North American Union?

[L.C.]

This is all conspiracy fghwds! DONT BELIEVE ANY OF IT! ITS FOR IGNORANT AND ARROGANT PEOPLE!!1!1

 

Some people think the EU is all conspiracy and lies. Guess where Europe is now..all the things they have now that is globalized. One step at a time....just one step at a time...

 

Throwing a frog into a pot of boiling water and the frog will jump out immediately.

 

But if you put a frog into room-temperature water and very slowly bring it to a boil, you'll boil the frog alive without it jumping out.

 

EDIT :: We should just nuke Mexico and take it over by force.

 

EDIT2 ::

Conspiracy theory becomes reality. I don't rule anything out.

People are ignorant of their past. Just two decades ago people who even mentioned the NAU were flamed for such "nonsense" and "impossible," "ludicrous" conspiracy.

 

To really understand something, you have to study very technical details in all of Roman history, world events and history, and American history; central banks and economy included. But some people are blind as a bat (and I tell you that in reality, just like my little 5 year old brother, an object that I am looking for can be right under my nose and I won't even see it; the same applies for "text" and information).

 

My purpose with this reply isn't to start or feed or argument, but just random ranting.

Edited April 9, 2008 by L.C.

[SeVeR]

What is inherently wrong with world government and globalisation?

[Sass]

Depends who you talk to...

[Aileron]

Generally, the larger a government is, the less efficient it becomes in certain ways, particularly in terms of solving problems quickly, and handling localized concerns. In other ways, larger governments may be more efficient. The point is you need a balance, and global super-governments are too big.

 

S!@#$%^&*, the majority of US oil already comes from Mexico. I don't know if its refined south or north of the border, but since the system of them drilling it and us burning it is already built and working, there are sufficient refineries somewhere. Vets and seniors wouldn't care if it was done right.

 

Bak, the only thing they would have to lose is pride. Generally the only people who put pride over practicality are !@#$%^&* bags.

 

JDS, Mexico isn't Canada.

[Bak]

um, how about mexico annexes us? think about how that would make you feel.

 

The only way to do it is like the EU, a non-US, non-Mexico agency we're both a part of. Globalism, done right, is nothing to be afraid of. We just have to make sure it's being done right before we invest too much into it.

[rootbear75]

um, how about mexico annexes us? think about how that would make you feel.

they dont have the power nor money to do such thing. so its not even a concern

[Sass]

I guess that is what NAFTA was created for, however, the folks left in charge of the trade deals screwed America as jobs got shipped south and the trade negotiators lined their own pockets. Perhaps that the 'big government' thing you mean Ail. BTW, provide credible proof that we have enough refineries in the US to handle the current need...you're speculating - albeit even that's kind.

[SeVeR]

Generally, the larger a government is, the less efficient it becomes in certain ways, particularly in terms of solving problems quickly, and handling localized concerns. In other ways, larger governments may be more efficient. The point is you need a balance, and global super-governments are too big.

Without knowing the factors that determine how innefficient a government is, we can't really draw a conclusion. For instance, lines of communication, deployment of resources, and delegation of responsibility may all be key factors that if properly recognised would make a super-government work as well as any other. I would theorise that there is nothing inhererently worse about large governments, only that ther job is more difficult.

 

However, i thought there were more paranoid, conspiracy type concerns at the core of this distaste for world government.

[Aileron]

The best example of what I am talking about is the fiasco regarding Hurricane Katrina. The Federal government was indeed efficient at providing overwhelming, late term aid. However, what they couldn't do was be an effective first response agency. No agency based in Washington D.C. is going to be experts on local geography in New Orleans. For first response a smaller quicker local government was needed.

 

I'll admit its hard to come up with a lot of good examples, because for all our complaining, our governments mostly work. However, the need for regional and local governments is obvious. Many large scale programs will work in some areas but not others. If a federal government attempted to build a national program for snow plowing for instance, it would be destined to be a disaster no matter how it was written, because each local area has a local climate and would need different plans for each one. Thus, you always need small government, though that in itself doesn't discount large government.

 

 

 

The inherent problem of a large government is that all governments must be based at a fixed location, and since agencies need to communicate with each other in meetings and inter-agency projects (basically things that can't be accomplished over the phone), a fixed common location is the most efficient. This is why capitals are made. The problem is that when a capital is created, the government in it develops a localized culture based on that capital. If the government's territory is too large, stark differences between the culture of the capital and the culture of some of the other places the government controls will be created, thus creating an inherent inefficiency in large government.

