North American consolidated currency. good idea / bad idea. what the NAU proposes, having an open border and common currency really isn't a bad idea. it solves the immigration problem. it unites people. Bush got this past I believe. correct me if I'm wrong. if he did I commend him. who else would have the balls to do what needed to be done ?

1/16/2008 3:02:53 AM

Personally I don't like the idea of a national North American currency. Mexico's economy combined with the rampant overspending of the US government could seriously play havoc with the value of that thing. It sounds good in theory, but not only would it outrage people with a sense of national identity and patriotism, the dollar has also become something of an unofficial standard when talking world currency exchange rates (though my viewpoint on this might be biased, living in America and recieving mostly economic news as it relates to our dollar).

If America ever officially leaves the dollar, it should not happen until the entire world has moved to a universal currency, which I do not foresee happening in my lifetime.


Also, I highly doubt that Bush got this passed, or even close to passed... right now something as non-life-changing as a Mexico-Canada superhighway is still in the stages of being a conspiracy theory/corporate plot. If this new currency got anywhere at all in legislation I'd expect to hear mass outrage and plenty of news coverage.

[Edited on January 16, 2008 at 3:12 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2008 3:09:49 AM

Quote :

"it should not happen until the entire world has moved to a universal currency, which I do not foresee happening in my lifetime. "

Ever heard of the Euro. Same concept. I think it's a brillant idea. I think we should have a universal currency after similar consolidations of currency with other sectors of the world similar to the EU, NAU, and then just combine them all using a Universal Currency. the markets are all free to us anyways. why shouldn't the currency be all the same ? i mean we're working towards a global one world society.

1/16/2008 3:26:58 AM

because competition is how capitalist markets work.

currencies compete with one another just like anything else. it prevents corruption (to an extent, though China is really pushing the limits), encourages domestic markets, international trade and commerce.

The euro made sense for europe because of geographic proximity. a global currency would be a fucking disaster.

1/16/2008 3:40:11 AM

.

[Edited on January 16, 2008 at 5:29 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2008 5:27:15 AM

^^ bingo.

1/16/2008 8:20:06 AM

I'm going to put zero thought into this:

Sounds like the only reason this is even being considered is because of the success the Euro is having (which may not even be solely attributable to the union of currencies).

How many countries operate under the Euro? 15 official and 3 unofficial. Now, how many countries would operate under the Amero? 3. Three.

Out of the countries that use the Euro, which country has the worst economy? Now, how many orders of magnitude better is that economy as compared with Mexico? That brings us down to two viable adopters of the Amero.

Seems like the whole idea is hinged on "Euros are cool, let's do that."

[Edited on January 16, 2008 at 8:47 AM. Reason : -]

1/16/2008 8:43:51 AM

Quote :

"i mean we're working towards a global one world society."

speak for yourself

Quote :

"a global currency would be a fucking disaster."

Quote :

"a global currency would be a fucking disaster."

Quote :

"a global currency would be a fucking disaster."

personally, I'd like to see it go the other way, with more different forms of currency, not fewer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_States

Quote :

"Bull City Bucks, Durham Mountain Money, Mars Hill Plenty, Carrboro"

[Edited on January 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM. Reason : $$$$$$$$$]

1/16/2008 9:13:08 AM

Quote :

"a global currency would be a fucking disaster."

Double Bingo.

The recent crackdown on the Silver Liberty dollars shows us that the gov't does not want competition in currency.

The last thing the fed wants is people getting reaquainted with the benefits of trading using inflation-resistant hard currencies like silver.

1/16/2008 10:18:48 AM

A global currency would be a disaster for home. Not sure if you guys noticed, but the worlds been consolidating for years now. Global markets so we can all trade on, WHO, NAFTA, EU, NAU, UN. Even US Armed Forces are consolidating. The Amero would be a great start. Using the Amero and becoming borderless solves a lot of problems.

1/16/2008 10:24:47 AM

Quote :

"The euro made sense for europe because of geographic proximity."

why wouldn't it make sense here? they take pesos in Texas. its a reality there. billions of American dollars go to Mexican families anyway through the immigrants here now. why not just merge the currencies, kill the borders and say fuck it this is North America. We're United. Have the Federal Reserve involved and call it a day. The Amero is a brillant idea.

1/16/2008 11:07:59 AM

Simply because of the massive economic disparities between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, a North American currency is out of the question at this time. MAYBE a common currency between the United States and Canada is possible, but given the current state of the USD and a Canadian nationalism that strongly resists being assimilated by the massive beast to the south, I don't see any real political will for it.

However, I am against the idea of local currencies based on the idea that it would be highly disruptive to the national economy. Perhaps this is the point, that small communities want to simply isolate themselves from the rest of the nation, but for any community that conducts even a minor amount of interstate commerce, a motley of different regional and local currencies is going to increase the cost and complexities of trade.

