It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


I feel an Amero or a new currency would help more than hurt

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:00 AM
Since leaving the dogmatic beliefs of religion, I am finding that unified governments do not harm anything but actually unify the people to some degree.

For example, the United States is very diverse, but to some extent most things are similar in the experience of the American way of life, and one of them being the value of our dollar across state lines. Now I know some of you will say that that isn't so, but I am just generalizing it.

You can generally buy a loaf of bread in any state for less than $2, guaranteed. It's the same for all of us.

I believe that the US plans on unifying the currencies of ourselves with Canada and Mexico, but what will that do?

It seems to me that historically, when currencies united it takes a decade or so for the nations involved to adjust, but in the long run the economies become stronger and it becomes evident that it is beneficial to all parties involved. It adds greater stability.

Take for example before the US mint or the Bureau of Printing and Engraving existed, much of US money was printed as script by local banks. Some places would accept it, some would not. The value of money was not uniform and so one mans riches could be extracted by simply knowing how to use the system to his advantage for cheap labor or goods where he could find it with the currencies he had available.

This is no different than what corporations are able to do today in Mexico. There is a ton of cheap labor down there, and financially the would be stupid to not take advantage of it.

A North American currency, however, does away with that advantage to a large degree. No longer can a worker in Mexico be paid low wages, for whatever the new currency is worth in the United States slowly means the low paid Mexican must have to buy goods of the same value in Mexico. Slowly, the countries involved equalize labor, goods, and resources which actually creates a better standard of living over time.

The biggest obstacle I see in introducing a new unified currency is our own prejudices. With the so-called "Amero", it isn't Americans screaming about illegal immigration of Canadians. They complain about Mexicans, because they have the most to gain in coming to the states and reaping greater rewards. Canada has more resources than Mexico so you won't see a large influx of labor from Canada coming here, you will see large corporations making deals for resources in Canada and new job opportunities in the white north.

American's need to get over the prejudices of Mexican's just like any other people of color or origin. In a way, our lifestyle has made our dollar collapse, because no good thing can last forever at the expenses of others.

Just my thoughts. Discuss if you wish.

[edit on 26-3-2008 by ben91069]

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 07:39 PM
I love it. I couldn't have put it better myself.

posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by ben91069
No longer can a worker in Mexico be paid low wages, for whatever the new currency is worth in the United States slowly means the low paid Mexican must have to buy goods of the same value in Mexico.

I'm not getting this.
Why would a common currency assure that all three countries will share a minimum salary? Couldn't Mexicans be paid 25 cents an hour?

Is the average salary in Poland the same as in Germany?

In Poland the average monthly salary is just 460 euros (£316; $579), about a third of the EU average.

Purchasing power parity already assures that goods are similarly priced across nations. (For example a Big Mac is priced similarly worldwide.) Some goods are cheaper in some countries because of a comparative advantage, but again this would not change because of a common currency.

I don't think you have made any points that justifies the use of a common currency. All and all, a country has more control over its money supply if they control their own currency. Canada would have no control whatsoever over its money supply if it joined the US. (minnow and the whale)

IMO, we should seek more local economies (especially food items) which would be more stable. Globalization makes us more dependent on the larger economies (US, Germany, Japan)

[edit on 24/7/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:29 PM
From a pure economic standpoint, the OP is correct. By combining currencies you strengthen currencies by making a new currency that has the strength of those that made it. Their example of before a National currency was dead on in that each state or bank could issue its own currency and that they were worth differently between the states/banks much the same way that the US dollar is played against others throughout the world today. The more confidence that resides in that country, the more willing bankers are to purchase the bonds that they government floats in order to support debt (short or long term, or those caused by Federal Reserve Actions). This action causes the overall power of that dollar to increase.

Its been bugging me for a while from another thread (no dead) about the Amero where someone said that the US Mint decides the value of the dollar. They are right, and they are wrong as well. The FACE VALUE is decided via the Mint. The real value is decided through the international exchange. Part of the reason why Gas/Oil has gone up is (surprisingly), as the Mass Media has put it from time to time, because the real purchasing power of the dollar has fallen. It takes X purchasing power to buy something, so if your currency falls, it takes more to have the same purchasing power as X.

Other posters are also right in that there will be reprecussions from this and that the combination of the three nations will cause friction, but because our people are not the same as those who were alert and active in our government in the early days of the nation, this friction will eventually fade. Its just like with gas (sorry to use the same item for examples, works), a few years ago, everyone was up in arms about $2 gas, now they would kill for it. People change and adapt to reality without thinking about it after a while.

Other effects of the merger really are unknown to a great extent imo. You can grasp at the straws, but that won't mean they are real or will happen. Only the reality of it happening will reveal any plans that may have been laid out for us

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:34 PM
yeah except the people in charge of the amero are the exact ones who have put this world through hell for the past 300 years.

i say f---them the amero and their globalism. if globalism is ment to be every country should enter of its own accord, not under the barrel of a gun. if it is so wonderful why does everyone have to be tricked into accepting it?

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:30 PM
reply to post by TheRepublic

I'll agree with you that the Amero is not as simple as the basic economics described, but at the same time you have to remember that people on the whole have ADD. We focus on a problem for a bit, then go find the tabloid with the newest celebrity scandal, or complain about gas. So in order to get things done that may be in the best interest of everyone, certain shocks have to be engineered or ran headlong into.

My economic Geography teacher saw the bubble burst coming 3
years before all of this, and you can't tell me that none of thsoe at the top didn't see it coming . The evidence was all there, and how many economists were caught with their pants down supposedly?

If historical conspiracy theoriests are right, then FDR refused to pass along a telegram warning of the Pearl Harbor attack a few hours before it happened in order to get the US into WWII. On Dec. 6,1941, many Americans were against going to war, and were resistant to the Lend-Lease Act. On Dec. 8, 1941, every thing was different. The warning signs had been there days before, and it was only by luck that the carriers were out to see that day.

True, the anti-globalist in me hates the idea of the Amero, and the patriot wants the US to stand alone, but the scholar in me (I'm an economic development minor) dissents saying its not that bad of an idea. So I try to argue both sides of the issue to help those on either side understand one another, try being the operative word.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:33 PM
did you say americans need to get over racism.

NEWS FLASH: its not just americans. but your theory sounds like a step in the direction of the NWO. as i have nothing good to say i will leave it at that.

posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 01:35 PM

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23

Is the average salary in Poland the same as in Germany?

[edit on 24/7/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

even here the average salary is different not only from state to state but city to city

i think it would hurt more

posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 02:18 AM
op the premise for unification is wrong
The only reason a new currency is coming for all three countries
is because with a new currency there is no international debt associated with it.

America will go bankrupt
then and only then would it make sense to move to a unified currency

Just going bankrupt would not clear international debts

you would have to collapse the country into a new entity

for instance America owes dollars to china
the north American union owes nobody ,any Ameros

what is slick is that they first cause the problems of debts and collapsing economy and then offer up the solution to fix everything

cause and effect the solution is always their objective

new topics


log in