North American Union

700 years? I doubt we'll even make 20 as we're barely holding our heads above the water. Watch the news, we're drowning fast man.


True. And yes, the Romans were great, though I think the Greeks were better and the fact that the Roman empire copied a lot of shit from the Grecians makes them all the more awesome.


Nothing like the EU. The currency is a dead give-away.

That's not my point here. I'm pointing out that a "NAU" of sorts already exists even if there isn't an uniform currency. And trust me, I know that EU already has problems assimilating the Euro as its currency due to internal economic factors. (the need to inflate/deflate becomes hindered by tying their currency rate to the Euro)

True. And yes, the Romans were great, though I think the Greeks were better and the fact that the Roman empire copied a lot of shit from the Grecians makes them all the more awesome.

meh, the height of the Greek empire was during Alexander's reign, which lasted 30 years? as soon as the man dies his empire collapses, I can't really consider them in the same league as an empire that stood strong for over 1000 years. Perhaps in terms of geographical composition he could be put alongside but if we were to really examine the total land mass I believe the Huns held far more land than either empire through out their invasion of the west. As far as military strengh I would have to put Germany at the beginning of World War two and France during the Napoleonic era among to greatest.

We do have trade agreement of sorts but again, nothing like the EU. We don't share a single market like the EU does. We also don't have freedom of movement with which is proven by the border patrol each of the 3 countries mention have among other things that we don't have with trade agreements.


You and I are looking at different aspects. The Greeks were culturally powerful even before Alexander and had many people who were in awe of their "empire". They also had a powerful army, just no one thought to expand until Alexander gave it a try. They were just too busy fighting against each other, and they gave the Persians (giant ass army) a fight for their fucking lives even though they were so divided.

As for military, I think we could probably add in the Chinese during the old days. I know the first emperor had shitload of troops and apparently their archers kicked some serious ass. We can probably also add in Ghengis Khan too. Also, the British Empire was thought to be quite powerful militaristically for a while too.

A single market in the EU exists because the economic status of the memberstates in the EU are relatively the same. You can't have a single market with NAFTA because it isn't feasibly possible to begin with. Mexico's economic standing is much lower than that of Canada, let alone USA. What NAFTA was designed to do was to create a continental block that solidified the North American continent through economic ties. I don't have to go into opportunity cost to explain that bottom line NAFTA is beneficial, but comparing the EU to NAFTA in terms of advantages is like trying to compare two analyses from two different sets of data. I've done an essay itself on the no-live-no-work-free policy of NAFTA, and it's there for a reason.

Thats what my father used to say :). The U.S is pretty much a modern duplicate of the roman empire and even today u can c the settings for a massssssive fall

well, there is a bit of a difference, one of the major contributing factors in the fall of Rome was the lackluster Emperors that seemed to pop up every second generation or so, so any time a good man was leader the next blustering idiot would undo much of his work (ex: Nero, Caligula, Commodus). The fact that the United states is run by three separate levels of elected officials with checks and balances often will ensure that the right decisions are made. It requires bipartisan cooperation which was something that an empire obviously lacks. Sure the United States (and the rest of the world) are currently being pushed down by economics factors but this is in no way anywhere near the end of the American system/lifestyle.

But if all three systems are corrupted, then we're fucked and I see that all 3 are fucked up. If you've watched the news, there have been so many fucked up shit happening here that it's not even funny. The worst part is, the citizens here don't even realize it. You might be thinking I'm saying this because I'm "conservative" but I think the country would have been fucked regardless because "my side" is corrupted as hell, too. (So I guess I'm really not on either side)

I don't know, that's how I see it. Also, the Obama administration isn't doing shit to help out with the economy. They're doing pretty much what Nero did while Rome burned all-the-while claiming he can't do shit because he was left with all this trouble and he can't solve it.

NAFTA allows for more protectionism and cherry-picking on the U.S.' behalf, but in principle, NAFTA is the equivalent of COMECON or the EU's predecessors. A founding stone, if you will. Not a union yet though.


Sorry, but this isn't entirely true. Even before the incorporation of the CEE states, which are currently turning out the same worrying data as shortly-before-crash Argentina, the EU's economy was wildly heterogenous already. Portugal and southern Italy are developing nations in terms of their crude economic structure; compare that for example with Germany, the world's third-largest economy. That difference is rather comparable to that between the U.S. and Mexico, and it provides ample reason not to incorporate any sort of NAU until the Mexican economy is sufficiently developed.



Eh? The problem of Rome wasn't poor leadership, it was internal strife, institutional degradation and militarized politics. Its system was simply shutting down on itself.

I agree that the current crisis spells in no way the end of the U.S., but come on

That has to be satire, right?

Cherry-picking on the U.S.'s behalf? I'm not totally convinced that it's the USA that gets all the advantages, and I'm pretty damn sure that Mexico out of the three is receiving the most benefits out of NAFTA, and that can be supported through lower poverty rates and rises in real income. I've also read that the U.S. was essentially hurt by the alliance in the beginning before some sort of equilibrium was reached later on. Not all people believed that NAFTA was good for the U.S., and with reason.



