Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The Amero?

SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 10:13:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
What do you all think about the concept of having an unified currency for all of North/Central America [the 3 key member nations being Canada, The USA, and Mexico but there is the potential that some Caribbean nations and some countries south of Mexico may adopt this exact same system]?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 1:07:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:13:02 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What do you all think about the concept of having an unified currency for all of North/Central America [the 3 key member nations being Canada, The USA, and Mexico but there is the potential that some Caribbean nations and some countries south of Mexico may adopt this exact same system]?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Horrific, horrific idea.

It was bad enough when latin america countries tried pegging themselves to the dollar.

Consider a scenario where the Mexican economy goes downhill and the American economy starts getting better. The currency would become stronger even in areas where an appropriate policy response would suggest the opposite approach.

We'd enter a similar situation with the Euro and Germany/Britian/France versus the PIIGS.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 2:18:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 1:07:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:13:02 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What do you all think about the concept of having an unified currency for all of North/Central America [the 3 key member nations being Canada, The USA, and Mexico but there is the potential that some Caribbean nations and some countries south of Mexico may adopt this exact same system]?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Horrific, horrific idea.

It was bad enough when latin america countries tried pegging themselves to the dollar.

Consider a scenario where the Mexican economy goes downhill and the American economy starts getting better. The currency would become stronger even in areas where an appropriate policy response would suggest the opposite approach.

We'd enter a similar situation with the Euro and Germany/Britian/France versus the PIIGS.

Que? Care to elaborate further?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 2:33:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 2:18:49 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:07:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:13:02 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What do you all think about the concept of having an unified currency for all of North/Central America [the 3 key member nations being Canada, The USA, and Mexico but there is the potential that some Caribbean nations and some countries south of Mexico may adopt this exact same system]?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Horrific, horrific idea.

It was bad enough when latin america countries tried pegging themselves to the dollar.

Consider a scenario where the Mexican economy goes downhill and the American economy starts getting better. The currency would become stronger even in areas where an appropriate policy response would suggest the opposite approach.

We'd enter a similar situation with the Euro and Germany/Britian/France versus the PIIGS.

Que? Care to elaborate further?

Well, to take a somewhat current example, you have certain latin american countries right now that peg their currency to the dollar (if the dollar rises in value, their currency has to rise the same amount). If their economy goes down the shitter, but the dollar starts to appreciate, the latin american country is doubly screwed. The usual answer has been getting off the peg or massive capital flows.

However, if a south american country and the US had the same currency, there is no way for the south american country to escape the consequences of the Amero appreciating while their local economy collapses.

Basically, you tie the hands of any government that wants to use monetary policy to try and influence their economy. The gains you receive are outweighed by the almost complete loss of economic autonomy.

The PIIGS (portugal, italy, ireland, greece, spain) are countries that are part of the euro but are in a huge amount of debt. Ordinarily, they could try manipulating interest rates or printing currency, but under Euro rules the PIIGS aren't allowed to go outside a certain range of interest rates. That means the PIIGS have to depend more on outside influx of capital from Euro countries (like the Greece situation), but the non-PIIGS want to make sure the PIIGS get their economy back into step with the Euro. That means that during a recession, the non-PIIGS institute austerity policies on the PIIGS, and you get the kind of revolts you see today.

If every country in the euro are going in the same general economic direction, the euro works fine. If the countries' economies start to diverge, the Euro becomes a problem.

With that in mind, consider the Amero would put American and Canada in with Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, etc.

That said, some south american countries have and do survive while holding a peg to the dollar. I believe Argentina did a good job at that. Still, that was pretty circumstantial. A majority of smaller countries that tried to keep a peg for too long had to jump ship.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 2:35:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Here is a paper explaining what happened to Mexico when they tried pegging to our currency while their economy diverged from ours. It lead to the 1994 Peso Collapse.

http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 2:33:41 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 2:18:49 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 1:07:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:13:02 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What do you all think about the concept of having an unified currency for all of North/Central America [the 3 key member nations being Canada, The USA, and Mexico but there is the potential that some Caribbean nations and some countries south of Mexico may adopt this exact same system]?

