north american union? oceania?

If it looks like a fork and it quacks like a fork...

Moderator: aquaphase

User avatar
Dalya
hipster
Posts: 2027
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:25 am
Location: fakeyville

north american union? oceania?

Postby Dalya » Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:01 am

i cant wait to drive down the NAFTA superhighway.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/vi ... e_bush.htm
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—

NerfHerder
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Contact:

Postby NerfHerder » Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:17 pm

Don't believe the "outrageous" hype. The three-nation union would never work with Mexico being so poor. It's the only thing holding NAFTA back (and a large focus of the organization, too) so I don't see how forming a union would speed up Mexico's development any faster.

Also, why would Canada agree to this? It seems like Canadians would want to keep their distance from the US rather than hold its hand in public. It's not like being in this union would rise Canadian prominence.

Even if the union does go through, it'll be like NATO, just another American-dominated force where the other members are barely an afterthought.
Image

User avatar
James
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 9:03 am
Location: Bungalow By The Sea

Postby James » Sun Feb 25, 2007 9:36 pm

I dunno...as dumb as it sounds, I could see it solving a couple of things. First, it would alleviate the influx of illegal aliens by making them not illegal. That's simplistic and there's a lot more that goes into it than that (such as the currency exchange rate between the Dollar and Peso, which would need to be addressed).

But in exchange for solving the US problem about illegal aliens crossing the border to work, Mexico also gets to assist in another American issue: Oil. Mexico has it; lots of it. The US would want it at a cheap rate, which will undoubtedly get worked into the deal.

Canada, as usual, is an afterthough, although it might make people consider Banff as a skiing destination. Quebec will secede.

But that would be a long way from happening, because Oil and Illegal immigrants are the two largest money-making efforts for Mexico.
pedals1 pedals1 pedals1 pedals1 pedals1 pedals1 pedals1 pedals1

User avatar
sam
The Don
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:02 pm
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Postby sam » Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:19 pm

We would have to drop our farming and ranching protections and subsidies. That would relieve some of the draw North for immigrants from Mexico. It is also one of the reasons I don't see this happening anytime soon.

I like how Lou calls it outrageous but doesn't bother to elaborate.

NerfHerder
Posts: 609
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:03 pm
Location: Columbus, OH
Contact:

Postby NerfHerder » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:52 am

But with that influx of mostly poor immigrants, wouldn't our social safety net be overloaded, perhaps leading to collapse in key areas?

Social Security is already starting to bust; how would Medicare or any of our other nationwide social programs stay afloat?
Image

User avatar
Dalya
hipster
Posts: 2027
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:25 am
Location: fakeyville

Postby Dalya » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:57 am

bc CNN reporters, if not warned months in advance, think any change is "outrageous". If changes arent preceded by months of propaganda americans don't know what to do.

i think it could happen. who would have thought the european union would really happen?

canada's motivation would be stronger currency. even though the us dollar is down, its always been (as far as I know) higher than the canadian dollar. plus candada would get alaska back! hello, giant mosquitos; hello, ice. american tourism would increase, especially for people between 18 and 21. i'd also guess a lot more movies would be filmed there. i know recently more and more have been. that would probably increase dramatically without all the complications. (toronto looks similar to NYC or a generic metropolis and is cheaper to shut down for filming).

i wonder how it would affect health care since the 3 have such different systems?
I myself am hell;
nobody’s here—

User avatar
sam
The Don
Posts: 1875
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:02 pm
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Postby sam » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:31 pm

If your talking about healthcare and the EU, then things would stay separate. They merged currency and markets along with the regulations that go with them. I believe most of the social programs stayed independent. The borders wouldn't necessarily be wide open to people either, just stuff. From the lack of details presented in the report, I would guess that someone is wildly mis-interpreting some reforms to or extension of NAFTA.


Return to “Slapdash Incongruities”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests