• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amero Currency

R

Right Wing Democrat

New member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
9
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
There has been a lot of hype that Canada, Mexico, and America will have the same currency and that the currency in part of nafta.The currency is called amero's. I do not have a lot of knowledge about this and was wondering what you thought.
 
One can only hope such tin foil hat beliefs never come to pass.
 
Eventually it will make sense to combine our currencies to eliminate exchange risks. But it won't happen anytime in the next couple decades. After our economies integrate more, then yes, it will be an excellent idea.
 
Kandahar said:
Eventually it will make sense to combine our currencies to eliminate exchange risks. But it won't happen anytime in the next couple decades. After our economies integrate more, then yes, it will be an excellent idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, giving up our sovereignty to create a North American Union is an excellent idea..... NOT.
 
danarhea said:
Yes, giving up our sovereignty to create a North American Union is an excellent idea..... NOT.
Click to expand...

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 10 other entities once gave up their sovereignty to create a North American Union. That worked out pretty well. :roll:


Do you have any kind of RATIONAL argument against eventually moving toward a monetary union? Aside from the boilerplate buzzwords like "sovereignty"?
 
Last edited:
just join the Euro.. it is after all more worth than the Pound and Dollar atm
 
Kandahar said:
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and 10 other entities once gave up their sovereignty to create a North American Union. That worked out pretty well. :roll:
Click to expand...
At the time they thought they were only giving up a very limited amount.


Do you have any kind of RATIONAL argument against eventually moving toward a monetary union? Aside from the boilerplate buzzwords like "sovereignty"?
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be incumbent on those promoting the idea to make convincing arguments for it? :roll:
 
I for one am for NAFTA and the EU and such a currency as the Amero because I regard them as the necessary steps to becoming a type I global civilization.

Which is, IMO, the greatest challenge to our species (without destroying ourselves.)
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Eventually it will make sense to combine our currencies to eliminate exchange risks. But it won't happen anytime in the next couple decades. After our economies integrate more, then yes, it will be an excellent idea.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see Mexico develop an economy worth integrating with.

But, for everyone who supports taxing the rich, you need to consider the Amero in your long-term thinking. Should Mexico and the US combine economies, "rich" may be as low as a $30K annual income.
.
 
Jerry said:
I'd like to see Mexico develop an economy worth integrating with.
Click to expand...

We would have to drop our agricultural subsidies, that would give them back their competitive advantage in producing corn for example.
 
that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The Constitution gives the CONGRESS the right to coin money, not NAFTA or NATO or UN or whatever stupid organization! This "globalization" or rather, the "world order" is **** and probably the STUPIDEST Idea since the creation of the Federal Reserve.
 
Lachean said:
I for one am for NAFTA and the EU and such a currency as the Amero because I regard them as the necessary steps to becoming a type I global civilization.

Which is, IMO, the greatest challenge to our species (without destroying ourselves.)
Click to expand...

This type of Type 1?

Type 1.0: Globalism that includes worldwide wireless Internet access, with all knowledge digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the franchise.
 
TOJ said:
At the time they thought they were only giving up a very limited amount.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless it turned out pretty well, despite them giving up more sovereignty than perhaps they intended. Or are you saying that it was a bad idea for them to form their union?

TOJ said:
Wouldn't it be incumbent on those promoting the idea to make convincing arguments for it? :roll:
Click to expand...

Sure. As our economies become more and more integrated, and as barriers to trade continue to be eliminated, eventually our economies will be fully integrated with our neighbors. When that happens, there will be no need for each nation to have its own currency, because we could eliminate exchange risks that hinder productivity by using a single currency. Assuming that our neighbors don't have monetary policies that diverge widely from ours, there would be a large benefit to using a single currency and very little cost.

If the only argument against this is "z0mg sovereignty" then that really isn't much of an argument at all. However, I'd be glad to listen to any rational economic arguments as to why this is a bad idea.
 
Jerry said:
I'd like to see Mexico develop an economy worth integrating with.
Click to expand...

Well, presumably Canada and the United States would have most of the control over the monetary policy. This would be in the best interests of all three countries.

Jerry said:
But, for everyone who supports taxing the rich, you need to consider the Amero in your long-term thinking. Should Mexico and the US combine economies, "rich" may be as low as a $30K annual income.
.
Click to expand...

A unified monetary policy has nothing to do with combining all of our taxes and social programs.
 
Kandahar said:
A unified monetary policy has nothing to do with combining all of our taxes and social programs.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ....


The existence of a unified monetary policy demands a governing body over all parties of that policy to make enforcement of that policy possible. This government will need to combine all of our taxes and social programs in order to function.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I beg to differ....


The existence of a unified monetary policy demands a governing body over all parties of that policy to make enforcement of that policy possible. This government will need to combine all of our taxes and social programs in order to function.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what you are saying simply does not make sense, and your links have little relevance to anything being discussed.

Once again I refer you to the example of the states. We've had a unified monetary policy WITHIN the United States since 1789, yet there weren't many federal social programs until about 70 years ago. For the first 150 years, we had a unified monetary policy without a unified fiscal policy.

Now integrating our monetary policy with Canada and Mexico doesn't PRECLUDE us from having joint taxes and joint social programs if we later decide that those things are a good idea, but it's certainly not NECESSARY. Monetary policy and fiscal policy are two completely separate things.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
I'm sorry but what you are saying simply does not make sense, and your links have little relevance to anything being discussed.
Click to expand...

My links are right on target.

Kandahar said:
Once again I refer you to the example of the states. We've had a unified monetary policy WITHIN the United States since 1789, yet there weren't many federal social programs until about 70 years ago. For the first 150 years, we had a unified monetary policy without a unified fiscal policy.
Click to expand...

I like how we're both using the same example to argue in opposition.

You pointed out that the Fed did eventually instate social programs of it's own, so you do support my position.

Kandahar said:
Now integrating our monetary policy with Canada and Mexico doesn't PRECLUDE us from having joint taxes and joint social programs if we later decide that those things are a good idea, but it's certainly not NECESSARY. Monetary policy and fiscal policy are two completely separate things.
Click to expand...

I argue the eventuality of global trends, not immediate mandates of existing policy.
 
Last edited:
Another wingnut conspiracy theory. :roll: If there is so much "hype" about this "amero" currency plan, why is it that hardly anyone else has heard of it? Wouldn't something as news-worthy as this be plastered all over the news?

Time to move on folks. Nothing to see here.
 
Jerry said:
My links are right on target.



I like how we're both using the same example to argue in opposition.

You pointed out that the Fed did eventually instate social programs of it's own, so you do support my position.



I argue the eventuality of global trends, not immediate mandates of existing policy.
Click to expand...

Well then why is that a bad thing? Frankly, opposing a monetary union because we might get a unified tax policy and unified social programs 150 years later is a bit absurd. For all you know, those things might be good ideas in 150 years.

Or are you saying that the United States as it currently exists will (and should) forever be an unchanging political and economic entity? Let's ask the Roman Empire how that worked out. Or the Mongols. Or the Persians. Or the Ottomans. Or the British Empire.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Relevance?
Click to expand...

Well the poster claimed that having the same currency as another country results in the loss of sovereignty. If this is the case why has there been no loss of sovereignty in Ecuador and Panama? I would have thought that was pretty straight-forward:shock:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom