It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If the North American Union occurred

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 10:29 PM
link   
It would be the highest GDP of unions
There would be abundant resources (from Canada & Mexico and depending on what...from the US)
Powerful military (from the US)
Technological advancement (from the US)
Cheap labor (from Mexico)

From this viewpoint, it looks okay.

But most Americans and Canadians won't want to join with Mexico. The US and Canada are pretty similar culturally. But I don't even think Americans and Canadians would be content with being unionized. There would be more problems than the EU is facing.




posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I think you need to define 'north american union' before you can consider what its implications would be.

Would the three nations be sovereign states within a new federal government? Would all the governments be dissolved and replaced with a new one? Or are we talking about an economic 'union' like with Europe?

Many states that want to enter the EU can't, because their economies are so terrible that they don't meet the minimum requirements for entrance. The US and Canadian economies would, I think, take a big hit in uniting with Mexico.

And, also, recall, Canada is still technically governed by the Queen of England, through her agent, the Governor General. How would this work in the union?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   
NAU (north american union) is in no way a benefit to the people, its only a way of leeching off the people and getting cheaper labor. If they created the NAU then we would all be facing hardships, almost all american jobs would be substandardized out the mexicans, the canadias would be facing the same, most of us would now only serve a few purposes: military, sitting down and shutting up. They only want a NAU so they can gain more power, not help people, if you wanted to help people, bring jobs from china back to the USA. Then build up the US economy again, get the poor the food they need and such, getting better agriculture systems going, stop outsourcing, in short take care of the people. Now you have resources to spend elsewhere, send them to Canada or Mexico, get THEIR economy fixed, go through the system and get rid of corruption and the black market. Slow process, correct, but the long term benefits are worth it. Once this is done you will be able to create a NAU without enraging people, they will know that even if the nations merge into one they will still have their voice, their land, their job, and their rights if not more rights.
Now another point: Mexico has a RAMPANT black market, anything and everything goes through there, and merging the nations into one right now would allow the black market to expand and end all of beurocracy to the smugglers. So I suggest we solve problems one at a time and not just unify and face a mountain. I would rather fight a mole hill one at a time then have to take on a couple million mole hills.

NAU serves only to expand power of the globalists/corporations and in no way benefits the people (read between the lines not the lines themselves, see through the illusion). Besides the G/C's need more troops and this is a prime way to get more of them and cheaply (mexico).



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:58 AM
link   
The North American Union has already been signed into effect, you only have to listen to Alex Jones and he will tell you That the Signing Agreements have already been signed by Fox, Bush and Harper and the only thing left to do is finish the Pan American Highway.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
True to that extent, but we are yet to have the agreement get GOING, once thats done then we have trouble. Its in its infancy and can be killed, which right now I suggest highly. However, as we all know we have no power over that in any shape or form so what the heck. All hecks going to break loose when they start running with the ball on this NAU and thats what I am waiting on, because then we can trip them and watch them fall over a cliff if we time it right.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
NAU (north american union) is in no way a benefit to the people

So? Government is supposed to exist to increase the benefits for the people? Sounds more socialist-nationalist than the NAU.

, its only a way of leeching off the people and getting cheaper labor.

This is the american way.

If they created the NAU then we would all be facing hardships, almost all american jobs would be substandardized out the mexicans,

Thats clearly not going to happen. And why would security agreements and greater cooperation on border issues (which is what is being proposed) result in all american jobs going to mexico? Its the market that pushes jobs to mexico, and even then it can't push them all into mexico. Heck, its that same market that pushes people out of mexico and into the US for jobs.

if you wanted to help people, bring jobs from china back to the USA.

That is not the job of the government.

Then build up the US economy again, get the poor the food they need and such, getting better agriculture systems going, stop outsourcing, in short take care of the people.

You mean initiate a socialist/communist revolution. Because thats what those 'reforms' amount to.

Now another point: Mexico has a RAMPANT black market, anything and everything goes through there, and merging the nations into one right now would allow the black market to expand and end all of beurocracy to the smugglers.

How would better border security and more cooperation between police and trade enforcement officials result in an expansion of the black market? If anything it would result in a crack-down on the black market.


mazzroth
you only have to listen to Alex Jones and he will tell you That the Signing Agreements have already been signed

Do you beleive everything people tell you?



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
What I said is TRUTH, the government is there to SERVE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE, and yes JOBS is part of it. I dont care WHAT you say on that matter now, because without jobs, people steal and cheat others to survive thus endangering others. MARKET did NOT push jobs out, CORPORATIONS pushed jobs out along with globalists. Money making is their only concern, and mexicans make goods cheaper, sleazier, and junkier than American factories ever did. So market is not part of it, market is to keep good products flowing that people WANT to buy, most americans have NO choice in what they get, it all comes from the SAME PLACE.
So whats wrong with communism or socialism if it helps the people? Are you against helping americans if you have to accept other governmental standards that are not 100% blood sucking capitalism based?
If a government cannot provide for the people, it has failed, and this nations govt. (USA) has failed ALL THE WAY, because it now only provides for the rich and stubs the poor whenever it can. If a plan cuts off the people then its a failure, the NAU is exactly that. The PEOPLE do not benefit, the CORPORATIONS and GLOBALISTS DO benefit from it, and no one else. You cannot help others if you cannot help yourself.
Lastly, saying that substanardization of jobs is the american way, your not american unless its by corporate, or globalist standards. The "american way" is not to steal, lie, cheat, and leech off others.
The american way is to provide for yourself and your family, to be a neighbor and help the nation when in need and the nation helps you in return. THAT is the american way.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
End of story, not worth bothering after this if you cannot comprehend what I have said (that includes spouting back corporate/globalist spittle/lies).
Done.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
CNN report

www.youtube.com...

LOU DOBB'S IS NOW LABELED A CONSPIRACY THEORIST BY THE CFR.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

if you wanted to help people, bring jobs from china back to the USA.

That is not the job of the government.


Oh,but it's okay if the gubment sends the jobs over to those places,huh? Sometimes your protective stance on the government is quite irritating. Is it the gubments "job" to hand jobs over to India and China and Mexico? Really, I mean, come on. You can't afford to be so blind to what the U.S gubment is doing. Yes,I am saying "gubment" because they are a bunch of blundering fools in my opinion.

[edit on 9-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vekar
What I said is TRUTH, the government is there to SERVE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE, and yes JOBS is part of it.

It most certainly isn't. The market is free to operate at the whim of the invisible hand, not the decrepid fist of government.


MARKET did NOT push jobs out, CORPORATIONS pushed jobs out along with globalists.

The corporations and the globalists are acting as agents of the market. If mexicans will perform labour at a lower wage, then the labour should go to them. No one has a right to perform any particular job.

Money making is their only concern, and mexicans make goods cheaper, sleazier, and junkier than American factories ever did.

You have the right to not purchase it.

So market is not part of it, market is to keep good products flowing that people WANT to buy,

And people want cheaper product.

most americans have NO choice in what they get, it all comes from the SAME PLACE.

Thats false. There are a variety of places that the products sold in the US are produced in. People will pick the ones that meet their personal balance of price and quality.

So whats wrong with communism or socialism if it helps the people?

Besides the idea of commiting acts of mass murder in order to steal private property and then installing an elite dictatorship to decide who gets what money being wrong, there's simply no requirement of government to make people wealthy.


Are you against helping americans if you have to accept other governmental standards that are not 100% blood sucking capitalism based?

I think that killing people and stealing their property for myself is wrong, yes. If a group of people are industrious and enterprising, then no one should be interfering with that.


If a government cannot provide for the people, it has failed,

This is false. A government does not have to provide for the economic well being of its people. The basic idea of the american government is to control power, to keep the government weak so as to prevent an excessively oppressive dictatorship. Not to feed the poor and or find work for the talentless.

The "american way" is not to steal, lie, cheat, and leech off others.

I don't know where you've been for the past two centuries or so.

The american way is to provide for yourself and your family, to be a neighbor and help the nation when in need

Heck no. Americans have no legal requirement to help one another out or to create government committees to dole out charity to people in need. Americans tend to want to do that anyway, but thats certainly not the role of government.

and the nation helps you in return. THAT is the american way.

No its not. Thats the way of some idealistic leftish 'government', 'serve the nation, the nation will help you'. Thats never worked out, not with the communists, the nazis, or the monarchs.


trIckz_R_fO_kIdz
LOU DOBB'S IS NOW LABELED A CONSPIRACY THEORIST BY THE CFR.

Lou Dobbs is a populist demagoge playing the role of a populist demagoge by the script. And please stop yelling.


speakeroftruth
Oh,but it's okay if the gubment sends the jobs over to those places,huh?

The governement isn't sending jobs anywhere, its removing the anti-market and anti-free trade obstructions that have been restricting those jobs in the first place. The united states was able to get to its position of power because of the free market. Even right after the revolution the founders realized how important it would be, and noted that there'd be far more trade flowing to the US, rather than, say, Britain, because the british were manipulating the market to support their policies, because they were using nationalist tariffs to 'protect' their workers. IN the end they were just smothering them.

You can't afford to be so blind to what the U.S gubment is doing.

Its precisely what they should be doing. No one has a right to any particular job. If an american won't work in a factory for a low wage, then he doesn't deserve to work in that factory. If a mexican won't produce product with the same efficiency as a japanese worker, then he doesn't deserve that job either, no more than a person who doesn't have enough money to purchase an item deserves that item.



posted on Oct, 10 2006 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I doubt that a NO union would work until the EU becomes strong enough that it becomes in all our best interests. The problem though is what many have already stated. NAFTA has been arguably a failure. Canada lost tech jobs to the states(Who in turn lost them to India, etc), America lost labour to the Mexico, and Mexico never got any real investment that they were promised(Because while it is cheep there, it doesn't compare to China or India, so the corp's have no reason to invest there).

For a North American union I can see every resource group on Canada's side refusing to accept it, simply because the Americans have seldom honoured their agreements with them(With the help of the Canadian government) and the average person I beleive would be worried about American's and their(No offense) gluttenous behaviour.

Although I suspect at some point in the future, providing we don't blow ourselfs up first, some pact will have to be made to ensure home grown business' can survive in light of the globalsation that seems to be gripping the world.

BTW - I have done a very little bit of reading on the subject and it is my understanding that the father of Captalism - Adam Smith, distrusted big business as much as he distrusted Government. Big Business, being the anti of what he invisioned. Many producers selling their wares to many consumers ultimately bring the price down to a accepted balance. Big Business, by virture of their mere size can undermines that "Invisible hand" that allowed the price balance to be reached. So, IMO, Globalism, corperations and big business have nothing to do with real capitalism.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I thought the invisible hand "goes round and round" regardless if the business is big or small. Big businesses don't change the concenpt of the invisible hand... does it?



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
All of which is an arguement for having free trade everywhere and a global common market, in combination with sensible global anti-trust legislation.



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
This guy should be invited to this website. He is saying it will be a communist government, with a single curency, etc. Watch the video. It's interesting.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
All of which is an arguement for having free trade everywhere and a global common market, in combination with sensible global anti-trust legislation.


Interesting comment... Globalism is the ultimate monopoly. Your statement is a conflict within itself. The Common Market/Free Trade does not help the Consumers... it is a temporary euphoric high for the Consumers when they see low prices, then the market kicks in and additional business need to relocate to low income manufacturing countries to be competitive. Jobs are lost, unemployment rises, inflation sets in... and all of the sudden, the low prices don't mean a thing. Then to off-set the lost Consumers, another market needs to be developed (China) and the cycle will start all over again.

The USA is fast becoming a service oriented country and even that is being outsourced to India. Military manufacturers are strong, but not much else in the sector of manufacturing.

Question: if Free Trade is good, then why is it a treaty and why don't we just let the free market dictate what is good and what is bad... instead of governments?



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
From this viewpoint, it looks okay.


Have you considered the fact that when the NAU comes into effect, your current constitutional rights become null and void? When they actually "formally" form the NAU, there will be a new constitution written. With that in mind, look around the media (whatever source) and pay close attention to those that want to "hush" many types of freedoms we all share today... ranging from our freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, innocent until proven guilty, and most importantly... our "pursuit of happiness".

No, the NAU doesn't look anything like a good idea, except to those that would happen to benefit from it, and I'm certain, no citizen in the United States, Canada, nor Mexico would have any benefit from the NAU, except a tighter grasp around our necks.



[edit on 12/31/2006 by Infoholic]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join