Some thoughts on Chilcote
Sometimes I read things that I understand and can relate to fully, what Chilcote wrote is not one of those readings. I feel slightly confused, irritated and relieved that I have finally finished reading two chapters that made me question if I knew anything at all. I am confused, I don’t know if I completely misunderstood him because there were so many things he brought up that I didn’t know what to focus on.
Most likely I’m feeling this way because I haven’t spent enough time trying to understand this approach on political science.
However, Chilcote grabbed my attention in chapter 2 when he talked about capitalism and the global economy. For the first time I could understand what he was talking about (kind of, I think) because I have studied the global economy and it stood out from his incredibly dense essay.
Chilcote talked about the global economy and how the market was dominated by large corporations, marginally regulated by the government. While this was the reality in 1994, much has changed since then. Chilcote argued that “political relations with other nations are to protect and extend freedom and to ensure economic prosperity on a mutual basis,” (Chilcote 1994: 27) which is true when observing the European Union today, and this was most likely what people expected from trade agreements …show more content…
In 2016 it is evident that Chilcote’s statement is a utopian scenario rather than the reality. Since the ratification of NAFTA in 1994 the Mexican agriculture (corn in particular) has been completely wiped out by US collective farmers that lowered the price of corn to the point that Mexican farmers had to either change from corn farming to something else, migrate to the Maquilas in the border cities or cross the US border illegally in order to find
Sometimes I read things that I understand and can relate to fully, what Chilcote wrote is not one of those readings. I feel slightly confused, irritated and relieved that I have finally finished reading two chapters that made me question if I knew anything at all. I am confused, I don’t know if I completely misunderstood him because there were so many things he brought up that I didn’t know what to focus on.
Most likely I’m feeling this way because I haven’t spent enough time trying to understand this approach on political science.
However, Chilcote grabbed my attention in chapter 2 when he talked about capitalism and the global economy. For the first time I could understand what he was talking about (kind of, I think) because I have studied the global economy and it stood out from his incredibly dense essay.
Chilcote talked about the global economy and how the market was dominated by large corporations, marginally regulated by the government. While this was the reality in 1994, much has changed since then. Chilcote argued that “political relations with other nations are to protect and extend freedom and to ensure economic prosperity on a mutual basis,” (Chilcote 1994: 27) which is true when observing the European Union today, and this was most likely what people expected from trade agreements …show more content…
In 2016 it is evident that Chilcote’s statement is a utopian scenario rather than the reality. Since the ratification of NAFTA in 1994 the Mexican agriculture (corn in particular) has been completely wiped out by US collective farmers that lowered the price of corn to the point that Mexican farmers had to either change from corn farming to something else, migrate to the Maquilas in the border cities or cross the US border illegally in order to find