Merging the Canadian Dollar, American Dollar and the Mexican Peso

[Cops]

I wouldn't want a world currency with the type of technology that exists today, the corruption and fake money that would exist would be overwhelming, you'd have countries skirmishing constantly. Some regions of the world are not stable enough to adopt a universal currency, it's one of those good intentions gone wrong kind of things.

[Vykromond]

These ideas are not good!!!

[Money]

IT would make Mexico a rich ass country

[Cops]

IT would make Mexico a rich ass country

Basically, but if all it would do is stimulate the American economy short-term and pull Mexico out of it's slum than most people, Canadian and American would not go for this idea.

[Jerome Scuggs]

wait so let me get this straight

replacing three pieces of paper with one piece of paper will make the paper worth more?

replacing the paper will do away with nafta?

replacing the paper will stop runaway inflation?

replacing the paper will create jobs?

otherwise i'm having a hard time seeing how this would in any way be a good deal, at all. if mexico uses a new dollar, so what, america is still protectionist as hell and noone is is going to want to invest in mexico no matter how shiny their new currency is.

[Cops]

A united currency such as the Euro is stronger than certain individual countries, that said it wouldn't be applicable in North America, the Euro is to simplify currency considering there's tons of small countries closely joined to one another. Look at the size of Canada or even America combined with Mexico, it's humongous. I started this thread knowing a little bit about the issue and giving my opinion but also asking questions to understand the different view points.

NAFTA is one of the reasons why this would never work, I think most people agree that for this to work we would have to live in a very different world.

Replacing three papers or possibly two (most people would say it's safer to link Canadian and American currency together than Mexico's) will make them worth more, it would help the American economy in the short term but since you love the long term, it probably would have disastrous affects and isn't worth doing. Canada or America would definitely have to be in a rough shape to ever consider linking their currencies together.

[Squeezer]

NAFTA has killed the U.S. Manufacturing Industry. It has not been a benefit at all except for the corp. owners that move the manufacturing facilities to Canada or Mexico and keep there Offices of operation in the States. Subsidized freight alone that only benefits Canadian and Mexican freight coming into the U.S. has been a big problem. It costs less for a dedicated truck to ship from Vancouver to Miami than it does for me to ship the same truck from Philadelphia to Miami...Nice that the U.S. subsidizes the freight for them and screws over their own manufacturers.

This is how China next year is getting around the tarrif's to import to the U.S. The U.S. put a tax on goods shipped directly from China to the U.S. that are extremely high in re. to the new Chinese Auto's to be introduced next year. The loophole was that China will now deliver as well as open factories in Mexico and use NAFTA to import to the U.S. from Mexico.

NAFTA is one big f'd up deal that screws the U.S. Idustrial workplace. Thank's to Bill Dixie Crap Clinton signing it into law.

Don't believe me, just ask anyone from the UAW how it has impacted their union members.

NAFTA does not benefit the average American Industrial worker.

It does however put more money in the pockets of large business owners.

Corporate high ups tend to "help" decide legislation in this country.

As such, NAFTA makes the rich more rich and screws over the poor Mexicans.

I don't like NAFTA either 404, but it will remain because it works perfectly for CEOs looking only to turn a profit.

[AcidBomber]

What? No.

But I want all the pennies to be destroyed, they're annoying. <_<

[Material Girl]

Did you guys hear about that Mexican businessman, Carlos Slim, that has surpassed Bill Gates in riches?

[Cops]

No, but that's really impressive. Who is he?

[Material Girl]

Some lucky guy... his father started the company but he really diversified their holdings... banks, construction, mobile phones, etc.

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

[Eric is God]

NAFTA does not benefit the average American Industrial worker.

It does however put more money in the pockets of large business owners.

Corporate high ups tend to "help" decide legislation in this country.

As such, NAFTA makes the rich more rich and screws over the poor Mexicans.

I don't like NAFTA either 404, but it will remain because it works perfectly for CEOs looking only to turn a profit.

It benefits the average American worker by lowering the production costs of many goods, which ultimately decreases the price. Do thousands of American manufacturing workers lose their jobs? Of course, because their salaries were too high in the first place. The whole point is to ensure that countries with a relative advantage in something (like costs of production for Mexico) specialize in those jobs. Every country in the world could decide to close it borders and produce from within. The result would be much higher prices, less focus on education as the developed nations would need a lot of unskilled labourers, much less technological progress and reduced quality of life overall. People can either accept capitalism for it's positives and negatives or they can try another economic regime. America's problem is it's under developed social net. Spend money on supporting and retraining people who lose their jobs and the impact isn't as rough.

I'm fairly certain the average Mexican wage has increased a whole lot because of NAFTA. They still aren't making $40k a year, but it's a lot better than it used to be. CEO's aren't the source of all evil... they base their decisions on profits because their investors (largely made up of average Americans) demand it. Would it be better for companies to keep their manufacturing costs high, causing their prices to be high, causing their sales and growth to be low, causing layoffs in the end anyways?

[Jerome Scuggs]

People can either accept capitalism for it's positives and negatives or they can try another economic regime.

right and wrong... NAFTA isn't capitalism, it's an economic regime.

A real "North American Free Trade Agreement" would have been an agreement between our three countries to abolish tariffs, taxes, quotas, and other protectionist measures.

As much as I have faith in our leaders that they know what they're doing, it's be pretty nice to let businesses choose where they produce, and let consumers decide how much they want to pay for goods.

