Statement versus Intention

Politicians and News Anchors always talk about the stated reasons why a new law or program is being proposed. Usually opposition brings up good points about the harm it will cause. Historians usually explain similar historical situations where a government program had 'unintended' consequences, like bad side effects from a drug.

Unlike drugs, which have many complicated and unknown reactions with the human body, political actions have very predictable consequences with society. This is due to predictable human behavior, acquired through years of research and thousands of years of human experience. Political action is a considerable investment by powerful lobbying groups which would only be considered after adequate analysis of the outcome. Therefore, it is highly probable that the actual consequences of most political actions are the intended consequences. The stated consequences are simply advertising and marketing.

One such recent example is the CAFTA (central American Free-Trade agreement) which was signed into law in 2005. The agreement is over 1400 pages long so a full understanding is not available to me. One of the main proponents of the agreement is the elimination of Tarriff's imposed on US exports such as food. There's also something about a new highway system between central America and the US, but I have not verified that.

Here's one argument against CAFTA. Food prices are artificially held low in the US due to government subsidies. Of course, it's not practically lower since we pay the extra cost through inflation, but that's another issue. Without the tariffs, local food producers in central America will find it hard to compete with subsidized US products. A natural consequence is probably more poverty in central America. Probably the only way to verify this is by talking directly to those affected. I wouldn't trust any government's assessment.

Whoever initiated CAFTA most likely knew of this consequence. It either didn't matter or it was one of the actual goals since it paves the way for the north American Union. The former Chairman of Goldman Sachs - Robert Bruce Zoellick - who is also the current world bank president, was instrumental in the CAFTA negotiations. It's interesting how all these big bankers are always involved even after political administrations change from one extreme to the other.