North American Union

Recently me and a friend were discussing the EU he said that it was great and only had his praise. It was to my surprise that when I asked him about the NAU he disapproved he said that he didn’t think it would beneficial to the U.S only to Mexico and Canada. I disagreed and posed my argument saying it would help a lot but still I got only resistance.

A little Info

I said that The NAU would make the U.S economy not only better in the short term but also more stable in the long term having 3 powerful countries backing the new currency the “Amero” (laugh) it should in theory easily pass up the Euro in the global market. Another point if one of the three has economic problems the other two will support them and keep their economy strong.

Not only in economics but in political stability would also be established. The problem with the Mexican border would be solved, open borders not exactly the way the people want it resolved but with a better economy in all three countries including Mexico would make it less desirable to switch. Our combination of politics would also help get a much better understanding of each other and I feel we would become better friends. Not only that but our world political power would also rise with three nations working together on most issues.

Along with an even more terrifying military having the U.S being the most powerful military on the planet would be able to cut down our spending on the military and even size it down due to the increase in size of the newly combined force.

Well tell me what you think of the NAU, and if you think it should or shouldn’t be created and why? Oh also if you’re a member of the 3 please post your country I’d love to hear from people in Mexico and Canada.

I'm very anti-union when it comes to the global scale. I believe it will only cause problems down the future with disagreements on how matters should be handled and executed. The United Nations should disappear nevertheless any idea of this. XD

I don't think it would work because Mexico and America/Canada are too different. Mexio just isn't compatible with America and Canada. There's a reason a ton of people flee Mexico to come to America, and it's not to escape the heat.

Also, a true North American Union wouldn't be just Mexico, America, and Canada. There are 25 countries in the entire North American continent, and not all of them are doing well. In fact, some of them aren't on good terms with America at all, like Cuba. I doubt the US and Cuba could join in any sort of union any time soon.

you also dont literally have to have all the North American countries join to have a North American union, it's simply a name... As far as an economic union between the United States, Canada and Mexico... not sure about how easily it would be but I could see it working, Mexico would have to vastly improve their current economy but as the Canadian and American economy is currently sliding it's not totally out of the realm of possibilities... I believe the one true deterrent is the American state of mind, would the United States really take an equal portion of responsibility or would there be some attempt to run the show as they so often do? Let's be honest, the United States doesn't see itself on par with any other nation in the world... and has a problem playing nicely with others.

Yeah, it's just a name, but I always hate when people act like North America is just the big three. And a real problem is that if only Mexico was part of the union, and no other Latin American countries, then the immigration problem wouldn't be solved, since a lot of immigrants come from countries that aren't Mexico. In fact, I don't think I've ever met an illegal immigrant that actually lived in Mexico before jumping the border. Anyways, a union between America, Mexico, and Canada wouldn't help at all with that problem, and it'd only piss Americans off. A lot of Americans are already pissed that the government is doing virtually nothing to get this illegal immigrants out of the country; if we invited them in with open arms, there would probably be riots.

Moving on, you're completely right that the US doesn't see itself on the same level as any other country. Fuck, we call ourselves the "best country in the world" so many fucking times, it's no surprise that other countries hate us. And even if all the politics are settled reasonably, the citizens probably wouldn't go out, not any time soon, at least. There's a lot of patriotism in America, and not only that, we tend to look down on Mexico and Canada. Most Americans would probably think that a union of the three was just for their benefit, us protecting them in case war breaks out. That would undoubtedly cause major tension between the citizens of the three countries, and the union would end up doing more damage than good.

Perhaps I'm pessimistic though. But the more I think about, the more I think that Americans wouldn't let such a union occur.

well I don't think we're talking about the same thing, it seems you're talking about some sort of merger with the three countries, that would involve some sort of open door policy with your boarders... I think the union would be specifically created for the economy and perhaps trade facilitation between the three countries. We would most like adopt some new form of currency that sits between the American dollar and Mexican peso (another reason this will never happen, America would never allow their currency to devalue that much). As far as military protection, you basically already provide that if you think about it. Mexico does have a fairly large standing army (though fairly poorly equipped) while Canada has a well equipped fighting force (of 100 lumberjacks). But in all honesty do you really believe America would sit idly by while either country is invaded, we're far too close to American boarder for that to ever happen. It would be a threat to their national security and we all know how much Americans love national security.

To be perfectly honest the fair trade and military protection system we have now benefits all three countries more that any union could possibly help. The only real possible outcome that would not fuck everyone over in the long run is if Canada and Mexico joined the United States but we know that will never happen.

What seems to be far more likely is the collapse of the current United States, though probably not anytime soon. It will most likely be after some form of war over economic issues, probably involving some Asian countries (probably China) against forces of the EU and United States combined. It will most likely begin by some action the Asian countries do, perhaps invade a smaller less able country in their region which will escalate as Kuwait did, although with a much stronger foe this time. Will nuclear disaster be a possibility? sure, do I think it's likely? no.

