North American Union

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Tom Coburn is known for his candor, to the point where he won't kiss up to people even in his own district. So I was pleased to hear his straightforward comments regarding the "North American Union"

...Coburn was also asked about growing concerns that secretive deals have been made to build a NAFTA Superhighway, which would go right through Oklahoma County, and the potential creation of a North American Union.

“There’s been more Internet traffic on that falsehood,” Coburn said. “It’s something based on fear rather than actual fact.” ("Coburn frank on fiscal issues", The Sunday Sun June 01, 2008)
Full story here:
People who fancy themselves "enemies" of the NWO can somehow get secretive information that even people in the NWO government can't get. That leads me to conclude that conspiracy believers have a complex network of spies planted in key positions, who monitor the secret agenda and then disseminate the details to their friends with websites, right?

Seriously though, a greater degree of international cooperation across a few widely divergent sectors or policy issues is not an indication of a union. And you can't say "open your eyes, the evidence IS happening!" No. The political and financial changes necessary for a monetary union simply aren't happening.

What is going on in the US economy is not "evidence" of a three country union but rather the chaos created by multiple interests working against each other, but still having an effect on each other (energy, currency valuation, exports, imports, corrupt financial practices, and the military industrial complex).

The North American Union is believed by people whose everyday lives don't deal with international finance, NAFTA, and the European Union. They see a few examples of international cooperation and assume there are connections where there really are none.

Hardcore NAU believers always talk about NAFTA and the EU as proof. I am pretty familiar with both- more so I dare say than NAU believers. First, NAFTA is nothing like the European monetary union. A monetary union wouldn't really be a next logical step because NAFTA isn't close enough to being a monetary union. There would have to be dozens of "next logical steps" over the course of decades to get from NAFTA to a monetary union. There is no customs union, to name one.

In fact, there are things in NAFTA that would make a North American Union (NAU) extremely difficult if not impossible, such as the side deal on import surges, management of petrochemicals, etc. NAFTA would have to be re-written or done away with altogether in order for there to be a monetary union.

Second, you don't just start printing a new kind of money and make everyone use it. In Europe the currency union was a massive undertaking that required years of coordination among banks and legislatures and was carried in the news daily. Textbooks were written on it. Exactly where does this effort show up in our Congressional Record?

The implementation of an international plan would have recognizable and specific effects in immigration, public spending, and financial markets that no conspiracy could hide. If there is going to be a union, then Mexico and Canada would have to subsume our public debt. Union would also mean an alignment of interest rates among all three countries. Now if there is a NAU conspiracy to make this happen without our knowledge, the the burden of bringing their interest rates into alignment would be totally theirs. This would throw their labor markets into chaos like it did in Europe. Getting the governments and banks of Canada and Mexico to share U.S. public debt- and make the macro-economic sacrifices to do it secretly- would be more difficult than establishing a colony on Venus.

It would not be in Canada's interests to unify currencies when the US dollar has been declining in value for the past two years. The Canadians certainly don't want our banks steering their financial boat after the recent mortgage fiasco. And it would not be in Mexican industry's interests when they've brought several trade complaints against us to the WTO.

The real issue is that Canada and Mexico simply don't want a union. Canadians don't want to be a part of our unwieldy economy and Mexico doesn't want our business laws, financial transparency laws, or our environmental standards. There are too many people who make too much money outside of the law in Mexico. That's not a value judgment, that's just how some business is conducted in their culture. So whose corporate laws will prevail after a union? Mexico wouldn't function with our transparency standards, which would be absolutely vital for merely aligning exchange rates, not to mention a union. Our businesses don't want their business environment, and their businesses don't want ours.

Here is the saddest part, the people that DO believe in it and who write online should be able to present a reasoned and respectable debate with those who make policy and demonstrate point by point why non-believers are wrong, and why non-believers are misinterpreting the facts. But how do they debate? How do they address non-believers? It usually goes something like

"You don''t believe in the conspiracy because you are stupid."

If you google NAU, you'll see the word "stupid" used more often than at grade school recess. Why? Because ad hominem is the best they can do. So if you believe in an immanent NAU, you are exempt from common respect and civility.

One thing we can agree on is that the loss of civility and common courtesy is undermining our social fabric. It is ironic that people who are "in the know" and claim to be better Americans than the rest of us, are fully participating in a trend that erodes the greatness of our nation.

So those who deal with international trade issues on a daily basis are somehow blinded to an international conspiracy... but random bloggers with no experience in international matters and journalists with little knowledge of macro-economics somehow know the real story? No. I don't think so.

See also:



There is no good reason for a monetary union and no one with influence wants it. People argue it exists because they have invested so much time believing in it in the first place.


Post a Comment

I teach them all the good I can, and recommend them to others from whom I think they will get some moral benefit. And the treasures that the wise men of old have left us in their writings I open and explore with my friends. If we come on any good thing, we extract it, and we set much store on being useful to one another. - Socrates, Memorabilia
What we maintain is that in none of the problems of life can men afford to lose sight of the storehouse bequeathed to them by the ancients. In the complexus of everything which differentiates man from the brute creation, the voice of antiquity must be heard...

-H. Browne, quoted in "Classics and Citizenship" The Classical Quarterly, 1920