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Horrific, horrific idea.

It was bad enough when latin america countries tried pegging themselves to the dollar.

Consider a scenario where the Mexican economy goes downhill and the American economy starts getting better. The currency would become stronger even in areas where an appropriate policy response would suggest the opposite approach.

We'd enter a similar situation with the Euro and Germany/Britian/France versus the PIIGS.

Que? Care to elaborate further?

Well, to take a somewhat current example, you have certain latin american countries right now that peg their currency to the dollar (if the dollar rises in value, their currency has to rise the same amount). If their economy goes down the shitter, but the dollar starts to appreciate, the latin american country is doubly screwed. The usual answer has been getting off the peg or massive capital flows.

However, if a south american country and the US had the same currency, there is no way for the south american country to escape the consequences of the Amero appreciating while their local economy collapses.

Basically, you tie the hands of any government that wants to use monetary policy to try and influence their economy. The gains you receive are outweighed by the almost complete loss of economic autonomy.

The PIIGS (portugal, italy, ireland, greece, spain) are countries that are part of the euro but are in a huge amount of debt. Ordinarily, they could try manipulating interest rates or printing currency, but under Euro rules the PIIGS aren't allowed to go outside a certain range of interest rates. That means the PIIGS have to depend more on outside influx of capital from Euro countries (like the Greece situation), but the non-PIIGS want to make sure the PIIGS get their economy back into step with the Euro. That means that during a recession, the non-PIIGS institute austerity policies on the PIIGS, and you get the kind of revolts you see today.

If every country in the euro are going in the same general economic direction, the euro works fine. If the countries' economies start to diverge, the Euro becomes a problem.

With that in mind, consider the Amero would put American and Canada in with Mexico, Colombia, Nicaragua, etc.

That said, some south american countries have and do survive while holding a peg to the dollar. I believe Argentina did a good job at that. Still, that was pretty circumstantial. A majority of smaller countries that tried to keep a peg for too long had to jump ship.

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 3:42:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://oldfraser.lexi.net... + Bump
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 3:54:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just look at the problems the Euro has caused in Europe. What we need is more currencies not less. With all currencies tied together, our economy sill suffer just because someone else's is.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 4:15:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.

This is why I said they should be allowed to keep their own national currencies, this currency is simply to be used help streamline trade between the nations as well as allow people to move between borders with much more ease and trade rather than always having to convert the money if they wish to go across an border.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 4:22:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 4:15:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.

This is why I said they should be allowed to keep their own national currencies, this currency is simply to be used help streamline trade between the nations as well as allow people to move between borders with much more ease and trade rather than always having to convert the money if they wish to go across an border.

How would the exchange rate be determined? If its the same as the euro, you've run into the peg problem (more specifically "floating peg" but that's semantics).
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 4:30:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 3:54:01 PM, BennyW wrote:
Just look at the problems the Euro has caused in Europe. What we need is more currencies not less. With all currencies tied together, our economy sill suffer just because someone else's is.

Did you read my second post, I stated this should be used beside native currencies to help streamline trade and also allow people to visit other countries more freely without having to constantly convert currency everywhere they go. Also you can already create your own currency in the US if you so wish as long as you check it out with your local government laws, make sure government is able to take taxes off of it, and follow federal laws about it [such laws include not making any form of currency that looks remotely like US tender], the main reason you do not see all too many of these currencies is the fact that most people and companies would refuse to accept them [but you could probably convince an few businessmen to accept your currency, Ithaca Hours has been quite an success]. Also if you planned on using gold then I would advise against it considering how little gold we have and the amount of gold we have could not cover all expenses/transactions done in the US and would severely limit economic growth, copper, iron, and aluminum are far better bets for an stable currency standard.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2011 4:35:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 4:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:15:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.

This is why I said they should be allowed to keep their own national currencies, this currency is simply to be used help streamline trade between the nations as well as allow people to move between borders with much more ease and trade rather than always having to convert the money if they wish to go across an border.

