http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1137692012/bctid1564399577
“The American Central bank will disappear in the next decade or two.”
-Jim Rogers, international investor & Quantum Fund co-founder
The fed will disappear but it will be replaced with the North American Central Bank as a representative for the Amero.
This will happen. Things have already gone much too far in the wrong direction to ever be reversed.
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with an economic union here in North America. Of course, I may be wrong.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with an economic union here in North America. Of course, I may be wrong.[/quote]
It matters little what the currency is called. The fact is many if not most North and South American countries have a currency tied to the dollar already. Renaming and combining them will only have a solidifying effect that will make world government more possible. Economies cannot really be unified any more than they are insofar as everyone is already dependent on everyone else.
Trade is trade and it doesn’t matter what mediums are used to facilitate it. Competition is still a preferred state, however, there is little point in having a unified currency that can be competed against. Maybe a North American Central Bank wouldn’t be so be holden to US government pressure to print and spend money. Then again, if it was there would be the same problems of inflation. Ultimately, I believe a new currency will not change anything fundamental about the operation of government and the destruction of society.
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with an economic union here in North America. Of course, I may be wrong.
I do it would be the end of our Constitution, and America as we know it. And believe me a powerful central governmnent by way of a North American Union, would be much worse then a strong central government in the United States.
On their own, Canada and the US are each too big (physically) to be governed by a central institution, in my opinion.
Outside of Confederation (and whatever the creation of the US was called), there’s not much to really link the separate regions of each country together, and this causes severe political stupidities and problems, at least in Canada, in that it’s nearly impossible to consider the well-being of the whole county, since their needs, wants and lifestyles are dissimilar. I can only assume the similar problem exists in the US.
Taking steps towards unifying North America can only serve to exacerbate this issue, and increase government inefficiency.
[quote]brabbit wrote:
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with an economic union here in North America. Of course, I may be wrong.
I do it would be the end of our Constitution, and America as we know it. And believe me a powerful central governmnent by way of a North American Union, would be much worse then a strong central government in the United States.[/quote]
If we take over Canada, we get all that northern Alberta oil. Mexico has a lot of oil which they don’t know how to handle, as they have a corrupt culture. We can also send the Mexicans, since most are unemployed, to fight in Iran. Of course, we have to leave them there because we don’t want armed serfs here.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
brabbit wrote:
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with an economic union here in North America. Of course, I may be wrong.
I do it would be the end of our Constitution, and America as we know it. And believe me a powerful central governmnent by way of a North American Union, would be much worse then a strong central government in the United States.
If we take over Canada, we get all that northern Alberta oil. Mexico has a lot of oil which they don’t know how to handle, as they have a corrupt culture. We can also send the Mexicans, since most are unemployed, to fight in Iran. Of course, we have to leave them there because we don’t want armed serfs here.
[/quote]
lol!
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
brabbit wrote:
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with an economic union here in North America. Of course, I may be wrong.
I do it would be the end of our Constitution, and America as we know it. And believe me a powerful central governmnent by way of a North American Union, would be much worse then a strong central government in the United States.
If we take over Canada, we get all that northern Alberta oil. Mexico has a lot of oil which they don’t know how to handle, as they have a corrupt culture. We can also send the Mexicans, since most are unemployed, to fight in Iran. Of course, we have to leave them there because we don’t want armed serfs here.
lol!
[/quote]
At least one guy appreciates my humour…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
At least one guy appreciates my humour…
[/quote]
Can you start putting “/sarcasm” at the end of a joke post? Many of us honestly can’t tell when you’re being serious, being semi-serious, or just being fucking crazy.
Having a coherent, negotiable currency would work against their interests. The mega-banks win when midsize businesses have to convert investments between currencies – ie, pesos to buy raw materials in Mexico, CAN$ to pay workers in Toronto, dollar income from US sales.
Having a common currency would not be in their interests. Remember, they control the exchanges to their own benefit. Fewer exchange rates = harder to rig.
The real agenda is to turn America into North Mexico – not demographically, but economically. With a handful of oil billionaires and everyone else dirt poor. Democracy is easier to manage that way.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
brabbit wrote:
I see nothing fundamentally wrong with an economic union here in North America. Of course, I may be wrong.
I do it would be the end of our Constitution, and America as we know it. And believe me a powerful central governmnent by way of a North American Union, would be much worse then a strong central government in the United States.
If we take over Canada, we get all that northern Alberta oil. Mexico has a lot of oil which they don’t know how to handle, as they have a corrupt culture. We can also send the Mexicans, since most are unemployed, to fight in Iran. Of course, we have to leave them there because we don’t want armed serfs here.
lol!