 

 

 

The suggestion to annex Mexico was more sarcasm than anything. Still, to bak, your counterexample is flawed in that we can afford to have pride. Generally when one has a full belly and respectable employment, pride is important. When one lacks those things, pride becomes less of a concern. If the Mexican national pride was greater than their physical and economic needs, they wouldn't be flocking to the US in droves.

[Bak]

The point I was making was that patriotism for one's country is not some logical conclusion at which you arrive. Every country tells their children about all the great accomplishments of themselves and people are proud of where they are from even if it doesn't make logical sense. I'm proud to be American even though we can be overbearing on the world. It's hard to find someone ashamed of their home country save in extreme cases like genocide. Ask any foreigner about their native land and they'll be glad to give a list of all the great things about their home country.

[Sass]

Amen to that!

[JDS]

hmmm aileron, mexico may not be canada (no !@#$%^&*) but they are both part of North america? if they anex mexico, they are goona go for canada aswell

[FMBI]

S!@#$%^&*, the majority of US oil already comes from Mexico. I don't know if its refined south or north of the border, but since the system of them drilling it and us burning it is already built and working, there are sufficient refineries somewhere. Vets and seniors wouldn't care if it was done right.

 

(thousand BPD - taken from EIA figures)

 

2,586 - CANADA

1,503 - SAUDI ARABIA

1,290 - VENEZUELA

1,307 - MEXICO

1,191 - NIGERIA

636 - ALGERIA

578 - ANGOLA

380 - VIRGIN ISLANDS

543 - IRAQ

392 - RUSSIA

213 - UNITED KINGDOM

260 - ECUADOR

225 - BRAZIL

239 - KUWAIT

92 - NETHERLANDS

 

 

And I hate to burst the proverbial bubble here, but all the arguments for and against a one world government have been floating around (in advanced form) for + years. Sort of funny how LC made the point about "history" as part of a rambling and incoherent post.

Edited April 11, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Aileron]

Whoops, actually my source said Mexico is 2nd. Mine is a book, so it probably is a little out of date. Second vs third (1307 > 1290) is a reasonable drop.

 

 

LC seems to be trying to defend against an imaginary accusation that the 'North American Union' is a crazy conspiracy theory, which is odd as half the people here agree with him on it, and the rest must atleast admit its not crazy. I mean, aliens in Area 51 is crazy. The belief in the Loch Ness Monster is crazy. The notion that leaders are actively seeking to create some kind of economic program uniting North America, when there is something similar in Europe, precursor treaties in place such as NAFTA, and various organizations devoted to its development, certainly isn't crazy.

 

I mean, it could still be incorrect, but my point is that the theory is certainly plausible.

 

 

JDS - ofcourse not. The only reason I'm suggesting to annex Mexico is because their government is dysfunctional.

[Confess]

My reason for a fight against Political Union of the US/Mexico/Canada:

 

Too much power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Is it really wise to give a select group of people power over one whole continent? Look at history, thats all I have to say. I want the USA to last a long time, if we merge - it will fall! Already America is heading towards Socialism, with such things as Welfare/etc.

 

"When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice;

when the wicked rule, the people groan."

- Proverbs 29:2

[FMBI]

ROFL Confess, you know.. I hate to just rip out a quote, but since you did so.. "The USA is already a socialist economy - albeit one in which the wealth flows upwards, not downwards."

 

The US is never going to become truly socialist, because that would require the severing of links between the politicians and hundreds of massive companies. Instead, it'll likely become fascist (I am aware of the paranoia surrounding this statement, but in many ways, it is true.. I'm personally predicting it in 10-15 years), while claiming to be socialist - that way, if anything goes wrong, it won't be the government or the companies getting the blame, just the "lazy poor people".

 

And BTW.. the US also will not "last a long time" on its current trajectory. I again hate to start quoting, but you know that whole "path of the Roman Empire" !@#$%^&*? Also fairly true, once you strip off the "WE WILL DIE IN 5 YEARS" part. After all, Rome was one of the major contributors to European culture, so it stands to reason that we'll be afflicted by the same faults - much like genetics, in a way. If the US wants to recover a truly "leading" global position, it will have to move tens of millions of people from burger-flipping and import-maintenance jobs into high-grade manufacturing, increase education quality and make it truly universal, transfer power to the newly educated masses, and finally work off some of that endless debt. All that would take a (benevolent) Stalin persona to accomplish, so it's very unlikely - one of the most defining factors in a "death of the empire" phase is that you get one incompetent ruler after another.