How would the exchange rate be determined? If its the same as the euro, you've run into the peg problem (more specifically "floating peg" but that's semantics).

I will leave this process to the politicians, I would personally want to see this being backed in an certain amount of oil, copper, and other precious materials that was donated by each nation, but they may decide to make it fiat which is highly likely but far less preferable in my personal opinion.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 4:37:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 10:13:02 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What do you all think about the concept of having an unified currency for all of North/Central America [the 3 key member nations being Canada, The USA, and Mexico but there is the potential that some Caribbean nations and some countries south of Mexico may adopt this exact same system]?:

Terrible idea that only benefits the dirt poor countries of the America's who will devalue the currency just like they have with their own.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 7:45:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/31/2011 4:35:25 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:15:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.

This is why I said they should be allowed to keep their own national currencies, this currency is simply to be used help streamline trade between the nations as well as allow people to move between borders with much more ease and trade rather than always having to convert the money if they wish to go across an border.

How would the exchange rate be determined? If its the same as the euro, you've run into the peg problem (more specifically "floating peg" but that's semantics).

I will leave this process to the politicians, I would personally want to see this being backed in an certain amount of oil, copper, and other precious materials that was donated by each nation, but they may decide to make it fiat which is highly likely but far less preferable in my personal opinion.

Backing a currency isn't the same as peggin the exchange rate.

Here's the question: if I start turning as many dollars as I want into Ameros, will the rate of exchange between dollars and Ameros change? If you can answer that I can be more specific with the issues.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:34:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 7:45:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:35:25 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:15:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.

This is why I said they should be allowed to keep their own national currencies, this currency is simply to be used help streamline trade between the nations as well as allow people to move between borders with much more ease and trade rather than always having to convert the money if they wish to go across an border.

How would the exchange rate be determined? If its the same as the euro, you've run into the peg problem (more specifically "floating peg" but that's semantics).

I will leave this process to the politicians, I would personally want to see this being backed in an certain amount of oil, copper, and other precious materials that was donated by each nation, but they may decide to make it fiat which is highly likely but far less preferable in my personal opinion.

Backing a currency isn't the same as peggin the exchange rate.

Here's the question: if I start turning as many dollars as I want into Ameros, will the rate of exchange between dollars and Ameros change? If you can answer that I can be more specific with the issues.

As I have already mentioned, I shall leave the exchange rates to the politicians and economists, this is completely up to them.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 10:36:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 4:37:15 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/31/2011 10:13:02 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
What do you all think about the concept of having an unified currency for all of North/Central America [the 3 key member nations being Canada, The USA, and Mexico but there is the potential that some Caribbean nations and some countries south of Mexico may adopt this exact same system]?:

Terrible idea that only benefits the dirt poor countries of the America's who will devalue the currency just like they have with their own.

This is why in later posts I have mentioned that member nations should be allowed to keep their own currencies, this currency will only be used to help streamline trade and migration between the nations.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 11:13:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 10:34:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/1/2011 7:45:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:35:25 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:15:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.

This is why I said they should be allowed to keep their own national currencies, this currency is simply to be used help streamline trade between the nations as well as allow people to move between borders with much more ease and trade rather than always having to convert the money if they wish to go across an border.

How would the exchange rate be determined? If its the same as the euro, you've run into the peg problem (more specifically "floating peg" but that's semantics).

I will leave this process to the politicians, I would personally want to see this being backed in an certain amount of oil, copper, and other precious materials that was donated by each nation, but they may decide to make it fiat which is highly likely but far less preferable in my personal opinion.

Backing a currency isn't the same as peggin the exchange rate.

Here's the question: if I start turning as many dollars as I want into Ameros, will the rate of exchange between dollars and Ameros change? If you can answer that I can be more specific with the issues.

As I have already mentioned, I shall leave the exchange rates to the politicians and economists, this is completely up to them.

Fair enough. Ignoring the floating peg, there would be two options:

1. Turning dollars into Ameros will change the exchange rate between the two currencies.
2. Turning dollars into Ameros will not change the exchange rate.

