Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 24, 2014, 10:26:56 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83387 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Proposed mex-us-can currency called Amero
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Proposed mex-us-can currency called Amero  (Read 2394 times)
DogBrian
Newbie
*
Posts: 34


« on: May 13, 2007, 07:19:44 PM »

With the decline of the dollar, the inflated price of the DOW, $685 an once gold, a proposed North American Community.  Do you think the Amero is a possibility in our future? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" -- Mayer Amschel
Bauer Rothschild

The Federal Reserve is a privately owned monetary system as noted in US Supreme Court Case Lewis v. US of 1982. http://www.geocities.com/chrisforliberty/lewis.html

The CFR is one of America's most influencial think tanks.  Benn Steil, writing in the current issue of CFR's influential Foreign Affairs magazine, says "the world needs to abandon unwanted currencies, replacing them with dollars, euros, and multinational currencies as yet unborn." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55595

An interesting take on the North American Community and a short talk on the Amero by Connie Fogal of The Canadian Action Party 54 minutes long but worth listening to a Canadian perspective.  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1355300745194023737

Also something that seemed to escape the attention of the mass media is the Transatlantic Economic Integration signed by President Bush on April 30th, 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070430-4.html  Just the title 'economic integration' should set off alarm bells in your head if you agree that globalization is not necessarily good for the people of the world or more specifially the people of America.

A world currency and a 'new economic order' are also part of the elites plans for global governance. Eventually - specifically by 2018 if plans go accordingly - the "Phoenix" will be the world currency. Shown on the cover of The Economist in 1988, a phoenix is standing atop burning paper money symbolizing its rise out of their destruction, with the words "Get ready for a world currency" next to it.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/020507_b_market.htm
Logged
DogBrian
Newbie
*
Posts: 34


« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2007, 07:45:38 PM »

One more clip by Lou Dobbs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6088


« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2007, 12:12:14 PM »

Interesting post, thanks for bringing up a number of issues for discussion.  In general, I am pro-free-trade both for economic growth, but also I believe the right to buy and sell goods and services is a basic economic liberty.  Reasonable exceptions for me are fine and would include national security concerns or preventing support for slave labor, etc.

If you believe as I do that the USA is the greatest nation on earth, then by definition all trading partner nations are flawed to some extent, even worse than us.  We still should allow transactions between consenting adults unless harm is caused, like selling technology to enemies, etc.

Be careful with labels.  Globalization in terms of economics is a fact and I think beneficial.  Loss of sovereignty is another matter.  Weve lost enough control over self government to Washington from the states and local jurisdictions and should not give any conrol over our nation to international bodies.

I think the federal reserve is a system that has performed well at least since the stagflation of the 1970s.  I dislike certain players and disagree with certain moves of the Fed, but the overall record has generally been good IMO.  I favor a single currency for the nations of North America called the US Dollar. That choice belongs to the others.  Economies of the Far East have done very well tying their currency to the dollar.  Canada has its pride and Mexico is not even an ally of the US right now, so other than cross border trade and wanting them to solve their own problems, I wouldn't tie our nations together any closer.

"A world currency and a 'new economic order' are also part of the elites plans for global governance." - Again, I think a distinction can easily be made between allowing global trade and losing national sovereignty.  Yes there are elites who envision global governance and they are already starting by proposing global regulations and 'global' taxes (on the 'rich').  They should be opposed aggressively at every turn.  A better strategy is the so-called association of democracies where we could make voluntary agreements and cooperations with countries that maintain certain minimal levels of human liberty and decency.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2007, 02:34:56 PM »

Good breakdown Doug.

Bryan:

Note that the CFR is NOT calling for something to replace the Dollar.  I see zero interest on any players part in an "Amero". 

I do agree that powerful business forces are at work in Washington with powerful forces and dynamics there to create supra national obligations that genuinely threaten American freedom.

We see this for example in the efforts to impose gun control via international treaty, UN dictats etc.  We see this in the increasing tendency in our courts to cite laws and opinions of other countries.  Even justices in the Supreme Court are doing this!   We see this in the refusal of the Federal Government to defend our borders, especially the one with Mexico.
Logged
DogBrian
Newbie
*
Posts: 34


« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2007, 08:43:35 PM »

Doug,

Thanks for your comments.  I am against international free trade for multiple reasons.  In the past, our government earned income NOT through a graduated income tax, but through import tariffs.  Labor has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a man’s most sacred property.  Labor of human beings should never be taxed.  But yes, the right to buy and sell goods and services is a basic economic right.  Unfortunately, that right is becoming more and more regulated.  One example is the increasing control the FDA has taken over holistic medicines and even vitamins.  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55370

I wholeheartedly agree that the USA is the greatest nation on earth!  But our government is no different than any other government, if left unrestrained it will turn into a monster.  I believe in laissez faire free market business!  One problem…..China and Mexico, in my opinion, do not constitute a free market.  China’s economy is based on slave labor.  Mexico does not have the stringent labor laws that we have, especially in regards to child labor.  And if they do have these labor laws in place, they are certainly not being enforced.  Our economy cannot compete with a slave based economy.

