Read this, best answer gets 10.?

Question

Consider the following facts: The Security and Prosperity Partnership Agreement (SPP) is an Agreement which launches a process to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada into (initially) one economic free-trade area. This so-called North American Union (NAU) would ultimately have a common border and would result from the merger of Mexico, Canada and the United States.

The NAU would create and facilitate an unobstructed movement of commerce, capital and people among the aforementioned former sovereign nations. The NAU would likely have a common currency, like the Euro.
The website is www.financialsense.com Go to the website it makes great reading.

I am not looking for smartazz answers. Plus if you read it think about this. Why do you think Repubs and Demos want Mexicans here?????? Could it have already started???????

Answer 1

Considering who is in power and who their voters are and what those voters stand for, it is amazing how brazen the Bush junta has become. Not only that they thumb their noses at everything that is wise, but they also fool their base. Their base is the right winged extremists who would love to be able to buy a license for shooting illegal immigrants. Now they snub that base and want to form a union that would allow the Mexicans to come to the U.S., move around at their pleasure and grab (undeservedly in the minds of Bush's base) any job they please.

In my mind this is political suicide and would be revenged at the next possible election. So either the Bush junta has lost their mind completely, or they are not afraid of the voting public anymore. If the latter is true, then one has to ask: "Why are they not afraid anymore?" Maybe they have found a way to make sure they stay in power.

Answer 2

It's very difficult to imagine the US agreeing or even entertaining the notion. As the strongest economy amongst the 3 states, it's mad to think that they'd accept unobstructed movement of people from Mexico.

Look at what's happened here in the EU with the new member state and the huge influx of migrant workers to the UK. That's a big story now, and I can only imagine the same issue on a much larger scale between US-Mexico-Canada.

Answer 3

The essential difference between the possibility of a North American Union versus the European Union is the tremendous difference in the development between the two biggest "partners". Since Mexican environmental, social, labor, and other governmental regulation is far less restrictive (and costly) to US and Canadian policies, the playing field is unequal to begin with.

Is any kind of real free-trade possible when one nation is overpopulated, nearly bankrupt, and many parts of it are so highly impoverished? So far, the costs of moving capital to the low-regulation, cheap labor, environment of Mexico have slowed the "giant sucking sound" predicted by Ross Perot, but in the long run the gradual equalization of wealth and economic opportunities is inevitable in a true and friction-less free trade zone.

From a purely selfish perspective, I'm not looking forward to bringing down American and Canadian standards of living while simultaneously raising that of impoverished Mexicans. There is a better way to accomplish the latter goal without reducing our economic health and standard of living.

Answer 4

As hypnotized as the American public can get I don't think they'll allow this. There already is a free-trade sector established (NAFTA much). It would only hurt the United States to combine it's currency with Mexico and Canada, our currency would lose a ton of value. The EU has one currency and a free trade zone but each country still fiercely keeps it's own sovereignty.

Answer 5

Intresting, but I doubt anything like that will happen in the near future if ever

Zoltar you are an idiot - New York State has a stronger economy than Canada and almost as many people, and America has as much fresh water also. Do your homework

Answer 6

Can't see a problem with it in that the merger of countries in the EU seems to have been to the benefit of everyone. It actually seems immoral that a rich country living alongside a poor country can't see that both their interests can profit by a genuine free trade agreement.

Answer 7

Canada would never agree to it since Canada has the strongest economy of the three (USA is so far into arms debt it will never get out) and Canada has all the water which is the golden commodity of the next century.

Answer 8

this is a simple govermant issue.

you have high wages and inflation in your country.
you form an ecomonic agreement with a developing state.
you then get invaded by cheap labour.
you now have low wages, increased output and low inflation
you also take control of security for the new state and thus make yourself more powerful in terms of land mass.

god bless america and all who once lived there.

Answer 9

i admire monkeys! in accordance to me they are humorous, lovable, and relaxing! For my next B-Day i might pick to have one, yet they are too costly to purchase unused. :,( My first Webkinz became a monkey and that i named her Leslie. i'm now in a safeguard that facilitates monkeys who're diseased and monkeys that have VERY undesirable ailments. whilst human beings cut back down forests they are ruining their properties. it somewhat is like some one basically destroying your residing house and you haven't any longer everywhere to circulate. i admire all animals different than for wasps and bees! i'm way too lots of a scardycat to be by using those!lol! :) Love your aviator! That became an exciting question so here's a good sized call! And a coronary heart!?

Answer 10

Watch the documentary "America - Freedom to Fascism". They talk about this idea. I am not too excited about it.