Whether the national currency is fiat or metals is a whole different discussion.

1/16/2008 11:12:18 AM

Quote :

"a motley of different regional and local currencies is going to increase the cost and complexities of trade."

so what?

who ever said that "liberty and justice for all" has to be cheap and easy?

1/16/2008 11:18:41 AM

well we shit all over the constitution with regards to everything else so lets throw in this too

1/16/2008 12:11:27 PM

This question is not new, We have studies to tell us the benefits and the costs of currency unification, and while they strongly recommend the Euro, they likewise strongly condemn the Amero.

benefits:
- eliminates currency exchange uncertainty, unifying cross border markets and attaining economies of scale by laying off duplicate jobs in the two countries
- eliminates currency exchange costs, eliminating wasted effort by laying off all those currency traders

costs:
- eliminates exchange rate shifts, forcing prolonged periods of cross border inflation and deflation to correct trade imbalances, this can be seen when the unemployment rate in Michigan went to 15%, its prolonged recession would not have been so severe if the currency of Michigan had been allowed to devalue relative to the US$

Now, in Europe these benefits were huge, so even though the costs were large it was still beneficial overall. But, as we have found, as a currency zone grows ever larger the harm of fixed-rate trade imbalances impacts ever more people causing ever more harm, while the benefits compared to the economy as a whole get ever smaller.

To put it in perspective, today the U.S. dollar has devalued substantially compared to the Euro. But, if we had a single unified currency then that would have been impossible; our trade imbalance would have had to be dealt with through deflation in America with widespread unemployment combined with uncontrollable inflation in Europe.

Yes, this would be temporary while the trade balance stabilized. But, while there is no doubt that currency unification does reduce the occurance of trade imbalances, there is also no doubt it does not prevent them, just ask the citizens of Detroit, Michigan.

1/16/2008 2:05:10 PM

this might be the most non-retarded thread this bloke has ever made...assuming its not an alias

1/16/2008 3:17:24 PM

A "global currency" would not be a 'fucking disaster'

-Up until recently, almost all global business transactions were done in American Dollars.

and currency value isn't entirely dependent on 'competition' with other currencies.

Noen

Seriously

stop posting.

1/16/2008 4:32:39 PM

http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/

1/16/2008 6:11:01 PM

nm

[Edited on January 16, 2008 at 6:20 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2008 6:20:07 PM

Quote :

"A "global currency" would not be a 'fucking disaster' -Up until recently, almost all global business transactions were done in American Dollars. and currency value isn't entirely dependent on 'competition' with other currencies. Noen Seriously stop posting."

That's because the US dollar was

a) the most stable and
b) the country it originated from accounted for the largest contingent of global business operations.

It doesn't matter a damn bit WHAT currency is being used to perform a transaction. It matters that there are OPTIONS for the currency chosen for the transaction.

Your own argument for why it wouldn't be a disaster (the dollar was the defacto standard) is exactly the reason why it would be (the dollar has now dropped and the euro has become the stable defacto currency for trade). Will the euro always be the baseline currency for valuation and trade? I doubt it. It all go in cycles and when the euro falls out again, the dollar may have a resurgance, or, more likely the chinese yuan will assume the role as the trade standard.

1/16/2008 8:36:57 PM

I dont even like reading anything you write anymore on the basis that you're amazingly wrong most of the time lately, as opposed to being right which used to be your gig.

Seriously, fucking quit already. I dont know how the hell you manage to exist in tech at all.

1/16/2008 10:49:11 PM

You just posted a completely stupid point, got called on it, and now refuse to read the reply.

Seriously dude. Seriously. You've yet to post a single BASED response in this section. Everything you post is unsupported and unsupportable, except by the "I say it because it's right" philosophy.

I'll be glad to point you in the direction of thousands and thousands of journals, books and research to show why monetary market diversification is a GOOD thing.

1/16/2008 11:13:08 PM

I don't know if the Amero is necessarily a bad idea because the economy of North America is so dominated by the US anyway.

However, the problem as Lonesnark pointed out, with having to larger of a currency footprint is that if the currency is bigger than the integrated economy you can't effectively manage that economy. Europe is having that problem now.

Growth in Germany was slow while a housing bubble in Spain was rampant. How do you handle that with one currency?

1/17/2008 9:12:26 AM

Noen

I'm not arguing with you on the same basis I don't argue with creationists. If you can't see why your position is fundamentally stupid, then there's nothing I can say thats going to change your mind. I'd rather sit here, troll you, and get pm's making fun you then come up with an economically sound response that will fly straight the fuck over your head like an XM satellite as was the case in the tax thread and the Ron Paul thread.

1/17/2008 11:27:48 AM

You know, its funny that by having currency diversity it allowed such countries as:

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and now China were able to quickly grow their country's infrastructure, manufacturing, and GDP in large part because they had independent currencies.

