Why shouldn't the United States, Canada and Mexico be combined? What is so wrong with the concept of the Amero?

Question

I am choosing to oppose the following bill:
---
I: Whereas: The United States, Canada and Mexico all engage in significant international trade with one another.
II: Whereas: the Euro improved commerce, tourism, friendship, and democratic principles within the European Union.
III: Whereas: The American Dollar, Canadian Dollar, and Mexican Peso are all relatively weak independently.
IV: Let it be resolved that: the United States shall propose the creation of the Amero, joint American, Canadian and Mexican currency, promote its acceptance to the Canadian and Mexican government, and tie the Amero to the economies of each other party.
V: The Amero will replace the American Dollar, the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso as the official currency of each nation.
VI: The creation of the Amero shall be supervised by the Department of the Treasure, in conjunction with the equivalent Canadian and Mexican agencies.
VII: All laws in conflict with this legislation shall be declared null and void.
VIII: This bill shall be enacted immediately following ratification by all involved governments.
---
1) What is wrong with what this bill proposes? How is it unconstitutional?

2)Why shouldn't this bill be passed? Think of 3-5 strong and specific reasons why it shouldn't be passed.

3) What bad things would happen to the United States, Canada and/or Mexico if this bill was passed? In what ways would it be harmful?

4) In what ways does this bill simply make no sense? How is it preposterous?

If you do a little research on the topic, you'll find people opposing it and not saying specifically why. I'd like to find out why.

Good luck, and thanks for all your help.
-Andrew

I would love to discuss this with any of you. My Yahoo! screenname is wiltzandrew1989, and my AIM is wiltzandrew.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

1) So many things are wrong with the bill. First of all, to have a common currency, we’d need to work in harmony politically, so we'd end up having to form our own version of the EU (Europe's Economic Union). Our Constitution is simply not geared for something like that). Our national sovereignty cannot be breached. Our legislation cannot be influenced by foreign nations.

2) First, Mexico would be to a North American Union what Italy is to the EU: a huge anchor around our necks. Italy perenially holds the EU back economically with its erratic and sluggish growth. A lot of people mistakenly believe the EU is some invulnerable powerhouse, but the truth is this: the Euro is losing value against many currencies. According to an article called “That Shrinking Feeling” (page 51 of the Economist Magazine, August 16-22, 2008 edition) “Europe is struggling to stay above water. Figures released on August 14th showed that the euro-area economy shrank at an annualised rate of 0.8% in the second quarter…” At least the U.S. economy grew by about 2%; the EU’s actually shrank.

Mexico is so rife with corruption, it could never be incorporated into an agreement like the EU (or in our case, the North American Union). These types of agreements are typically hundreds of pages long, with thousands of rules and regulations. Mexico would never properly comply with them. It’s just too corrupt and it government so incompetent, that even if they made a good-faith effort, they couldn’t handle the complicated rules.

Even with the added economic power of two partners, the American dollar would still be stronger and more stable alone. Part of a currency’s value is based on how much of it is in circulation, so with Mexico’s poor growth, it would just devalue the currency because it is not adding much to the overall economic growth.

3) As I stated earlier, you can’t just issue a single currency for multiple sovereign nations and not have some shared political entity governing the rules of such a union. Hence, the U.S. would lose sovereignty. Illegal immigration is a big problem, and immigration always surges when these types of agreements are enacted. Just look at the EU. You had the majority of college graduates from Poland immediately leaving to work in other countries because suddenly, you have easier access to employment in between the countries under the economic treaty.

As soon as the EU was initiated, one thing happened immediately: property prices skyrocketed. This has now spread to the entire EU. However, the citizens of these countries don’t earn more money, and hence young people starting out in the workforce have little chance of buying property with these inflated prices. Mexico, for example, could be hurt because many Americans might decide oceanfront property in Mexico is now a good deal, which would displace many Mexicans who can no longer afford to live in these areas.

This bill is preposterous because you can’t have an economic union without a political union. The EU is governed by a bunch of hard-nosed bureaucrats in Brussels (Belgium). The laws that each member country must abide by are very strict and sometimes are ridiculously expensive to comply with. For example, chicken farmers in Poland had to completely redo their chicken hatcheries because the doors had to be a certain size, and the lights had to be of a certain variety and wattage. The people who rent boats and gondolas in Italy (and remember, this is not always in “tourist” areas; some of these places are in remote mountain areas) had to comply with handicap access. It is not economically feasible for some small entrepreneur with a few small boats to provide handicap access, especially when it is a complete waste; you will never have a wheelchair-bound tourist wanting to rent a boat in the mountains of Italy.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

You are truly an amazing individual. I wish I could give you more than 10 points. Thank you so much for your even more amazing answer. Have a great day!

Answer 2

Do your own homework kid...