Coffeehouse Thread

9 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

The Amero?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    Hi,
       
        So now, the Amero is being publicly discussed. Its the new currency for the new American community that will include US, Mexico, And Canada (will become one country). The new North American Union foundations are coming to a reality.

    Some investors found that the Canadian Currency's value is approaching 1 for 1 US, as well as Mexican currency.

    See CNBC clip in YT.

    Why would they change the $ with the new Amero currency? Is it to do with the massive US debt?

    This stuff people used to laugh at, but its coming to reality, because the people who were working on its foundations, are going public about it. I hear Atlanta, will be the capital of this North American Union.

    The US $ is being devalued at a very high rate.

    from a political stand point, in the past democratic entities, used to form aliances to give them security in the international arena. Now we see a merger into one big governmental bodies between nations and countries. Look at the EU, and the Euro. Now the New american community, will have the currency called the Amero.

    I feel its then going to go to the next level, where Unions now will begin to join, to link Europe with the North American Union, and other unions in the world, so as to form one collective world government.

    Is this good or bad? What do you guys think? Is a world government good for humanity?

    What are the effects of changing into the Amero on world markets?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    SecretSoftware wrote:
    Is this good or bad? What do you guys think? Is a world government good for humanity?


    I don't think much of it really.

    Whilst the replacement of the dollar with this "amero" is interesting (just like the euro in the EU) I really can't see it going anywhere. Just look at how that "FairTax" thing is doing (i.e. not much).

    But I can see this being caught by the escatologists in the 'states (especially the uber-patriotic ones, often beyond the point of blindness) as a sign of an oncoming one-world government (even though this is a strict North-American affair, *rollseyes*)

    As regards some kind of world-government: it sure has the potential to be of immense use to humanity, but if only the member-governments stopped being so self-centered about it. That's why the UN (which started with commendable goals and ambition) has become ineffective. Countries (especially those on the security council) need to stop thinking about their own citizen's interest and more of the countries they've sworn themselves to aid, otherwise they should remove themselves from the security council and back to standard membership of the UN.

    Had the UN operated properly, there would have been an intervention to prevent the 2nd Gulf war from happening, a deployment to Sudan/Chad, and an earlier solution to the Balkans.


  • User profile image
    Secret​Software

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    SecretSoftware wrote:
    Is this good or bad? What do you guys think? Is a world government good for humanity?


    I don't think much of it really.

    Whilst the replacement of the dollar with this "amero" is interesting (just like the euro in the EU) I really can't see it going anywhere. Just look at how that "FairTax" thing is doing (i.e. not much).

    But I can see this being caught by the escatologists in the 'states (especially the uber-patriotic ones, often beyond the point of blindness) as a sign of an oncoming one-world government (even though this is a strict North-American affair, *rollseyes*)

    As regards some kind of world-government: it sure has the potential to be of immense use to humanity, but if only the member-governments stopped being so self-centered about it. That's why the UN (which started with commendable goals and ambition) has become ineffective. Countries (especially those on the security council) need to stop thinking about their own citizen's interest and more of the countries they've sworn themselves to aid, otherwise they should remove themselves from the security council and back to standard membership of the UN.

    Had the UN operated properly, there would have been an intervention to prevent the 2nd Gulf war from happening, a deployment to Sudan/Chad, and an earlier solution to the Balkans.




    I agree with you on the whole. However, this "Amero", is going to be the new Euro of North America, and that means all the people who have investments in $US, are going to loose some of that. Meaning their paper dollars are not going to buy much because the dollar is going to be devalued in order for the new Amero currency to kick off.

    So, I think its not being talked much about so there would not be panic in world markets, while they are slowly but surely moving towards a north American de-facto currency.

    I hope, if such Unionized world emeries (and it looks like it), that it will be more better and more effective than this fragmentation that is happening in the political and economic arenas in the world stage.

    The people who know about this are investing in GOLD and other stuff. So not sure what the trends are going to, but I hope things become better.

    As for the weak UN, the UN was never given much power to begin with. It was a way for super powers of the time, to practice their power in the exploitation of poor nations.

    They created institutions like WTO, and world bank to endebt developing nations, and to exploit their natural resources.

    So the UN was from the start made to fail.

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    w33bo

    the concern about international govt isn't just a concern with the idea of a scary regime controlling the world, but with whats in the best interests of people, which is also an issue when you're talking about narrower international institutions.

    the fact is that even a lot of these measures have no hope of going through, some do, and there's a lot of politics in favor of them by people who are in favor of a process of globalization and think nation states are evil entities. but there is a lot to defend about the existence of nation states and rights we've provided them like sovereignty, self-determination, integrity, etc.

    if you're just talking about economics, for instance, there's a good argument first that the compartmentalization of the economy helps stability, and that if government and standards of living and culture in different countries are different this leads to disparities in relations; and makes them natural politcal units, that are forced into relations through diplomacy.

    because nations are natural political blocs, theres an idea that abuse is also inherent because international law will always be used for political purposes.

    if you're talking about the iraq war, its just as easily to make an argument that countries opposing the war were using their opposition as a political tool, and that many diplomats from other countries were defending their economic interests. i'm not interested in making this a debate about the validity of the iraq war, i just want to point out that you can argue national politics was an overriding interest on all sides of this, including US opposition.

    i have no problem with the UN as a diplomatic agency, but they cant function as anything more. plus, there are flaws with institutions like the WTO, if theyre allowed to always override rational interests, because of global politics.