I think these sort of free trade agreements are very mercantilist and very protectionist/isolationist. Yes, America, Mexico and Canada are now forced into a collective economic pool, and therefore we are not 'protectionist', but zoom out and you'll see that these sort of free trade agreements have not 'opened' our countries up, but merely created four new economic blocs - North America, Asia, Europe, and Russia/post-USSR countries.

And then of course you have the political aspect of NAFTA - a 1,200 page document dictating who can sell what to whom. Many political agendas have been buried into the document. For instance, regulations have had a sharp impact on the amount of money being invested into Alaska and New Hampshire, and alot of small businesses are hurt each year thanks to increased costs in labor and legal fees - small businesses have literally gone out of business because they couldn't afford the lawyer necessary to sift through the legal red tape.

This is where Canada, for once, didn't drop the ball on this sort of thing - they actually refused to agree to the provisions of the "Commission on Economic Cooperation", whose secretariat can pass policy and regulation on even the North American governments.

I do not think we should attempt to help Mexico when our own economy is sliding... but now, I'm sure there are millions of people to the north and south of America whose lives depend on NAFTA, and so now to disengage and attempt to rebuild our economy first would wind up hurting and probably killing alot of people.

NAFTA is a free trade agreement, but it benefits everyone except who really benefits from free trade. It benefits politicians who now weild wider economic and, therefore, political powers. It benefits big businesses who have special priveledge, and it benefits the international banks who can find more territories to conquer and indebt.

The people who need the benefit of free trade most - small businesses and local firms - are the ones impacted negatively by NAFTA the most. In return we also get an international, mercantilist trading bloc. Nice.

It's been over ten years since NAFTA was initially created. Why isn't Mexico a thriving economic power? Ten years would have given the actual markets plenty of time to revamp the nation.

[Eric is God]

right and wrong... NAFTA isn't capitalism, it's an economic regime.

A real "North American Free Trade Agreement" would have been an agreement between our three countries to abolish tariffs, taxes, quotas, and other protectionist measures.

As much as I have faith in our leaders that they know what they're doing, it's be pretty nice to let businesses choose where they produce, and let consumers decide how much they want to pay for goods.

I think these sort of free trade agreements are very mercantilist and very protectionist/isolationist. Yes, America, Mexico and Canada are now forced into a collective economic pool, and therefore we are not 'protectionist', but zoom out and you'll see that these sort of free trade agreements have not 'opened' our countries up, but merely created four new economic blocs - North America, Asia, Europe, and Russia/post-USSR countries.

And then of course you have the political aspect of NAFTA - a 1,200 page document dictating who can sell what to whom. Many political agendas have been buried into the document. For instance, regulations have had a sharp impact on the amount of money being invested into Alaska and New Hampshire, and alot of small businesses are hurt each year thanks to increased costs in labor and legal fees - small businesses have literally gone out of business because they couldn't afford the lawyer necessary to sift through the legal red tape.

This is where Canada, for once, didn't drop the ball on this sort of thing - they actually refused to agree to the provisions of the "Commission on Economic Cooperation", whose secretariat can pass policy and regulation on even the North American governments.

I do not think we should attempt to help Mexico when our own economy is sliding... but now, I'm sure there are millions of people to the north and south of America whose lives depend on NAFTA, and so now to disengage and attempt to rebuild our economy first would wind up hurting and probably killing alot of people.

NAFTA is a free trade agreement, but it benefits everyone except who really benefits from free trade. It benefits politicians who now weild wider economic and, therefore, political powers. It benefits big businesses who have special priveledge, and it benefits the international banks who can find more territories to conquer and indebt.

The people who need the benefit of free trade most - small businesses and local firms - are the ones impacted negatively by NAFTA the most. In return we also get an international, mercantilist trading bloc. Nice.

It's been over ten years since NAFTA was initially created. Why isn't Mexico a thriving economic power? Ten years would have given the actual markets plenty of time to revamp the nation.

I definetely agree that NAFTA is far from perfect, but I believe it's impact has been largely beneficial. Free trade is something that works best when applied gradually; 10 years is a very short time. I might be missing something but I don't understand why free trade would ever be of great benefit to small businesses. Allowing for free exchange of capital between countries should be benefical to businesses that would like to move one or all stages of their production process to another country. What percentage of small businesses operate outside their state let alone country? There are going to be transition pains anytime you make a sweeping change like NAFTA, but as long as the new equilibrium is above the old one I'd say it's worth it.

[Squeezer]

I definetely agree that NAFTA is far from perfect, but I believe it's impact has been largely beneficial. Free trade is something that works best when applied gradually; 10 years is a very short time. I might be missing something but I don't understand why free trade would ever be of great benefit to small businesses. Allowing for free exchange of capital between countries should be benefical to businesses that would like to move one or all stages of their production process to another country. What percentage of small businesses operate outside their state let alone country? There are going to be transition pains anytime you make a sweeping change like NAFTA, but as long as the new equilibrium is above the old one I'd say it's worth it.

Tell that to the Mexican making $.40 an hour so that "CEO of random fortune 500 company" can make almost 100 times more than the American that works for them, never mind the egregious gap between the wages being made by those actually manufacturing the goods. I mean christ, they struggle to make a living wage by their standards (less than a dollar an hour is not a sizable living wage...Even in Mexico.)

I get where you're coming from and have heard the positives of NAFTA first hand. I agree it's a good idea, but at the same time it's not hard to see who's really benefiting from the agreement, and who isn't.