At least one guy appreciates my humour…
[/quote]
What is humour?
mike
[quote]Petedacook wrote:
The real agenda is to turn America into North Mexico – not demographically, but economically. With a handful of oil billionaires and everyone else dirt poor. Democracy is easier to manage that way.[/quote]
You think restless natives are easier to control?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
The real agenda is to turn America into North Mexico – not demographically, but economically. With a handful of oil billionaires and everyone else dirt poor. Democracy is easier to manage that way.
You think restless natives are easier to control?[/quote]
If someone ever devises an AI system to monitor everyone, with each of us kept under surveillance 24/7/365, then the implementation of a police state will be inevitable. In fact, it may be the only logical alternative — a society THAT technologically advanced would be destroyed by its disruptive elements. One guy with a suitcase nuke NOW could kill 100,000 people.
There will always exist some tiny percentage of the world populace that wants to blow up all the rest of us. Only an omnipresent omniscient state can prevent that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
There will always exist some tiny percentage of the world populace that wants to blow up all the rest of us. Only an omnipresent omniscient state can prevent that.
[/quote]
Nothing can be prevented forever; however, the determination to survive will win out over those who wish to destroy. I hope your conclusion is wrong because that means an end to the possibility of freedom.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
The real agenda is to turn America into North Mexico – not demographically, but economically. With a handful of oil billionaires and everyone else dirt poor. Democracy is easier to manage that way.
You think restless natives are easier to control?
If someone ever devises an AI system to monitor everyone, with each of us kept under surveillance 24/7/365, then the implementation of a police state will be inevitable. In fact, it may be the only logical alternative — a society THAT technologically advanced would be destroyed by its disruptive elements. One guy with a suitcase nuke NOW could kill 100,000 people.
There will always exist some tiny percentage of the world populace that wants to blow up all the rest of us. Only an omnipresent omniscient state can prevent that.
[/quote]
Who will watch everyone?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
There will always exist some tiny percentage of the world populace that wants to blow up all the rest of us. Only an omnipresent omniscient state can prevent that.
Nothing can be prevented forever; however, the determination to survive will win out over those who wish to destroy. I hope your conclusion is wrong because that means an end to the possibility of freedom.[/quote]
Competing societies grasp at every new invention, to have an advantage over rivals. If an invention can be abused, it will be by someone. Therefore, either we destroy ourselves or we surrender our privacy/freedom totally. The ideal society for doing this would be a worldwide government that was, relative to any individual or small group, omnipotent.
The introduction of some radical advance in Artificial Intelligence would engender implementation of such a society. Everyone could be watched all the time.
I think the best we can hope for is something analogous to Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’, as opposed to Orwell’s dystopic vision.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Competing societies grasp at every new invention, to have an advantage over rivals. If an invention can be abused, it will be by someone. Therefore, either we destroy ourselves or we surrender our privacy/freedom totally.[/quote]
Yes but it is competition that is ultimately the savior of everyone. As long as people remain free to compete against each other, ethically, there can be no domination. Domination implies that one person is in control of every action of society. This is impossible and can only come about thruogh individuals acting on behalf of someone else. The ideas must be accepted enough to be enforced. This is how conspiracies are possible. This is my main thesis to the abolition of government because it must inherently be anti-competition and dominate by force and coercion.
World wide government has the same implications as every monopoly.
Imagine having no where to defect to.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Competing societies grasp at every new invention, to have an advantage over rivals. If an invention can be abused, it will be by someone. Therefore, either we destroy ourselves or we surrender our privacy/freedom totally.
Yes but it is competition that is ultimately the savior of everyone. As long as people remain free to compete against each other, ethically, there can be no domination. Domination implies that one person is in control of every action of society.
This is impossible and can only come about thruogh individuals acting on behalf of someone else. The ideas must be accepted enough to be enforced. This is how conspiracies are possible. This is my main thesis to the abolition of government because it must inherently be anti-competition and dominate by force and coercion.
The ideal society for doing this would be a worldwide government that was, relative to any individual or small group, omnipotent.
World wide government has the same implications as every monopoly.
Imagine having no where to defect to.[/quote]
If you’ve read Freud’s ‘Civilisation and Its Discontents’, then you see that he makes the same basic point. Now take a small portion of humanity that would actually implement the use of truly catastrophic means, such as WMDs. The only solution is for society to become continually more repressive, as Freud points out.
Freud had rather a dim view of humanity, yet I think the combination of the few truly insane discontents with increased capacity for destruction must lead either to our end or to total domination.
Of course, a world of total domination would be quite evil, as John the Savage discovers in ‘Brave New World’. A world of unlimited sex and drugs can be a hell.
Would he be better to be simply dead or to have no choices whatsoever?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Would he be better to be simply dead or to have no choices whatsoever?
[/quote]
What is the difference? Having no choice implies one is already dead.