On a basic level: domestic currency was weak, so they could trade goods at a lower price globally. This brings an economic boom, raising the value of their currency, wages, infrastructure and educational systems. As the currency reaches equalibrium with the trade standard (dollar, euro), trade becomes more balanced and new industries open domestically for the trade of goods and services.

It's worked in practice for every capitalist market economy that has ascended the ranks this century.

------

And I realize you have been trolling me. Glad to know at least one of us has gone through puberty and can hold a respectful conversation on a topic without resorting to 'you are too stupid to understand'.

Really though, keep on digging your own hole and claiming its mine. Because while you sit there trolling, wallowing in your attempts to belittle and bring misery to me and others, I'm living the dream life on my end of things

[Edited on January 17, 2008 at 11:47 AM. Reason : .]

1/17/2008 11:43:16 AM

Noen, that they had currency diversity when they grew quickly does not mean it was a contributor. As I said, having a small currency zone is a very real hinderance because it limits market integration through currency exchange costs and limits foreign direct investment through exchange uncertainty. And when your country is poor you have no capital of your own with which to industrialize, so your people often need to borrow it from rich countries, which you cannot do because they make loans in dollars (or Euros) and you earn money in Yuan, which means to borrow money you must pay exchange fees both ways and then face the impossible task of managing exchange rate risk.

This is why so many countries impliment fixed exchange rates and why so many others have implimented a policy of dollarization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollarization#List_of_officially_dollarized_economies

I know of no mechanism for an independent currency to assist with modernization. If you do then please enlighten me. But from what I know an independent currency is often one of the main hinderances to modernization.

But, as I said, once two economies are sufficiently large, such as China only recently, Mexico only recently, and Canada, unification's benefits start to fall short of costs. That is not to suggest currency zones should ever break up; they should not. Once you are unified the up-front costs are paid for, even Michigan's citizens with 15% unemployment are better off than they otherwise would be, even if only because their dollars enable them to seamlessly leave Michigan for more prosperous states.

1/17/2008 1:53:08 PM

Dollarization didn't happen in any of my examples.

The differences in comparative wages and cost for labor is what brings poor countries into better financial standing. You'll notice the countries that are dollarized, by and large, do so because they don't have the internal security or stability in place to maintain their own currency. Having a stable central government is mandatory for economic growth.

Now you do have a point that it's possible the asian block would have done the same thing had they accepted the dollar as their currency. But I would argue that would have slowed their progress and it would have linked their GDP and growth to the Federal Reserve. Neither of which are a good thing for a sovereign nation.

Quote :

"As I said, having a small currency zone is a very real hinderance because it limits market integration through currency exchange costs and limits foreign direct investment through exchange uncertainty."

Only if the country in question isn't stable. Business has sunk countless billions into India, Russia, China, Bangladesh, and various other stable nations and done so in their currency or in an intermediary currency. China's ability to control the valuation of the yuan is absolutely at the core of it's current economic boom. Without it, the massive export surplus would have dried up long ago because the yuan is so undervalued in the market. But because they control the currency, they can artificially prop their country to allow time for infrastructure and market development.

Quote :

"And when your country is poor you have no capital of your own with which to industrialize, so your people often need to borrow it from rich countries, which you cannot do because they make loans in dollars (or Euros) and you earn money in Yuan, which means to borrow money you must pay exchange fees both ways and then face the impossible task of managing exchange rate risk. "

You have human capital. In all of my examples (plus india and many of its neighbors), it wasn't raw resources that drove the industrialization, but human labor markets. Africa is one of the most resource rich continents on earth, but because they have no stable governmental structures, business and investment cannot enter (except now for the Chinese who also bring their own security).

Quote :

"This is why so many countries impliment fixed exchange rates "

This is yet another plus for keeping your own country's currency. It acts as a check against all kinds of corruption and mismanagement.

Quote :

"Michigan's citizens with 15% unemployment are better off than they otherwise would be, even if only because their dollars enable them to seamlessly leave Michigan for more prosperous states."

Comparing a state to a nation is inherently flawed. And you still can't seamlessly leave, you just dont have to deal with currency conversion.

1/17/2008 5:39:40 PM

wooo woo liberty dollar

1/17/2008 6:02:14 PM

they are actually slowing moving to state by state currencies. Evidence? they already have quarters taken care of...

1/17/2008 10:07:08 PM

Quote :

"get pm's making fun you then come up with an economically sound response that will fly straight the fuck over your head like an XM satellite"

XM satellites are geostationary

they dont really move with respect to any point on the earth so they cant exactly "fly" over someones head in the sense you wanted to use

1/17/2008 11:38:22 PM

Maybe he meant the satellite signals...

1/17/2008 11:44:02 PM