 

And one more thing.. what's with all the right-wing on these forums? I think I'm the only left-leaning conservative on here, the rest of you sound like you're from Texas.

[»Lynx]

A left leaning conservative? There is such a thing?

 

EDIT: Thought I'd make this post a little more useful than the one line stated above...

 

From what I've just skim read of this post seems to be the misconception that the NAU would be a new government. This is false. Any union doesn't delegate control over the country, it just oversees it's activity and states new law, and often fairer laws for better trade. Every union that I've studied seems to be only for Economic growth.

 

There are problems with Unions, as they take away part of the governments sovereignty. An example of this is the Factortame case. This in short, is the EU taking part of the UK's sovereignty, by preventing the UK from stopping the Spanish shipping in UK waters. This is bad news for the British, however, is good news for the Spanish, and as we're all on the same boat after all, is good news for the Economy in general.

 

Now, for all of those who believe it's tripe created by people who are scared of a New World Order, although I agree that you're probably right; here is why the NWO guys think it's right.

 

If a NAU was created, it would be created for the possible benefits it will provide to the American economy. Somehow, the NWO guys decided that the NAU will be beneficial to the new Toll Roads which will be placed all over America, and which will only link to all of the cities. This will bring all the smaller towns in-between these large cities to the brink of extinction and blah blah blah, whatever else was said in some depressing do!@#$%^&*entary, or written by Joe Paranoid on some blog, on some website... What Ever...

 

Now, as to why the NAU is probably a load of bull!@#$%^&*.

 

The United States of America... Duh... A NAU will be obsolete as soon as it's created anyway.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Lynx

[FMBI]

Yes, indeed.. I have very left-wing views but I don't believe in things like Sea Shepherd that breed animosity through their attempts to quickly implement change. I'm all for utopia, but I can wait 50 years for it. And besides, a lot of things fall into the gray area, and I have no reason to har!@#$%^&* someone pointlessly if they disagree on a minor issue. It's only the big ones that count. Edited April 15, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

I'm a strong moderate.

 

I just am a logical moderate.

 

As for the fascism, we have too liberal of a government to move into fascism. We are far more likely to become socialistic, moreso a god !@#$%^&* welfare country than a fascist nation.

 

As for the US not lasting long, in case you haven't boned up on your history of the US for the past century, we really are not on any different trajectory than we have been over the past century.

 

As for universal education the problem isn't access to education it is the drive for education (for the most part). I mean !@#$%^&* I think it's Detroit that has a 24% high school graduation rate.

 

There are many things that need to be done, mostly working from the lower class up. Coming from a lower class family I know how hard life can be, which also gives me the right to be able to talk about how, with a little motivation, you can turn everything around.

 

We need to hand out less and force people to work for more. I don't care if you're resentful that someone was born into a family that was either intelligent, hard working, or lucky enough to be rich.

[FMBI]

Golly gee, I'm resentful that someone was born into a rich family. Yay. Actually, I feel sorry for them, I have an uncle that makes $200,000 a year and his family life sucks. I'd much rather be middle class (and don't pull out the "proud to suffer" card, I'm being serious. )

 

As a matter of fact, if you think that we're becoming a "Welfare state" then you're either dreaming or re!@#$%^&*ed (no offense.. well, maybe some).

 

In 2004 :

 

http://lanekenworthy.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/incomespendingwealth-figure1-version1.png

 

Now tell me which model that fits - the one from Weimar Germany where corporations saw their profits go up 5-10x when the Nazis took over, or the one from Sweden.

 

 

I have "boned up" on my history of the last century, and we are on quite a different trajectory. After WW2, we were at the peak of our power, but then several things happened (please note that in this case I'm sticking to only widely recognized ones - I'll p!@#$%^&* over more subtle factors, for now at least)

 

1971-3 : End of Bretton Woods (which, although not perfect, helped prevent currency speculation and quick-buck investments)

~1980-2008 : Public debt goes from a relatively small amount (note that 40s-50s, while higher relatively, was well handled and quickly remedied) to a rapidly growing burden on the country (through interest, currency pressure, overconsumption, yadda yadda..)

