The END of the United States = North American Union

Post Reply New Topic

"President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it. And he took the step without the approval of the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States."

http://www.youtube.com/v/ueAdeZuns3A

"Currently the SPP is building a super highway that starts in Mexico and ends in Canada....This new flow of goods will allow for more outsourcing of American jobs. Most likely leading to the end to the majority our shipping and trucking industry. Worse yet it leaves the safety of our country from 'terrorist' attack wide open, and our protection from attacks to an easily corrupt Mexican government."



http://blackhillsportal.com/npps/story.cfm?id=1760
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... uments.htm

I've been reading about some of this, too. The Busheviks scare me.

Other than for a few laughs, I normally try to stay away from the 'tinfoil hat' type of chatter. However, I will say here that had the 2001-09-11 attack not occurred, the USA and Canada would have likely had a full 'strong perimeter' border security plan in place no later than about 2003, the two countries were working towards that goal at the time. The Canada-USA border checkpoints would have disappeared by then with the big inspection to happen when one entered at the relatively few continental entry ports (ie, major airports and sea ports, the only ways into North America north of the USA-Mexico border).

OTOH, the old cliché goes - 'countries that trade with each other are unlikely to fight wars against each other'. ANYTHING that fosters improved free and fair trade, IMHO, is a GOOD THING. Prior to the Smoot-Hawley act of 1930, which singlehandedly caused a relatively minor recession to become a full-blown depression, the USA had little in the way of any controls on international commerce, other than for legitimate agricultural quarantines. The 'protections' put into place in the Smoot-Hawley act resulted in similar 'protections' coming back from all of the trading partners, eliminating all of the USA's export markets and throwing MILLIONS of Americans out of work. The USA is still trying to undo all of that damage and the latest round of 'free trade' agreements are nothing more than steps in that direction.

Lastly, am I not the only one whom thinks that a North American Union (on the lines of the EU) might not be a bad thing? As I mentioned above, north of Central America, North America is an island with only two ways in (by air or by sea) and a very limited number of entry ports, very easy and cost-efficient to secure against any reallllly bad guys whom might want to get in when compared to the current lines which seemingly go on forever and through some of the most remote land on the planet.

Also, check the numbers:

Canada - population about 30,000,000
Mexico - population about 105,000,000
USA - population about 300,000,000

Who'll be running that show???

And,
how long before it starts putting more stars on the USA flag???


Mike

I don't think it would be good for Canada or Mexico in the long run.

WHAT??! !! am i missing something?? i would never think something like this would happen is that true bush did that?? i watch cnn news every single day and nothing was said yet.

It will still be the U.S. just would we have more states up north and south. It can still be called the United states of America.

Outsourcing is good for the economy. And if someone in India will do the job for a quarter what an American, then that is true free enterprise. No corporation should be forced to hire someone who will only work for a desired wage. In any case, the cost goes down to the consumer.

If people in the USA lose they're jobs to India etc. how is that helping out economy?
If you don't have a job you don''t have money to spend on the economy. Millions of unemployed people is not a good thing for the economy. The only economy it is helping is India's.

It means less expensive items. It means more money. It means free enterprise and eventually the surplus budget of major corporations will naturally rebound and they will be forced to hire Americans because their will be such large demand for their inexpensive product that they will expand! And then it repeats.

Oursourcing means "getting the goods or services that Americans would normally provide from an outsource".

If outsourcing is good for the economy and means less expensive items and more money in Americans' pockets, then where is that American going to work if he lost his job to India or China or Mexico?

Good thing there's Walmart- where else are you going to get your stuff cheap.

A. It's a road. That allows easier movement of goods within the existing trade regime. This is not the end of western civilization as we know it. Calm down.

B. Look at the EU. They have open borders between the world's wealthiest nations (Luxembourg, Norway...) and countries in Eastern Europe about on the same footing as Mexico. If anything it has made all members better off because individual states specialize in what they produce best and once poor countries have access to first-world markets so that they too may raise their living standards. In fact the only places in Europe where living standards have fallen since the early 90s are in former eastern bloc countries that haven't joined the EU. The only political parties calling for re-erection of trade barriers are on the far right (e.g. Le Pen)

C. It seems like a lot of people have a misinformed zero-sum view of the economy. Jobs are not a natural resource. There is not a fixed number of jobs available in the world, to be hoarded by rich nations at any cost. The fact that China and India now have decent paying jobs and are producing goods and services of value to the rest of the world does not mean that we can no longer have jobs or be productive. Industrialization creates new consumer markets in these formerly-poor countries that demand the goods and services that the first world produces best (capital and knowledge intensive) while developing nations supply world demand with goods and services that are labor intersive. Think about all of the consternation that used to surround countries like Japan and S. Korea, about how they were going to take over the world with their cheap labor and manufacturing dominance. The thing is once a country develops sufficiently, labor is no longer cheap and these countries themselves enter the first world. It's the same thing with immigrants to the United States, first it was the Irish who were going to steal all the good jobs from the "real" americans (early 1800s) then it was the Italians, then the eastern Europeans, then the Asians, and now the Mexicans, etc. Time and time again it has been shown that letting new members into the club of the priviledged does not ruin it for those already on the inside, despite the gains made by those coming in.

D. I realize that in this process some people are going to lose their jobs, and I realize this is very painful. I do not refute the fact that trade liberalization will permanently shift the location of certain industries. But we should not let the acute losses stop us from pusuing the overall gains of free trade. Contrary to the conservative notion that "the best social program is a job" I think that if the US government was willing to provide more generous temporary unemployment insurance and fund education better, the loss of a job here or there would not be such a politically contentious issue. Keeping people employed in unproductive jobs is not the way to go about social welfare, and will only be more expensive in the long run. The costs are just hidden, which is why many politicians choose to go down that route. Cheaper consumer goods and the productivity gains from cross-border specialization represent real living standard increases that will be lost to trade protection.

E. Wait, but what about the abysmal working conditions, lack of human rights and rampant corruption in places like China? Doesn't buying products from these countries support this evil capitalist system? Well, sure China might not treat its workers very well, and wages are inhumanely low, but refusing to trade with them does not improve the lot of a third world worker one bit. Think about it this way: if the best you can do is get a horrible job making tchotchkes for rich Americans where you live, how does it improve your lot when Americans now refuse to buy your products out of "compassion"? If we want to improve living conditions in the third world the only way is through engagement. And coming back to China, has its integration into global capitalism made it less free, or worsened the living standards of the people? Think about how horrible working conditions and political rights are now and then think about the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

I've heard about this too.

Surely this is just a continuation of state policy through other means. That state policy being Manifest Destiny of the North Americain continent. Several wars have been fought over such issues before and this time the methods are through trade and commerce not a bunch of drunken soldiers going over the border