I don't what you're talking about. Portugal is a developed country that has been one of the most stable nations in the world, it's human quality life index rating was 19th. Italy itself is also a rich nation that has the world's 7th largest nominal GDP, regardless of region. The difference you speak of I don't see, and yes I will admit not every nation in the EU is the same, but it's close enough that all nations aren't too far apart on the economic ladder. All nations in the EU are developed nations with their own advantages to bring to the market table.

I do agree that NAFTA is nowhere near in sight of EU due to the fact that there's such a disparage between Mexico and USA/Canada, but once that gap is somewhat closed, a "true NAU" would exist. Many people say that the nations would fully benefit from NAFTA if Mexico would invest more in education as well as infrastructure and agriculture, and I agree with that as well.

The Portuguese economy is largely reliant on raw resource exploitation and agriculture. Its industrial capacity and service sector are underdeveloped and it has been repeatedly censured by the EC for its structural problems. It simply does not compare to the economies of the UK, of France or Germany.


The economic data of southern Italy compares to third-world nations; governmental authority is lapsing in favor of mafiose structures; unemployment is skyrocketing, young people are abandoning the south en masse to seek jobs in northern Italy.
The driving force behind Italy's economy is the industrialized north, like it or not (unemployment in the mezzogiorno: >25%; in the north: 4.5%).
Covering these problems up by looking only at the data of the north is not only intellectually dishonest, it's dangerous.



What I meant by cherry-picking is that the U.S. negotiated agriculture in three different, bilateral chapters, which allowed them liberalized access to the Mexican markets, while reserving the freedom to impose protectionist measures (restrictions, tariff quotas) where deemed necessary.


Romania? Bulgaria? Developed nations? Really?
Their advantage is cheap labour. But cheap labour does not make for a developed nation. Ask Bangladesh.

This debate about the EU vs. NAFTA on member states I think is ultimately moot. It doesn’t matter how many individual nations you point out and pick out their flaws or disadvantages because they wouldn’t have joined the EU if there wasn’t something to benefit from, even if it meant sacrificing internal regulating. Looking from the big picture, Europe is probably the most developed continent on the planet. And you’re right in that some economies can’t compare to other member states, but that doesn’t mean they can’t contribute something to market. And you have to understand that there are qualifications to enter the EU – not any nation can join. To join the EU, a country must meet the Copenhagen criteria, which require a stable democracy, a functioning market economy capable of competition within the EU, and the acceptance of the obligations of membership. The EU isn't a friendly let's be nice kind of treaty. EU was created to build solidarity within its continent to increase purchasing power, promote trade, and ultimately take advantage of each other.

Back to topic, there's a reason why NAFTA isn't like EU is because each respective member states are at fundamentally different levels of economies. There is such a large gap between the U.S. and Mexico that it eclipses any memberstate difference in the EU. GDP alone doesn't account for the differences, HDI and HQI should be taken into consideration.

Frankly it'd piss me off, it's just a bull shit load of idealism. That's all it is and should remain as. Number one off the bat it would make our constitution obsolete because now we're officially a new nation. Number two we have to deal with the fact that Alex Jones is right for once, which I'm not too fond of him either. Number three down goes the drain our sovereignty as a nation. Number four we have to actually deal with the fact that we're now in the same boat as the Canucks (no offense guys but really?) Should I continue this one?

I'd assume you'd be more upset with the Mexicans than the Canadians. Canada is basically America lite. Just about everything in Canada is similar to America. The dozen or so times I've been in Canada, I couldn't tell I was out of the U.S. until I saw a license plate or a sign with French on it.

I agree with the majority of your statement. I dislike the notion that I would suddenly be without rights or left to the mercy of the politicians who decide which rights I have and which circumstance they apply. Another idea I dislike is that Mexico is a violent and poor nation while the U.S. and Canada are respectable. So it would end up the U.S. and Canada having to prop Mexico up which would squander resources and manpower. Mexico would end up being a rotting limb that would risk killing the whole.

Of course Mexico is quite a poor country and is not in any shape to form a union. But I'm curious, is it possible for that country to build itself a status which is like America? Or is the possibility slim for that too happen?

Mexico could turn itself around within a decade if the right changes were made and the corrupt government was eliminated. That is Mexico's biggest problem besides the drug cartels. The government is so rampantly corrupt that the majority of Mexico's problems stem from the corruption. The lack of jobs which causes people to flee the country to America to work for less than our minimum wage. The crumbling infastructure,etc In my opinion, Mexico could hit an industrial boom and look similar to America economicly after ww2 if done right.

First off I was just trying to be a prick, after all I love my constitution so I use free speech, just ignore that part of the Canadians, I have no real problem with them or the Mexicans for that matter. However indeed it's true that I refuse to allow my nation to be brought down the drain because it merged with two other nations. Frankly the Canadians would be pissed too because there goes their beloved health care policy. Even the Mexicans would be pissed, we already have a collapsing economy what with constantly looking for loans from other countries such as China and Europe with a now some 11.4 trilion (FUCKIN TRILION) dollars in debt. Hell, we need our nations sovereignty back I think.