Zero savings : http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/2002/0202a.gif shows that US savings remained at a healthy level until the early 90s which, I am taking the liberty of guessing, was when the "spend now, pay later" encouragement really took hold.

 

Also, the following factors are relatively new:

 

Exhausted, weakened, and discredited military - It is arguable that even Vietnam did not take as much of a toll on our military as Iraq has. I'm not talking about soldier deaths, I'm talking about the fact that this will cost us for decades as wounded, disillusioned and (sadly, in a great number of cases) mentally ill soldiers claim benefits and health care. Also, we are at a horrible low of readiness - what if China invaded Taiwan or Russia attempted to reunite the CIS? Extremely unlikely scenarios (thank God), but if they happened, we'd be in major trouble.

 

Recession, Housing Bubble, Debt, Falling Dollar, Oil Boom, New Compe!@#$%^&*ors - Yeah, that's a mouthful. But it's the first time in our history that virtually every negative factor possible has come together. If we try to get out of the debt (ie, force inflation) we're screwed because the dollar's tied to oil, if we try to stop the housing collapse, we rack up more debt, we can't stop India, China, and Asia-at-large from consuming more resources, the recession was easily predictable but nothing was done.. Saw a report yesterday that stocks might recover soon. However, even that's not necessarily good - stocks are owned overwhelmingly by the rich and super-rich, so they'll just make more money, mop up low-priced !@#$%^&*ets everyone else lost during the crunch, and come out even better off.

 

Incompetent president (and, sadly, probably future president) - At this point, we're not likely to get better leadership (as I stated in another post), so this is gonna get worse, not better.

 

Huge income gap - Back in the 50s and 60s, we had fairly evened out standard of living, and, although we didn't have "spectacular growth" as in the 80s and 00s, at least everyone got a share. Nowadays, you read about the economy growing 5% a year, then you look at your paycheck and see it's stayed the same for 5 years running. This isn't specifically new - after all, it happened back in the 20s, too. And we all enjoyed the 20s, right?

 

 

As for education, you seem to be forgetting the research that shows teachers actually put a lot less effort into students (race makes this more extreme) if they're from low class backgrounds or the teachers "think" they won't do well. In Detroit, how many teachers are going to put effort into teaching kids?

 

 

Yes, "with a little motivation" you can, but you seem to take the viewpoint that anyone can do anything, when in fact the power has been flowing upward extremely rapidly, and it's a lot harder to do anything now than it was 50-60 years ago (maximum equality period). Sure, a little hard work is a good thing, but having obstacles put in your way by people who have no motivation except to make themselves more comfortable (ie, not nefarious designs, just greed) is not exactly the fairest thing in the world.

 

 

And lastly - "we need to force people to do more". I grew up in a town where there were a lot of factory workers that pulled every union trick to get out of work, but I also saw a lot of people working multiple minimum wage jobs and getting nowhere. Perhaps you're leaving the working poor (and their ranks are rapidly growing) out of your self-righteous equation?

Edited April 15, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[NBVegita]

First off when I say you, I mean "the public". I will accept blame for that statement. I did not mean you as an individual.

 

Second your charts do nothing more but show that we have a truly capitalistic economy. One of which I am 100% in favor of.

 

Of course in the 40's and 50's our debt was considerably lower, half of Europe was still indebted to us from the war.

 

I do whole heartedly agree that our country has relied too much on debt to pay for what they own. Which most likely helps account for the variations in wealth. The lower and middle class are debting themselves above their pay grade, or the very near limit, to live above their realistic means. Now instead, as your chart shows, of saving money, for any reason, you must use it to pay for the house, cars and credit cards. The rich on the other hand can simply buy most of what they own outright. 43% of Americans spend more money in a year than they actually make. Not including mortages each household in america averages over $18,000 in debt. Yes that is a serious problem.

 

I also agree concerning the war, but I also think that it has no larger effect on us, at this time, than vietnam did.

 

Our economy was just waiting for this to happen. The .com boom set the stage, and when the bubble burst, coupled with the biggest market scam in the 20th century and idotic consumers this was bound to happen. But we will recover. It might not be for another 10 years, but we will recover.

 

This president has actually done relatively little in terms of long term damage, with the exclusion of Iraq. You cite probably, I say impossibly. I'm so sure of the impossibility that I will take a wager from any person willing to come forth, via paypal, that this presidental election will not be hindered by the president.