If your choice is 2, and the peso and loonie (what a name) also act like the dollar, you've created a scenario similar to the EU and subject to the problems above.

If your choice is 1, then really all you've done is add another currency to the currency exchange. In order to "streamline" anything, dollars and pesos etc would have to be turned into Ameros. Unless you precisely control the amount of currencies turning into Ameros at any one time (known as capital control), the Amero will become as much of a liability as any other currency. Worse, in fact, since there would be no central back backing the Amero.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2011 11:49:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/1/2011 11:13:57 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/1/2011 10:34:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/1/2011 7:45:56 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:35:25 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:22:17 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:15:28 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/31/2011 4:11:04 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/31/2011 3:20:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Have you considered that during many times in US history we have seen areas of completely different economic levels yet an national currency still managed to be maintained for use? What I propose is that an union between these several nations creates an standard currency that may be used anywhere alongside the native currencies of that region [similar to how many of the resorts and shops in 3rd world countries are willing to accept my USD alongside the currency of the nation or how it is on the borders between many nations that allow free movement across the border], the free trade agreements that are likely to be expected from such an union would probably begin to bring the 3rd world entering nations up to par with the development of the USA and Canada. Deviance from our current level of economy is possible and even to be expected but the fact they are also allowed to maintain their native currency would mean that they could use their own in case the unified standard doesn't suit them well enough.

First off, the link you sent doesn't address the problem I am mainly concerned with. This is specifically because the policy paper is aimed towards bettering Canadian currency against others.

We've seen lots of countries use currency effectively BECAUSE they had autonomy in their decisions. Currency decisions were linked to what was best for that nation.

As the paper I linked to explains,an inability to devalue a currency can be devastating.

You have to understand that this "little deviances" in growth from economy to economy has huge consequences when you cannot use your own monetary policy to address it.

This isn't an hypothetical. Mexico is one of many, many examples of crashes. And if a country or two decides to jump out of the union, you're going to get something along the lines of the 1997 Asia crash. There were many other causes to it, but the trigger was Thailand jumped out of their "union." http://en.wikipedia.org...

What you are suggesting is not much different from adding another pegged currency. The benefits are minimal and damages are extreme.

This is why I said they should be allowed to keep their own national currencies, this currency is simply to be used help streamline trade between the nations as well as allow people to move between borders with much more ease and trade rather than always having to convert the money if they wish to go across an border.

How would the exchange rate be determined? If its the same as the euro, you've run into the peg problem (more specifically "floating peg" but that's semantics).

I will leave this process to the politicians, I would personally want to see this being backed in an certain amount of oil, copper, and other precious materials that was donated by each nation, but they may decide to make it fiat which is highly likely but far less preferable in my personal opinion.

Backing a currency isn't the same as peggin the exchange rate.

Here's the question: if I start turning as many dollars as I want into Ameros, will the rate of exchange between dollars and Ameros change? If you can answer that I can be more specific with the issues.

As I have already mentioned, I shall leave the exchange rates to the politicians and economists, this is completely up to them.

Fair enough. Ignoring the floating peg, there would be two options:

1. Turning dollars into Ameros will change the exchange rate between the two currencies.
2. Turning dollars into Ameros will not change the exchange rate.

If your choice is 2, and the peso and loonie (what a name) also act like the dollar, you've created a scenario similar to the EU and subject to the problems above.

If your choice is 1, then really all you've done is add another currency to the currency exchange. In order to "streamline" anything, dollars and pesos etc would have to be turned into Ameros. Unless you precisely control the amount of currencies turning into Ameros at any one time (known as capital control), the Amero will become as much of a liability as any other currency. Worse, in fact, since there would be no central back backing the Amero.

It would be adding another currency that would essentially allow people to carry an currency across borders and not have to exchange it to receive general acceptance, it would probably end up being fiat and hence be measured by debt and trade but hopefully they might decide to make it an multiple commodity backed currency.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.