These are all predictions but I believe many of them are based on fairly logical opinions.

Whoever praises the EU clearly is clueless. Seriously, if your NAU is going to be anything like the EU, prepare for decades of hilariously decapabilitating bullshit.

The analogy, however, isn't so far from the truth, because a union of the U.S. with Mex "failed state" ico would be quite akin to the EU's inclusion of Rom "failed state" ania, and so on.



How it's worked in the EU so far: if one has problems, he drags all the others down with him.



How it's worked in the EU so far: An ever-increasing brain drain of capable people from the poor (CEE) states to the economically capable ones.
All labour that requires no absolutely outstanding expertise being moved to low-wage, low-proficiency nations, facilitated by open borders and EU trade agreements.
A downwards levelling spiral in standards - standards always find the LOWEST common denominator, not the highest. Thus, the standards of nations such as France or Germany are slowly being slashed to meet those of Poland, Albania, Romania and so on.



How it's worked so far in the EU: Everyone panicking about their national identity; all member nations frantically trying to con each other out of little subsidies; politicians using the EU to force through decisions that would be unpopular at home.



You already have the largest military force in the world, and spending cuts have been called for for decades. The political will simply isn't there, and no NAU in the world will make it happen.



I don't really buy this. the mutual economic stakes EU/USA and China have in each other are simply too high for war to happen. I'm no fan of China, but realistically speaking, they're not the baby-devouring slit-eyed devils they're made out to be. They're not just gonna up and hurl nukes at the U.S., or encroach on designated U.S. colonial territory. China is an important factor in keeping the U.S.', and thus by extension the EU's economy alive. Why would these three forces go to war with each other? The only possible, valid reason is control of resources, and all parties involved have long since found out that (direct) armed between major players conflict is an idiotic, because costly approach to that.

Did you bother to read any more of my point? Do you realize that China currently holds close to 75% of the American national debt? a figure somewhere in the trillions of dollars? Do you really think China relies on the United States that much? No my friend... China does not need the United States. You are correct when you say the EU and the USA both are primarily dependent on China for a vast majority of their products, all the more reason a conflict is possible. After the point you focused on I mentioned one of the reasons being a possible Chinese invasion of a much smaller weak nation in their region (hello Tibet?) as a possible start point of a future conflict. The last time I checked the United States was pulled out of the great depressions by a world war, when many superpowers engaged in direct armed conflict... I'm not saying that's good reasoning to start a war simply implying your statement about it being costly is false. Look, these super powers will go to war if there is enough to be gained by it... no matter how "idiotic" you believe it is... The planet will run low on resources and someone somewhere will take whats not theirs and to be perfectly honest China has shown in the past that they are willing to invade if the government believes they will benefit, i'm not pulling this out of my ass.

Instead of looking at it like this we could go with what EU did. Make sure the countries joining have met a standard that is acceptable to be a member. Might as well since we're trying to copy their system and all and it would probably work best.

But yeah, ultimately I think it'll fail. It's not the problem of "America won't want to join 'cause they think they're so powerful." it's more "Will the other countries want to join the union with America?"

As Waar mentioned, a huge part of our debt is owned by China, and if they decide to cash in on it, our currency goes to hell and no amount of a union will be able to pull everyone out of it.

Only solution? Let China join the union, lol (though I don't think this would mull over with any political advisors in any country in the NA continent besides Cuba)

I'm perfectly aware of that. The "problem", as it were, is that the economic relationship between China and the U.S. is cyclical. The U.S. buy chinese products in large volume; the Chinese are thus enabled to reinvest that money in the U.S. (dollar bonds, etc.). This in turn sustains U.S. import customer goods consumption. That is why, in economic theory, the U.S. are sometimes referred to as "the black hole of the global economy": The U.S. keep the money flowing by voraciously consuming foreign products. Once the U.S. no longer fill that role, the Chinese economy, which at its current monstrous size cannot be sustained by domestic consumption alone, will collapse as well. Not to speak of the fact that the enormous growth rates of the Chinese economy (which in the past brought it dangerously close to overheating) are the only thing preventing wide-spread social unrest in China: The masses of unskilled labourers that make for the cheap production capability depend heavily on the current growth rate for survival, and as we have already seen in the past months, any decline in growth yields widespread results. China can simply not afford it either to break with the U.S.
I therefore disagree with the notion that China do not need the U.S./EU. They very much need them in fact, because otherwise no-one will buy their products in like volume.