 

Back in the 50's and 60's we were still recovering from the great depression and the war. Of course as our capitalistic economy grows stronger, there will be a bigger income gap.

 

As for your teachers, my brother is a teacher in a low class area. He puts less effort into the children who simply refuse to try. When kids refuse to do simple homework !@#$%^&*ignments and bring in letters from parents saying "I don't believe in homework so my son/daughter will not do it", what is a teacher supposed to do? When you call home to the parents to tell them their child performed poorly, academically or socially, and you are told that you are either picking on their child, that why they have bad grades, or that it simply isn't true that their child could not do such a thing, what are you, as a teacher, to do? Are you supposed to punish the 5-10 students whom actually want to learn and have the motivation to, or are you supposed to run into the brick wall set up by not only the non-motivated student, but their families as well. It just so happens that a lack of motivation can seeming be linked to race and or "social class". Also that percentage was a large part drop outs.

 

!@#$%^&* I bet if finishing high school was a prerequisite for recieving a welfare check, the graduation rate would triple.

 

What obsticles are you talking about? There is so much federal aid for students to go to college nowadays it's almost rediculous. Now you are less apt to have a chance coming from a middle class family than a lower class family. As being in middle class you are only eligable for athletic and academic scholarships and lose the need based aid that is available to the lower class. Am I saying that everyone can go to harvard? No. Of course wealth brings more opportunity. Since the dawn of man, the more of something that you own, as long as there is a demand for it, the more power you hold. Nothing will ever change that.

 

For your last paragraph, my father was one of those people who had to work 3 minimum wage jobs. He got laid off his factory job and had to do everything he could to provide for the family. He eventually got a job at the post office which was at least stable. I now make more money than my fiance's and my parents put together. I was not given any special opportunities. I worked hard, saw what my father had to go through and decided I didn't want that life for my kids when the time came. No, every poor child cannot become "rich". But every poor child, as long as they work to get the grades, !@#$%^&* a degree from a community college is still a degree, can get a good solid job.

[Aileron]

Back to the topic, the primary problem with the NAU isn't so much the idea but that our leaders both Democrat and Republican have gone off and started pursuing it without public approval, and we can't vote the idea out of Congress because we have a two party system and this thing is secretly being supported by both parties. We can only replace one NAU supporter with another.

 

 

My guess is that with globalization, the workforce of each individual country is slowly turning into the global workforce. That is, first world countries like the US are inheriting the unsolved problems of third world rat-holes like China. This is leading to a bigger gap between rich and poor in the US because in China the gap between rich and poor has been huge, and when goods can be shipped accrossed the oceans with minimal costs, it pays to hire Chinese grunts. The solution is to start putting tariffs up until the third world problems are solved. I guess the NAU idea is to do both by exposing the US economy to only one third world compe!@#$%^&*or.

 

Again, I'm not against the NAU, I'd just like a vote on it.

 

Generally, my opinion of the lower class is that the primary element they lack is a feeling of hope. Without it, they lack motivation, and without motivation they lack capacity to control their destiny. Overall, I'd say that in the US the only thing that needs to change is liberal politicians need to shut up with the "You can't help yourself, but vote for me and I'll give you a kickback." to "You can help yourself." The hopelessness of the third world is significantly less feeling and more reality, but can still be solved. Usually its the fault of some greedy dictator sorely in need of a trip to !@#$%^&*.

 

As I said before, I happen to be working an !@#$%^&*embly line at the moment. (That's not what I went to college for - if my alma mater sends me any more letters asking for donations, I swear I'm going to drive up there and shove the letter up the department head's arse) I work with the working poor, and fair to say at the moment I'm one of them. Generally, there are still options for the working poor. Just by simply working hard and showing up every day on time usually qualifies a worker for something - either a slight raise or a slight promotion. That's not much, but its usually enough to open up some options. Usually those options aren't easy, especially if the person is supporting a family. Still, they are options. However, most of the working poor aren't even basically diligent in their responsibilities. They are reliably unreliable, and generally a pain in the !@#$%^&* to work with.

 

That being said, currently the vast majority if not the entirety of my salary currently goes to pay stuff that I have no control over - student loans, gas, insurance, etc., and I live with no luxuries at all. Basically, I can neither spend nor save any of the money I am making, because it all immediately gets consumed towards something needed for me to work the next day. If we figured that rent is about as expensive as student loans, I will admit that we are fast approaching the point where lower incomes can't save money.