I think globalization is a very accurate label for the direction we have been blindly led (or forced).  I can’t understand how a country’s sovereignty cannot be affected if its economy, via free trade, is merged with another nation.  Globalization (economic or otherwise) is going to be extremely damaging to America!  For instance:
1) Our fuel tax pays for roadways.  Recently in Indiana, the lease of a 70 mile stretch of highway has been purchased by a Spanish company who is now charging a toll.  I think we can all agree that if our tax dollars pay for something, then the government should not generate revenue by leasing it out to a foreign company. http://www.tollroadforsale.com/day1whom.php
2) Within the last year, Bush made a visit to India, he gave away nuclear technology to that country.  http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/review/article_full_story.asp?service_ID=10935  Once again, our tax dollars have been used for the benefit of another country all in the name of globalization.  And let us not forget the fact that just because we are allied with someone today does not mean we will be friendly with them tomorrow.  Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.  So why do we give our secrets away so freely?
3) NAFTA superhighway.  That thing speaks for itself.  The unintended consequences to our sovereignty will be enormous all in the name of free trade.  Hopefully this project will be shut down.

I do have a fear that our country will no longer exist but in name and symbol.  Global corporations have the potential to become nations unto themselves.  Corporations are nothing but systems given the same power as individuals.    If one examines the rate at which the DOW has inflated, you might easily assume that the 30 companies listed in the DOW are getting larger and larger while the minor companies not listed are being consumed.  The most recent examples would be NEWS CORP owned by Murdoch.  NEWS CORP owns FOX and FOX subsidiaries, Myspace, Harper-Collins Publishing and a host of other companies.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Holdings They have just put in a bid to purchase the DOW!!  http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070501/news_corp_dow_jones.html?.v=1  In addition, within the last few years, our NY stock exchange is being traded on the global market!! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11725095/

So what happens, in a global economy, to a nation in which its debt is purchased by another nation?  China owns a large majority our national debt. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/12/post_1.html Recent figures released show that America is in debt 48 trillion dollars. http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm What has been offered up as collateral for that debt?  Do we have to borrow more money just to pay the interest on the debt?  Do we have the means today or in the future to pay the principle on this debt?  Is this why our ports, roadways, and other infrastructure are being outsourced to foreign countries?  To keep our economy afloat?  There are talks within the UN related to Agenda 21, which would require the US to give its National Parks over as World Heritage Sites. Some already are such as ….. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list Bush is calling for a treaty where the UN will take over our waterways.  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55671

 So once again, I believe that a nation’s economy and its sovereignty are directly related.  We should be very cautious of any economic mergers or free trade agreements because most likely they are simply precursors to globalization on a grander scale.

Crafty,

You are right; the CFR did not mention replacing the dollar directly.  But I think it is necessary to read between the lines when looking at their documents.  Robert Pastor is the man accused of being the founder of the Amero.  He offers a defense here.  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831497/posts?page=1   He states,” With regard to currencies, there is little prospect of a unified currency because all three governments are too committed to the status quo, but this is a good moment to study alternative options. Europe took decades and made many mistakes before they implemented the euro. We ought to learn from those lessons and discuss the issues at some length before considering any proposal.”

Are we just in a conditioning phase?

Time will tell.  But an age old tactic used over and over to bring about change is - Problem, Reaction, Solution.  A problem or crisis is created such as a recession or dollar devaluation.  The appropriate reaction of panic is shown by the general public.  And then a solution is offered, the solution is usually not good for the general public but under fear and misinformation we tend to accept.

Just a side note of interest as well, Many international drug dealers are no longer accepting the US dollar, they only accept the Euro.  I wonder what kind of impact this will have?  http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/10/america/dea.php
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6088


« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2007, 02:06:57 AM »

Brian (and anyone interested), 

First, a note of appreciation that disagreements here are discussed so respectfully, sticking strictly to persuasion and substance.  We draw different conclusions but I find a lot of agreement with your underlying points.

You are correct that the federal gov't operated in the past by taxing trade.  I grudgingly concede that point and would always prefer to be on the side of the founding fathers.  Our constitutional structure changed drastically however in 1913 with the 16th amendment giving power the feds to tax all income.  Prior to that, the federal government had very few possibilities to raise money.    In their wisdom, they saw the income tax as a box of snakes not to be opened.  Today, there is no real chance of going back andrepealing the 16th IMO.  Accepting that reality, I want the income tax to be wider in coverage and lower in rate and I oppose almost all other taxes.

