Public Voice Network
- Site Critique #2 2222
- Viral campaign ideas 1010
- Minivegas AIDS PSA 55
- What do you call "It… 258258
- recommended Flash classes… 44
- gramme Jr. has finally ar… 1313
- your philosophy 2828
- Tattoo ideas for foot 4444
- Logo, Looking for Feedbac… 3838
- Politics 21102110
- industrial music 77
- Tapas in nyc 66
- jteore 128128
- jteore! 4949
- why don't they count … 1818
- blog 2737427374
- Lightwave 2828
- Type Connect 6161
- hotel626 can you win? 22
- fonts and Flash 66
- Yet another logo crit 1818
- About Janne76 7676
- LA Dog places 44
- Vintage Graphic Design Po… 44
Union of North America 3232 Responses
Last post: 3 months, 3 weeks ago | Thread started: May 12, 08, 5:19 a.m.
- harlequino
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 5:23 a.m. – Permalink
- detritus
Wow, I'm both fascinated and confused at the reasoning behind this being an official QBN thread - do you have a stance on the subject, or are you just putting it out there for general consumption?
Personally, I'd've qualified the image you've posted a bit more - it needs to be stressed that this is an extension of someone's fantasy, and not an official effort by any measure.
Hats off to you for the 'social design' article though!
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 5:27 a.m. – Permalink
- Iggyboo
Reading about this is very interesting. I think it's also an incredibly silly. Haven't we learned that in my prior threads that Canada is self sufficient and can completely and indepently do well while america has economic hardship. lol... no seriously i was kidding but thats the view some people have. I pretty much think these three countries will never economically get along well enough or would it be beneficial to the largest financial stake holder the americans. The mexicans would benefit largely, and the canadians would feel like they lost their soveriegnty.
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 6:43 a.m. – Permalink
- QBN
Criticisms and problems
Opposition to a North American currency union exists high up in the governments on both sides of the Canada–United States border. Herbert Grubel, the first proponent of the amero, admits that American officials show no interest in the topic. He concedes that "there wouldn't be very much benefit for the United States" in an amero. Likewise, the Canadian Department of Finance strongly opposes the creation of a common currency with the United States, citing the loss of economic sovereignity. In briefing documents to Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty, finance officials concluded:
"A North American common currency would undoubtedly mean for Canada the adoption of the U.S. dollar and U.S. monetary policy. Canada would have to give up its control of domestic inflation and interest rates."
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 6:49 a.m. – Permalink
- detritus
I find the reasoning mostly indecypherable - the principal proponents appear to be right-wing politicos, whose interests would otherwise appear to be best served by the status quo - a cheap and compliant labour force with no governmental requirement in the south, coupled with discrete and well-administered economies in the North. Perhaps it's a US-centric attempt to cushion the inevitable future collapse of the dollar by diluting the effect amongst two other substantial nations?
Unlike EU, there is less need of a social or political homogeneity between the extremes of North and South, and less recent historical need for a North American union - ie. early border settlement aside, there has been no recent warring between the three countries. Even so, when there were, they were generally settled amicably, much by financial reparation. That, and that bulk of the reasoning (as I see it, anyway) for the EU was to combine the numerous smaller states along with the big few in Europe to a single bloc and unified voice when dealing with the rest of the world. Again, I don't get what the US or Canada would gain here - they are both well-represented and influential states on the world stage.
For these reasons, I find it hard to view such furthering of the NAFTA without taking a much longer term view, toward the ultimate union of all nations - but this is where speculation inevitably takes on tones of the conspirational. That said, I'm not that sure why the formation of a World Government is viewed so negatively by many (admittedly, mostly the conspiracy classes). If anything, nascent organisations such as the UN, EU or ASEAN appear to have driven more good than not over the past 50 years. I certainly find paranoid notions of subjugation of the working classes and agglomoration of power into the very top tiers hard to swallow.
Though, with the effective ever-increasing loss of sovereignty to net energy exporters such as Russia or the Middle East, perhaps such a banding together does make more long-term sense than I can comprehend.
By extension, I wonder what NATO might develop into over the next 50 years?
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 7:36 a.m. – Permalink
- i_monk
Prior to the eleventh of September in 2001, the US was visibly starting a downward spiral. It has since resumed that spiral (Shopping = Patriotism has worn off) with trillions of dollars being actively buried in the middle east, never to be seen again. I don't want my country dragged down by the collapse of your empire, so no thank you on the Amero.
I'd rather we adopted the Euro and join the EU first, honestly.
Or the yuen.
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 8:37 a.m. – Permalink
- GreedoLives
Despite the fact that it'll never happen, i really find the design troubling:
you wanna be careful with your eagles on top of things, and using the country sticker of Austria as your currency logo doesn't help, association-wise, either.- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 8:57 a.m. – Permalink
- daveFelton
what is this, digg or something? let the tin-foil-hatting begin.
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 9:06 a.m. – Permalink
- detritus
Maybe you're right Transit_Broadcast, but I was trying to be serious, not 'smart'. I'm interested in the idea of the NAU and the future of organisations like NATO, and was intrigued by the topic and gladdened by QBN's response, so thought I'd try to respond in kind. You're right that it's badly written - I've only a rough handle on all the bits'n'pieces I've read over the years and am not very good at succinctly putting my thoughts across - but so what? Why should that rile you enough to attack me personally? I'm clearly not writing for some broadsheet, but trying to engage with people who I share some kind of affinity, who have a different perspective. Hence the 'social design' line - we're supposedly on a design forum, so thought it a glib paraphrasing - hence the ''s.
So, again - why the attack? Have I annoyed you at some point previously? Are you another QBNer under a pseudonym? What?
- Dog-earMay 12, 08, 10:49 a.m. – Permalink
