I would be in favor of a North American currency (short of full monetary privatization but that’s a separate issue). But it wouldn’t be called the “amero”, both the US and Canada call their currency the Dollar and that’s based on a Spanish word already. 2nd, US money is already going multicolored, a new design for NAFTA isn’t that far fetched and like the Euro, each nation will print their own national symbols on their currency.
What’s most crucial is that NAFTA and the EU might very well be in competition for the UK. They’re looking for every reason under the sun not to adopt the Euro and if we can provide an even larger currency block then the EU, then we might be able to win them over.
Just to be clear, all I’m talking about is having a common currency, not any significant changes in the political structure other then what would be required to implement it.
hmmmm I bet they told all the Euro-nations the same thing, we're only making it easier for you to go from country to country and then all of a sudden, next thing they knew, they were part of each other and no one voted on it; however, their vote after-the-fact in France certainly proved that they were not as on board as their leaders.
Currency is bureaucratic control, and when the bureaucrats are ineffectual and corrupt, you have a disaster in the offing.
And this control is already the sole benefit to be gained from a common currency, as the US dollar is already the de facto currency in much of central and South America. They either use dollars outright or peg their currencies to the dollar.
This means that there are *no* advantages to the marketplace. Not individually, and not collectively.
And yet, the behind-the-scenes advocates of the Amero continue with their lobbying. Why? Control.
In truth, the only function of the Euro has been to gain control over the marketplace, so as to inflict bureaucratic standardization and regulation on it. This makes sense in the parts of Europe that have the underlying legal system of Napoleonic Law--a legal system in which that not regulated and authorized by the government is illegal.
This is also why the Euro, and other such bureaucratic manipulations have failed miserably in the non-Napoleonic nations: Britain with its Common Law roots, and the Norse countries, with their Viking Law roots.
In these nations, the opposite rule applies: if it not specifically prohibited by the government, it is legal. A concept that makes Brussels bureaucrats ill. And despite their constant and continual efforts to undermine these freedoms and establish their control, what they propose is alien and bizarre to the free peoples.
The US, for its part, is the masterpiece of Common Law. We reject utterly rule by elitist bureaucrats. We insist that our politicians be called "public servants". And despite their airs, our Ivy League schools are anything but polytechnics: they are as likely to produce a dog catcher as a State College is to produce a President.
So this is the bottom line: those who want to adopt the Amero are, in essence, Europhiles like John Kerry. They like the concept of an elite class of bureaucratic rulers, and want to emulate that here.
It is a bad idea, and one even if treacherously implemented, destined to fail.