China and Mexico are hugely important questions today for trade policy.  Less important, but symbolic is our relationship with Cuba.  As I see it we have limited options with trade law:  a) no trade, b) no restrictions, or c) a complex set of taxes and regulations where the governments each set rules, levy taxes and make prohibitions.  I support a version of b) no restrictions with limited exceptions, certainly those you mention of slave labor and restricting technology sales that weaken our national security.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see you as an advocate of small government who favors c) a complex set of taxes and regulations governing cross-border trade.  If we assumed in theory that a complex, perfect set of rules could level the field, correcting unfairness related to labor laws, pollution and other differences between the countries, I would still argue that our bumbling bureacracy could not and would not find that mix of policies.  Instead they would over-tax, over-regulate, and make things worse.  Case in point would be the income tax.  In theory it's a great way to raise the small amount of money that the federal government actually needs to carry out its constitutional functions and not place an excessive burden on anyone.  But it grew into a 13,000 page formula that puts an anchor on our economy and raises more money than all of the states and localities combined.  So now we (partially) fund a thousand and fifty separate federal social spending programs that were never envisioned by the founders, taxing us just because they can.  No, IMO the regulators, taxers and bureaucrats are not capable of taking an imperfect playing field and applying just the right mix of taxes and regulations.  It's even worse in trade policy because over-taxation and over-regulation cause retaliation from the other side and vice versa.

Slave labor exists in China and real, personal liberties are absent in China, but much of China has economic liberties and in some areas they have more economic liberty than here including lower tax rates for example.  Opening trade with China has not led to the overthrow of the oppressors, while the opposite policy with Cuba and North Korea has also not led to the overthrow of their oppressors.  So the policy choice IMO becomes based on what gives us the most influence in that direction and what benefits the people of each country the most.

Mexico is another unique example and their economy continues to be dysfunctional.  During the negotiations for NAFTA, it was debated whether they benefit more than us, but they were phasing out high tariffs and we were phasing out low tariffs.  My view is that anything that helps build wealth and industry in Mexico short of stealing from us is in our own best interest. 

If I recall correctly, NAFTA as a printed document was a foot thick.  If I wrote a free trade agreement it would fit on a cocktail napkin.  We don't have an all-other-things-held-constant economy to compare, but I think the phaseout of tariffs had a slight net-positive impact on both economies.  Mexico still lacks enough wealth to demand US goods and that hurts us as well as them.

For every example of jobs or services going to foreigners, there is a story of business won around the globe for the Americans.  Strangely, the more jobs we lose, the more jobs and income we grow in total.  Trade is all about specialization and utilizing comparative advantage.  America is the best at many things, but not at low-skill, high-labor content manufacturing.

Quoting: "Bush made a visit to India, he gave away nuclear technology to that country"... "And let us not forget the fact that just because we are allied with someone today does not mean we will be friendly with them tomorrow.  Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind."   - In the first part, I think that's true.  India has a complex relationship with key nations in the world. For example, we are cooperating with their enemy Pakistan.  They are fighting our common enemy, al Qaida.  Their consumers are competing with us to buy oil in the global market, and they have flirtations and issues with our strategic competitors of China and Russia.  I don't know why we would give them anything free, but getting more energy around the world to come from nuclear sources is good in certain ways, such as replacing the use of fossil fuels and lessening dependency and currency flow to bad places like Iran.  Our being there is a way to try to keep the nuclear technology from going toward weaponry.  Also I imagine that most nuclear energy technology relates to the safety systems.  It is certainly in everyone's interest to have their nuclear plants built to US standards and not in the mold of the Soviet's Chernobyl.  Past cooperations with Iraq and Afghanistan had to do with (IMO) a past policy of containment of the Soviet Union, which turned out to be an amazing accomplishment.

"China owns a large majority our national debt."   - True, I believe, but not all bad.  Our debt should be smaller and our deficit should be gone, but the main cause is excessive federal spending and the main solution is to stop doing that.   Tradewise, we enjoy the purchasing power benefit from low cost goods and we enjoy a capital infusion benefit while they hold our paper.  As a potential enemy, China could conceivably bring down the dollar or the US economy.  The other side of the same coin is that our paper is their largest holding.  They lack enough diversity in their investments.  Why would they collapse our dollar or our economy as that would most certainly collapse theirs.  Even a point of inflation or a devaluation of the dollar brings down the value of their investment.  In other words, their interests just keep getting more closely tied to ours because of an open trade relationship.

Yes, we see more transactions around the world turning to the Euro.  We have been spoiled for quite some time having the only real world currency.  Yes, the nations of Europe traded away some sovereignty to elevate the EU and I think many are questioning that today.  But rather than compare European integration with the US and Mexico, I would compare it with Indiana's relationship with Ohio and Minnesota's relationship with Wisconsin.  For 200+ years we have had easy trade across our internal borders, whereas in Europe, if you reach out the same distance you have crossed several borders.  The language changes, the telecom standards were different, the currencies were different, postage, you name it.  They might not even drive on the same side of the road.   Here we can hop on the interstate or send a box with UPS and not give it a thought.  IMO Europe is trying to match what we already have rather than leading the world in a new direction. The Euro has had a successful launch.  In the long run maybe it is good for the US to have a worthy competitor for currency.  The European economy, OTOH, has underperformed and their slack is hurting our exports.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!