Transnational currency: good or bad

[DreadedClaymore]

Firstly, please restrict your commentary to things that are REAL, there is a reason I didn't post this in "It's a Conspiracy!"

I'm always hearing from libertarian types about how horrible the US will be if we ever adopt the "Amero," or a transnational currency for North America. (I can't really see why we would since we don't have anything like the same situation that Europe does, but there you go.)

Why would an Amero be a bad thing? Why would it be a good thing? Who would benefit from its adoption? Who would be harmed by it? Please enlighten me with your opinion.

[AngryOnion]

A transnational currency would only devalue what little worth the dollar still has.
The only benefactor would be Mexico.We help those fucking assholes out enough already.

[Dread_Lord]

What exactly are the benefits of an international currency anyways? I mean, for you and me, not for some scumbag financial predator.

[DreadedClaymore]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

What exactly are the benefits of an international currency anyways? I mean, for you and me, not for some scumbag financial predator.

Now that I think of it, not much, at least not in North America. Europe is a different story, with everyone traveling easily and frequently between nations. The Euro made it even easier. But with only three countries we don't really do much of that here. Which, in turn, is why it's kind of silly to be afraid of an Amero: no one will institute it because there's no need.

From a financial predator perspective, I think it has something to do with linking up the economies of the different nations. Heck, I don't know, I know next to nothing about economics.

[water bottle]

Look to the EU. France is still French, Germany is still German, and Italy is most certainly still Italian. Even smaller countries like Belgium still retain pretty much all of their distinct heritage, despite the large official EU presence in that country (bad example, perhaps, but I'm sure you get my point). What I'm getting at is that economic integration - perhaps not on a global level, but certainly in specific regions - is nothing to be scared of. In fact, it is immensely beneficial. No EU country will ever go to war with another EU country for the simple fact that it would be far too mutually destructive to their economies. It basically unfolds into the larger liberal international economic order (not a scary thing, despite having a rather conspiratorial title) scheme which rests on the philosophy that countries that trade together don't often go to war with each other. There are obvious exceptions to this principle, but there's a solution! That would be called democratic peace theory, which states that liberal democracies do not go to war with each other. That is empirically viable, but there is some debate as to causation and correlation on that matter. The point is that economic blocs such as the EU tend to rest on democratic principles. Certainly, any non-liberal democratic country will not even be considered to join the European club.

So, what I'm basically trying to say is that I essentially subscribe to the idea that international trade and the subsequent spread of liberal democracy is a good thing. Taken to the level of international currencies, well... this is an issue that pulls at the national heart strings. It is most certainly by any definition a forfeiture of sovereignty. However, I think it is a worthwhile forfeiture - and, as I said in the beginning of this post, France is still France, right?

[AngryOnion]

One word PIGS.

[Dread_Lord]

Watter Bottle, you're clearly confused.

The UNITED states was just like the European Union when it started. Now days people don't even realize why it's called the UNITED states. They view it as one large country rather than a collection of countries.

You want an example of what happens with giant central banking corporations control the monetary system of a union? Look at the US.
Now because of their insane failing policies they're looking to expand rather than correct their idiotic and mathematically impossible policies like Usury. This way they can extend their corrupt and predatory financial con game for a little while longer while avoiding the real fix.


They're all stepping stones. All these little "agreements" and pacts and bullshit all lead up to one world domination.

The end result being the rich getting richer and driving off competition.

Then when we are at this pinnacle of shit and the flawed fiat system can no longer support itself you're going to have the collapse of the USSR on a worldwide scale.


What am I saying? The banking system, as is, is so unbelievably fucked they have no business expanding.

As we are to know trees by their fruit, know then that except for the confused, the enemies of mathematically perfected economy™ are disposed to preserve interest or unearned gain; and that they have no better defense than to implicitly claim that to preserve the private vehicles of usury and/or unearned gain of some (at cost to all others), is a necessary aspect of our need to preserve the rights of the individual.

The issue upon which the preservation of a republic hinges however is not the preservation of purported rights of some individuals; it is always the equal preservation of the common rights of all individuals.

Caution yourself with the question then: If usury is the way to preserve the rights of all individuals, why not do we all then simply issue currency to ourselves at interest?

[water bottle]

Originally Posted by Dread_Lord

Watter Bottle, you're clearly confused.

That's funny. I've been confused before, but it doesn't feel like I am right now . Damn, now I've made myself confused thinking about whether I'm confused or not...

Anyway, no, I'm not confused. I'm well aware of the Schumann Declaration and the history behind the idea of a federal Europe. Just took a course in it recently, actually. Interesting stuff. Back to the point, though: I'm well aware of the fact that the intention of the "Fathers of Europe" was always to create a full political union not dissimilar to the United States of America. I'm also very aware that the strategy is very much a step-by-step process. Another thing I'm aware of is that all this information is very, very accessible. Therein we find a disappointing fact: what pitiful sort of conspiracy for world domination makes its devious plot freely available for the public to analyze? Why, it's hardly any sort of conspiracy if you ask me.

As far as that conspiracy goes, well... I'll talk about that in a kind of roundabout way. I don't agree with the whole "Clash of Civilizations" thing that Huntington fellow was writing about in complete terms, but I think he was on to something. I think regional trading blocs (with, of course, the eventual goal of political union) are an important and relatively recent trend. I do not think these nefarious conspirators plan for world domination, at least not at this point. The goal is regional integration - for the time being. So I'm not convinced there are shadowy figures plotting world domination in the political sense.

The point I intended to make in my original post was that I do largely support liberal international economic ideals. Little more than that.

[Dread_Lord]

Originally Posted by water bottle

That's funny. I've been confused before, but it doesn't feel like I am right now . Damn, now I've made myself confused thinking about whether I'm confused or not...

Anyway, no, I'm not confused. I'm well aware of the Schumann Declaration and the history behind the idea of a federal Europe. Just took a course in it recently, actually. Interesting stuff. Back to the point, though: I'm well aware of the fact that the intention of the "Fathers of Europe" was always to create a full political union not dissimilar to the United States of America. I'm also very aware that the strategy is very much a step-by-step process. Another thing I'm aware of is that all this information is very, very accessible. Therein we find a disappointing fact: what pitiful sort of conspiracy for world domination makes its devious plot freely available for the public to analyze? Why, it's hardly any sort of conspiracy if you ask me.

As far as that conspiracy goes, well... I'll talk about that in a kind of roundabout way. I don't agree with the whole "Clash of Civilizations" thing that Huntington fellow was writing about in complete terms, but I think he was on to something. I think regional trading blocs (with, of course, the eventual goal of political union) are an important and relatively recent trend. I do not think these nefarious conspirators plan for world domination, at least not at this point. The goal is regional integration - for the time being. So I'm not convinced there are shadowy figures plotting world domination in the political sense.

The point I intended to make in my original post was that I do largely support liberal international economic ideals. Little more than that.

Has nothing to do with a conspiracy. What I am describing to you is not a conspiracy it's just how it is. Sure, let's enter a ton of agreements with Canada and Mexico until they may as well just be another state in the Union.
Then 50 years down the road, when the "Amero" is failing miserably because the bankers are too irresponsible and incompetent to manage it, someone like you will come along talking about "why not just unite with the European Union" .
Stepping stones. Nothing to do with conspiracy and it's without question that certain elements would love noting more than to see the one world and some have talked it about openly. It's real and you apparently support it since you support the catalysts for it becoming a reality.

[THIS IS IMPORTANT GODDAMNIT]

^^^

I'm so fucking sick of the world domination freaks. I mean holy fuck you can' talk about any kind of international political topic without having these fuckwanks come in and spew their bullshit.