  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    brian.shapiro wrote:
    if you're talking about the iraq war, its just as easily to make an argument that countries opposing the war were using their opposition as a political tool, and that many diplomats from other countries were defending their economic interests. i'm not interested in making this a debate about the validity of the iraq war, i just want to point out that you can argue national politics was an overriding interest on all sides of this, including US opposition.

    i have no problem with the UN as a diplomatic agency, but they cant function as anything more. plus, there are flaws with institutions like the WTO, if theyre allowed to always override rational interests, because of global politics.


    Whilst not trying to turn this into an Iraq thread (hmm, we need a "Godwin" for Iraqi threads)...

    I don't believe TGW2 was for economics ("never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetance"), but by definition, it was an illegal war under the UN Charter, the other members of the Security Council should have intervened.

    ...but they didn't. Ergo, the UN doesn't work as it was originally intended (which was to stop another Great War from happening)

  • User profile image
    brian.​shapiro

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    brian.shapiro wrote:
    if you're talking about the iraq war, its just as easily to make an argument that countries opposing the war were using their opposition as a political tool, and that many diplomats from other countries were defending their economic interests. i'm not interested in making this a debate about the validity of the iraq war, i just want to point out that you can argue national politics was an overriding interest on all sides of this, including US opposition.

    i have no problem with the UN as a diplomatic agency, but they cant function as anything more. plus, there are flaws with institutions like the WTO, if theyre allowed to always override rational interests, because of global politics.


    Whilst not trying to turn this into an Iraq thread (hmm, we need a "Godwin" for Iraqi threads)...

    I don't believe TGW2 was for economics ("never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetance"), but by definition, it was an illegal war under the UN Charter, the other members of the Security Council should have intervened.

    ...but they didn't. Ergo, the UN doesn't work as it was originally intended (which was to stop another Great War from happening)


    Well, the fact remains that its a dispute. The UN doesn't have any authority over the US, or its sovereignty and its ability to go to war. What it provides is a diplomatic arrangement where different countries are agreeing to support each other on causes. Even though the US was acting outside of the UN, it was acting in response to what they viewed as a violation of a treaty, that was brokered in the UN. Declaring a war based on violation of cease fire is a just cause for war, so if the US was correct in everything it said, then it shouldn't be seen as illegal. The dispute is between an interpretation of what was the case and what wasn't the case, whether the US was in the right to view the war that way. If the UN wants to make a call to arms to go to war against the US, because of illegal actions, they have the right to do so, and can send a military force to attack the US army (though they wouldn't even want to). That they can't do this, shows the flaws in asserting too much authority in the UN. The UN is a diplomatic agency and nothing more, its not an arbitrer of law and has no authority over nations. The UN supports war for the shared political purposes of its member states and opposes war for the shared political purposes of its member states. This in my opinion highlights a flaw with treating international government seriously.

  • User profile image
    cornelius

    Euro?

    here in ireland your more likely to hear the euro called "YoYo" or "quid" or "punt" Smiley

    i still remember the days of traveling around europe using different currencies, the euro changed all that for the better, now i can compare prices across different states, pay server fees in same currency in different countries



    whatever its called a single currency would be a great idea even tho you will have old people complaining for first few months

  • User profile image
    Bas

    cornelius wrote:
    Euro?

    here in ireland your more likely to hear the euro called "YoYo" or "quid" or "punt"

    i still remember the days of traveling around europe using different currencies, the euro changed all that for the better, now i can compare prices across different states, pay server fees in same currency in different countries

    whatever its called a single currency would be a great idea even tho you will have old people complaining for first few months


    When we got the Euro, the first thing people said when asked what use it was going to be for us was "When you go on holiday, you don't have to use different kinds of currency anymore!"

    Whoop. That's amazing. For starters, a single trip to a currency exchange office isn't that big of a hassle. Secondly, "when you go on holiday" should actually be "when you go on holiday in Europe." And even then in only 13 European countries. Want to go to the UK? Tough luck. Denmark? No. Norway, Sweden? No dice. Switzerland? Still gotta exchange your money. Going outside of Europe, which isn't all that rare nowadays? Time for the money changer. 

    And even then. I go on hoiday once a year, and not always abroad. So this whole gigantic and expensive operation was all so that I can save a quick 10 minute trip to the moneychanger if I go abroad and even then if I go to the right countries? Gee, great. What a relief.

    Of course, when you point that out, there'll be some muttering about "smoother international commerce." That's probably sweet, but means jack all to me. I find it a very telling tale that the first "advantage" you always hear from supporters is the useless vacation scenario.

    So what did six years of Euro bring me? Higher prices in stores and restaurants. Awesome!

  • User profile image
    Lloyd_Humph

    I like punoedd. (Punoedd = Pounds - I like calling them punoedd cause im welsh)

    Its a stupid idea. I hope that britiain never changes...

    Plus in swizerland you can use any currency > you can pay for items via phone credit. AWESOME!!

    Thats something that should be in the UK

    If Blackberrys are addictive cellphones, Channel9 is the ultimate addictive website.
    Last modified

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.