Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

North American Union


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 02:40 PM

http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=14965

Looks like America, south america, and canada
are all about to be conjoined
with one currency
and no borders.
It 2005 bush signed away america.

Welcome Amero

#2 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 07 September 2007 - 03:06 PM

North American currency union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#3 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 08 September 2007 - 10:27 PM

What do Hypographers think about this?

#4 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 08 September 2007 - 10:48 PM

What do Hypographers think about this?


it appears no one cares to say. :dust::dust: i tried over a year ago. http://hypography.co...nion-amero.html

i think our middle class is gettin' the big dry shaft. thanks for asking. :magic:

#5 Queso

Queso

    Synesthetic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7281 posts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 12:15 PM

hmmmm...

Do you think it's going down?

#6 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 01:23 PM

I really don't see why this would happen. The US has by far the exclusive power to make or break such a union, and it is politically untenable:
  • Massive blame smearing on "illegal aliens" by both ends of the political spectrum has created a situation where the vast majority of US citizens would say no.
  • Massive hostility toward "Gringos" in Central and South America would cause those countries to avoid it, even in "friendly" nations (mostly Central American), and official hostility from the "leftist" states like Cuba, Venezuela, Peru and Ecuador, would block this politically as well.
  • High inflation and unstable economies would make the Amero far more unstable than the dollar, causing those countries that use the dollar as a benchmark to flee it for the Euro.
  • This shift away from the dollar as a standard would cause a massive drop in investment in US securities--especially government ones--that keep the US economy from collapsing due to its heavy borrowing and almost non-existent saving.
Oddly you two lefties (and I say that endearingly! :) ), have picked up on a topic that only the most rose-colored-glassed neo-cons support because they don't think that there's any potential weakness in the US's debt-savings imbalance (which is why the current idiots at Treasury are pressing the Chinese to float their currency--currently pegged to the dollar--which most economists think would be a gigantic disaster, likely to cause a major recession at the very least).

Long term, it might be a good idea, although starting with just a Canada-Mexico-US union would be a better start, although in terms of massive differences in the strength of economies, this would be far more radical than anything the European Union has done: they won't even let Turkey in, which is a far stronger economy than Mexico.

Be careful what you wish for,
Buffy

#7 Freddy

Freddy

    Understanding

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 01:39 PM

Political union is a non-starter, but many would be open to an economic union or cooperation that would promote a free and equal economic and trade zone, something NAFTA has failed to do.

#8 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8946 posts

Posted 09 September 2007 - 01:52 PM

Political union is a non-starter, but many would be open to an economic union or cooperation that would promote a free and equal economic and trade zone, something NAFTA has failed to do.

Actually the NAFTA experience is exactly why even economic cooperation is a non-starter. Conservatives and Liberals alike bash it for "harming the American worker" by "sending jobs south of the border."

What's funny about trade agreements of course is that no matter how imbalanced the parties are, *all* sides find things that want to wall off and protect due to local interest groups, and thus the agreements devolve into being little more than mentioning the few "fairly traded" commodities and services that are uncontroversial and claiming that the "barriers" on them have been agreed to be eliminated.

Real open trade is very painful and politically difficult to pull off--its amazing NAFTA got approved at all, and it *has* been a good thing--but in the long-run, its good for everyone.

Unfortunately, no one has much incentive to make things rough for themselves so that their kids will have it better...

As my (conservative) dad likes to say, "I want lower taxes, if that has bad side-effects, well, that's your problem now..."

Every generation is the "me" generation,
Buffy

#9 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 10 September 2007 - 03:20 AM

Apart from all the technical details involved in the creation of an "Amero", isn't this actually just a normal progression for the United States? I mean - initially there was only 13 States to begin with...

Politically, never get stuck in a comfort zone. This world keeps on changing, and everybody and every country change with it, one way or another.

Imagine - a few hundred years ago, the US didn't even exist at all. Why would the current political world demarcation be the final one?

I reckon that two hundred years from now, country borders will look completely foreign to what they do today. Alliances shift, and political aspirations and goals do too.
  • Queso likes this

#10 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 11 September 2007 - 06:27 AM

But it's blasphemous to even suggest such things Boerseun, when you're talking to nationalists!

#11 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 11 September 2007 - 06:42 AM

But it's blasphemous to even suggest such things Boerseun, when you're talking to nationalists!

True enough!

But think for a moment what profit a nationalist gained in ancient Rome, what with our current perfect 20/20 hindsight... or Germany, or 19th century France, or Imperial England, or... well, the list goes on and on, I guess.:doh:

#12 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 11 September 2007 - 07:55 AM

The subtle difference being that between joining them and conquering them. Look how many of the States used to be Mexican.

#13 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 11 September 2007 - 11:06 AM

The subtle difference being that between joining them and conquering them. Look how many of the States used to be Mexican.


would'nt that be Spanish/Mexican? Oh... and British...French...Russian? Conquered by the almighty dollar. in for a dime, in for dollar; i aint a'payin' for no Ameros. :eek_big:

#14 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 01:59 AM

would'nt that be Spanish/Mexican?

Were Iturbide and Santa Anna Spanish? Anyway they didn't want to sell any of those territories.

Remember the Alamo!

#15 Boerseun

Boerseun

    Phantom Cow of Justice

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6062 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 03:30 AM

Conquered by the almighty dollar. in for a dime, in for dollar; i aint a'payin' for no Ameros. :phones:

Ironically, the Amero might just be the dollar's saviour. The world is running away from dollar investments and rather going the Euro route instead. So, scrap the currency in which the world is increasingly losing trust, and create a new one which might encompass Canada as a politically moderating and stabilising factor and voila!

#16 Turtle

Turtle

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15452 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:13 AM

Were Iturbide and Santa Anna Spanish? Anyway they didn't want to sell any of those territories.

Remember the Alamo!


it doesn't really matter. your own country's hands are dripping with the blood of people from millennia and you castigate the US. :phones:

Ironically, the Amero might just be the dollar's saviour. The world is running away from dollar investments and rather going the Euro route instead. So, scrap the currency in which the world is increasingly losing trust, and create a new one which might encompass Canada as a politically moderating and stabilising factor and voila!


How silly of me to think I knew what I want for my own country. So thoughtful of you to look out for me/us. :(

#17 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 12 September 2007 - 05:22 AM

I know there have been plenty of nationalists here too, Turtle, but that isn't the point. :phones:

Where have the U. S. Whigs gone?

Also I forgot to tell Boerseun that Caius Iulius wasn't as much a nationalist as he was a bloated ego, so neither was that on the point. After crossing the Rubicon he didn't make Rome a province of Gallia, he didn't care which nation won, only whether he won. :(