Hmm? The Great Depression, according to literary consensus, reached turnover as early as 1933, and the recession of 1937 in mid-1938.
The so-called "war boom" is a fickle issue, because war-time economies look auspicious on the surface (employment rates), but really aren't all that beneficial (the prime example would be WW2-Germany) in terms of sustained growth, because they're of course very homogenous and often strongly regulated.


Oh, I very much believe that every side is willing to invade if the stakes are high enough. I just think that the current strategy ("pearl chain") shows that for the foreseeable future, the large powers are content with conflict by proxy.




Just make sure you actually apply these standards, unlike the EU, though. That way it might even work out for you, unlike for the EU, which kept diluting standards for the sake of adding members, even if they were decidedly economically unfit to join. Not to speak of the other criteria.
In practice that means, that the NAU would consist of the U.S. and Canada for the time being.

bleh your reply is slightly long and i don't feel like really delving into it but i would like to say that you're missing my point about national debt... A good way to avoid paying at debt is to destroy the debtor, correct? What if America refused to pay (due to inability to pay)... Two very plausible outcomes to this economic crisis. I did mentioned I was speaking in terms of year/hundreds of years from now... I simply see the United States going the way of the Roman Empire, nothing lasts forever no?

^.~
Anyways, I don't think I'm missing your point. However I don't think the U.S. is worried about its national debt, it's been the world's largest debtor for quite a while now. Nor should it worry about it, as long as its economy keeps going, debt is meaningless and once the economy fails, a stellar budget will not save its ass.



Forgive me for being a smartaleck, but: "creditor" ^.~ In case you really meant the U.S. attacking China to avoid paying their debts.
The problem with that is, that you won't get much credit from anyone else anymore after destroying your creditor.



Oh, absolutely, I concur.

Well then they lasted around 1000 years so we still got like 700 right?

This is right the NAU only applies to those three, but I would hope that it wouldn’t stop most if not all countries in NA or even in SA to join.

He’s not clueless he’s actually very smart I don’t appreciate the hate. He knows the problems with the EU everyone dose, he’s more focused on the idea and original/true goal a more homogenous region.

What like 6 years the U.S had a surplus when Clinton was in office.

Yes the NAU would have a relatively open boarder policy not just an economic partnership. That’s what talk about the NAU involves a very connected union(probably why it’s been laughed at.

Why not are the EU all so similar the answer is no some are very different but that doesn’t matter it’s about bringing us together to make more connections to make better friends. I’ve been to Mexico and It’s not that different from the U.S you seem to think it’s like Iran or something.

I’d also like to point out that I’m not asking if it will work even the Mexican president (one of them) said it would take 20-30 years before any real progress was made on the issue. But do you think it's a good Idea?

I must say I’m surprised that I so many people are opposed to the idea of the NAU.

The goal of a more homogenous region is exactly the problem. At the current rate, it'll be becoming a homogenous region of CEE-standard countries.






Yeah it does matter. It is exactly the EU's problem: The members are so different they can only be held together by endless bribing ("subsidies") to keep them calm. As EU industry commissioner Guenther Verheugen once famously quipped: "The only thing we, the EU, are actually good at, is paying our members to shut up."
Without these bribes, the member states would constantly be vetoing any proposal brought up, because everyone's trying to protect their own domestic economy.
Once Brussels can no longer afford to, say, pump EUR 1bill./a into Poland in exchange for it agreeing to proposal 5028 (it happened! and Poland is just one example of many), the whole thing will grind to a halt.

also, I hope you didn't just try to imply that because the Roman Empire took over 1000 years to disband (1500 if you consider Byzantium) that the United States will do something similar... It's harder for countries to collapse these days but America is far from the greatness of Rome.

You were complaining about how America did things now, but if the US were to copy what the Romans did, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think the Romans were such a great empire and would think less of America.

It was a joke.


I like how you completely took that out of context good job. What I was saying is that a union were the countries cooperate will be much more homogeneous. Yes the EU doesn’t communicate but any group that doesn’t communicate will fail its not that it can’t work it’s that they refuse to let it, oh and no offence but were not Europe. I think the U.S has grown a lot over time and will be ready to share power with the other nations I’m confident Canada’s ready and Mexico can be as well.

would it matter what I though really? I would be American by this point.

I dont think I ever stated that I think you should follow in their footsteps, but you can't deny the greatness that was Rome, regardless of their morals or lack thereof they should be considered the greatest empire in the history of our species.

I can tell people that I'm going to a different state in the US or to Canada, and they just say "Fine." If I tell people that I'm going to Mexico, they assume that I'm going to do something that's illegal in the US, and they tell me to make sure that I don't drink the water.

Yeah, Mexico and US are pretty different.

Skipping the debate and cutting straight into the heart of the matter, isn't America, Canada, and Mexico already in an Union? I'm pretty damn sure that NAFTA is still intact, which ties all three nations through economical pathways, which is more of an union than you can ask for.