Union of North America
- Started
- Last post
- 32 Responses
- Drno0
ahahahah
who's going to call out Alex Jones now.
the man is full of it, but he does lands it sometimes.WAKE UP SHEEPLE
- BonSeff0
wonder if it makes the nafta superhighway a bit more plausible
- Iggyboo0
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.
- There are a lot of economic issues with this as well. Canada is doing OK right now; the US, not so much.Jaline
- QBN0
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."
- i_monk0
So the US dollar tanks, why would Canada or Mexico jump on that failboat?
- stem0
Will future phasing in of countries include The Caribbean...
and Cuba?
Just a thought...
- ukit0
Eventually everything will be one country.
- hedge0
I hope not, ukit.
- stem0
One World
One Love
Irie!
- Jaline0
Mystery bump just occurred!
*writes down in QBN notebook
- Sorry that was me.Jnr_Madison
- the qbn image got smaller, must've modified the link, hence the bumpGreedoLives
- detritus0
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?
- Augh shit, I need to start setting myself word limits. What a load of guff. Sorry.detritus
- there are too many big words in this for people to read on a Monday morning. that said, nice post.Jaline
- Also, I still think the U.S. has been sucking hard (metaphorically and literally) for the past while.Jaline
- A new president may change that, but I'm not sure Canadians are interested in joining forces.Jaline
- It's not the words, it's poorly written, despite how smart det wants to come across.Transit_Broadcast
- you had me at "indecypherable"Point5
- detritus0
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?