost green-energy research and development.
Yet another commitment Monday—from Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland—would provide $500 million for projects in poorer countries via the World Bank.
Emerging economies made it clear that to conclude a deal in Paris, they want to see more progress in the 2020 goal and perhaps even more funding afterward.
“Developed countries should honor their commitment of mobilizing $100 billion each year before 2020 and provide stronger support to developing countries afterwards,” Chinese President Xi Jinping said, adding that Beijing would also help finance poorer countries through its own funding vehicle.
South African President Jacob Zuma said rich countries have a “historic responsibility” to at least meet the $100 billion target.
Just before officials gathered, India slammed an October estimate on how much financing rich countries have provided to poorer countries, saying the “methodologies were inconsistent.” The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which produced the estimate, sees India’s criticism as “misjudged and inaccurate,” according to Simon Buckle, head of climate change at the organization representing highly industrialized countries.
Ahead of the Paris talks, most of the countries involved submitted their own plans for curbing emissions of greenhouse gases linked to climate change or boosting the share of green energy after 2020.
An accord clinched in Paris would codify those national plans, part of an original goal to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels...
A new plan for people and planet has just launched - the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development. Tell everyone! Go here to add your very own intro to this star-studded video and share it with the world: http://wethepeople.globalgoals.org.
You could be introducing a cast that include: Aamir Khan, Ai WeiWei, A R Rahman, Ashton Kutcher, Bill and Melinda Gates, UNHCR supporter Cate Blanchett, UN Messenger of Peace Charlize Theron, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Chris Martin, Colin Firth, Daniel Craig, Djimon Hounsou, G.E.M., Gilberto Gil, Jennifer Lawrence, Jennifer Lopez, John Legend, Kate Winslet, Kid President, UN Messenger of Peace Lang Lang, UNDP Champion Michelle Yeoh, Malala Yousafzai, Matt Damon, Meryl Streep, Natalia Vodianova, One Direction, Pink, Her Majesty Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan, Richard Branson, Robert Pattinson, Robert Redford, WFP Global Ambassador Against Hunger Sami Yusuf, Stephen Hawking, UN Messenger of Peace Stevie Wonder, Tanya Burr, and UNDP Goodwill Ambassador for China Zhou Xun - and many more.
Investment in the Mexican auto industry is soaring as automakers take advantage of low labor rates, an increasingly sophisticated workforce and a plethora of free trade agreements.More.
Ford Motor Co. said Friday that it will spend $2.5 billion to build and expand engine and transmission factories in the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Guanajuato, creating 3,800 jobs.
Ford’s investment follows Toyota Motor Corp.’s announcement earlier this week that it will spend $1 billion to construct a new factory in central Mexico, where it will build Corolla compact cars.
“The Mexican auto industry is coming of age,” said Mike Jackson, an analyst at IHS Automotive, an industry research firm.
To be sure, wages top the list of Mexico’s auto manufacturing advantages. Workers at the auto assembly plants south of the border earn an average $5.64 an hour compared to $27.78 for their U.S. counterparts, according to the Center for Automotive Research, an industry think tank in Ann Arbor, Mich. Those at the parts suppliers earn just $2.47 an hour. Workers at U.S. auto suppliers average $19.65.
But that’s just one factor, Jackson said. The Mexican auto industry is turning out more sophisticated vehicles than it could a decade ago. That’s why luxury automaker BMW also revealed plans for a $1-billion plant in San Luis Potosi last July. Mercedes-Benz and Nissan are building a joint, $1.4-billion plant in Aguascalientes. Audi is constructing a $1.3-billion factory near Puebla.
Altogether, auto companies and suppliers have announced almost $5.5 billion in factory expansion and construction so far this year, according to the Center for Automotive Research.
Ford aims “to make our vehicles even more fuel-efficient with a new generation of engines and transmissions our team in Mexico will build,” said Joe Hinrichs, Ford’s president of the Americas.
Already, Ford manufactures engines and assembles the Fiesta, Fusion and Lincoln MKZ in Mexico. The transmission plant to be built in Guanajuato will be Ford’s first in Mexico.
The Mexican auto industry has grown to the point at which it generate jobs beyond the assembly lines.
Automakers and suppliers report increasing reliance on Mexico for engineering, according to Jay Baron, chief executive of the Center for Automotive Research. That is turning the nation into a “key competitor” for high-paying white collar jobs provided by automotive research and development operations, he wrote in an industry report.
Baron and other analysts said Mexico’s auto industry growth is accelerated by a web of free trade agreements. The country has pacts with more than 40 nations that, combined, represent 70% of the world’s gross domestic product, according to the Center for Automotive Research.
The number of vehicles Mexico produces annually is expected to rise 54% from last year's level to nearly 5 million in 2022, according to IHS Automotive. U.S. production will rise 7% to a little more than 12 million during the same period.
Mexico's geography -- easy access to both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans -- bolsters its position as an automotive export hub.
“No other country in the world boasts an equivalent export environment,” Baron said.
Last week, in her State of the Union response, Joni Ernst mentioned going to school with bread bags on her feet to protect her shoes. These sorts of remembrances of poor but honest childhoods used to be a staple among politicians -- that's why you've heard so much about Abe Lincoln's beginnings in a log cabin. But the bread bags triggered a lot of hilarity on Twitter, which in turn triggered this powerful meditation from Peggy Noonan on how rich we have become. So rich that we have forgotten things that are well within living memory:Keep reading.
I liked what Ernst said because it was real. And it reminded me of the old days.
There are a lot of Americans, and most of them seem to be on social media, who do not know some essentials about their country, but this is the way it was in America once, only 40 and 50 years ago:
America had less then. Americans had less.I am a few years younger than Noonan, but I grew up in a very different world -- one where a number of my grammar school classmates were living in public housing or on food stamps, but everyone had more than one pair of shoes. In rural areas, like the one where Joni Ernst grew up, this lingered longer. But all along, Americans got richer and things got cheaper -- especially when global markets opened up. Payless will sell you a pair of child's shoes for $15, which is two hours of work even at minimum wage...
If you were from a family that was barely or not quite getting by, you really had one pair of shoes. If your family was doing OK you had one pair of shoes for school and also a pair of what were called Sunday shoes -- black leather or patent leather shoes. If you were really comfortable you had a pair of shoes for school, Sunday shoes, a pair of play shoes and even boots, which where I spent my childhood (Brooklyn, and Massapequa, Long Island) were called galoshes or rubbers. At a certain point everyone had to have sneakers for gym, but if you didn’t have sneakers you could share a pair with a friend, trading them in the hall before class.
If you had just one pair of shoes, which was the case in my family, you had trouble when it rained or snowed. How to deal with it?
You used the plastic bags that bread came in. Or you used plastic bags that other items came in. Or you used Saran Wrap if you had it, wrapping your shoes and socks in it. Or you let your shoes and socks get all wet, which we also did.
