Foreign investors veto Fed rescue

[frommd]

How would ameros work? Would it be a second currency in addition to the dollar or a replacement over time?

[Koolblue13]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/17/economics.useconomy

Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that there is not already rioting in the streets, given the gigantic fraud perpetrated by the financial elite at the expense of ordinary Americans.

[JMS]

JMS, when did I say anything about merging with the Peso to stabilize the dollar?

I'm sorry if I misunderstod your fascination with the Ameros. Didn't you say..

A North American currency to include Mexico, Canada and the US would be very strong on the international market in the global economy.

Isn't that you sugesting that adding Mexico,Canada, and the US monitary systems together would strengthen them? Fact is adding Canada and Mexico's economies is more like a parrent carrying two small children. It doesn't strengthen the over all effort of moving forward. The US has a GDP of almost 14 trillion dollars. Canada is about 1.4 trilion gdp, and Mexico is a pultry 880 billion dollar economy. Besides, Both Canada's econmy and Mexico's econmy as small as they are; are already tightly dependent upon the United States Economy.

And you sound very similar to the same Europeans who opposed the Euro in 1996.

Perhaps, but the big difference between European Union and the envisioned North/Central American Union are profound. The European Union was made up of a core of relitively equal first world economies.

Mexico's economy is not a first world econoomy. It's not even a very good second world economy. If you merge the US and Mexico's economy it does nothing for the US economy as far as "stabilizing or strengthing" the dollar.

Canada is another matter. They have a first world economy and are a first world country. They are our equals in so far as stadards of living, values, education, and maturitiy of government; but I don't think many Canadians would see joining the US as a net gain or a adventagous union.

Back to Mexico. The advantages to absorbing Mexico are long term advantages. Mexico has 110 million people. Adding that population to the United States population would be an economic gain for us over the long term. Fact is China and India will become the largest economies respectively in the next five decades.. likely sooner; all based upon population size. That eventuallity has been driving US immigration for more than two decades. Adding 110 million folks to the US's now third largest population in the world, would help us forstale that eventuality and make us more compeditive when it does happen....

Still the problems with such a merger are epic. So far the trade agreements the United States have entered into over the last two decades have actually been used as a tactic by corporations to skirt our employment, environmental, and labor laws. If/when we absorb Mexico, it will likely compound these problems and further set the country back decades even a century with regard to workers rights, standards of living, environmental protections, and anti trust legislation.

[techboy]

Well, he's in Costa Rica and has the option between Euro, Dollar and whatever CR uses. What would you have your money in right now?

I think the best idea is generally to hold one's funds in one's own currency. So, if he spends his day to day money in CR currency, then CR currency. If he uses dollars, dollars. Or whatever.

This protects a person from the direct effects of currency fluctuation.

For me, I spend my money in dollars, so all of my money is in dollars. A portion of my portfolio is in TIPS, so I have some inflation protection (should the weak dollar be accompanied by inflation), and a good portion is in foreign funds (where a weak dollar can apparently boost returns).

[zoony]

Isn't that you sugesting that adding Mexico,Canada, and the US monitary systems together would strengthen them?

Not in the short term, no. Which you seem hellbent on discussing.

Perhaps, but the big difference between European Union and the envisioned North/Central American Union are profound. The European Union was made up of a core of relitively equal first world economies.

.

False. Absolutely false.

The info is out there JMS, you seem to appreciate google more than most. Just be sure your mind isn't made up before you hit the search button. Because you will never actually learn anything, only reinforce a pre-existing notion.

....

[JMS]

How would ameros work? Would it be a second currency in addition to the dollar or a replacement over time?

The way the Euros worked is they replaced the native currencies after an exchange rate and monitary policy between the European signatories had been agreed to.

It will never happen here. First off the US and Mexico will never agree on monitary policy as long as American voters have one lick of sense. Second off the Peso fluxurates even more wildly on the global markets than the dollar. Remember the dollar is at historic lows now, but the Peso is at historic lows every few years.

Also remember, the reason why the dollar is low is because the US government has let spending run amuck and out of control. Adding Canada's and Mexico's economic power ( along with their own sizable debt and spending problems ) is hardely a balm for what ails us.

You want to absorb mexico.. All we have to do is pass the McCain amnesty bill. It gives duel citizenship to about 20-30% of the Mexican work force who already live here. Ten years latter we will have the majority of Mexico's work force here applying for citizenship... And since 2004, Mexicans living in the US get to vote in Mexico's elections. They set up the polles right in downtown LA and across the United States.

The McCain amnest bill further targets Mexico's middle class with green cards and job opprotunities, while continueing to ignore the poorest immigrants who have made up the vast majority of illegals in the last few decades....

[techboy]

Now that is the better question.

So let me ask you, why isn't it a realistic possibility if you can't see anything wrong with it?

:2cents:

That doesn't answer my question.

Seriously, though, I've never seen any reason to believe that this country will switch to the Amero (or annex Mexico, for that matter). People threw a fit when we changed the color of the money, for crying out loud, and Congress won't even pay our UN dues, let alone join a World Government...

Anyway, it seems to me that the vast majority of information regarding the "coming Amero" is being driven by conspiracy theorists of either the "Bilderberger Group is running the world" or the "this is all part of the Anti-Christ's master plan" persuasion, and I don't find either persuasive.

When Nancy Pelosi or Mitch McConell start floating trial balloons, then I'll take it seriously.

[zoony]

The way the Euros worked is they replaced the native currencies after an exchange rate and monitary policy between the European signatories had been agreed to.

It will never happen here. First off the US and Mexico will never agree on monitary policy as long as American voters have one lick of sense.

You have taken the position that nothing can change. Interesting, in that you can pull a weblink out of thin air to discuss any topic from the American Revolution to Bill Russel, but you are completely blind to what is going on in Europe right now..

I think the European example is something you should read up on. You don't think the United States and Canada could establish a currency, and have a set criteria to join? And then help 'applicants' get on track to eventually become members?

And the fact that you think the US government would engage in something voluntarily in order to wreck the economy and serve the best interests of Mexico says a lot about your outlook on things. Just sayin'

[JMS]

Not in the short term, no. Which you seem hellbent on discussing.

Then we agree. See that wasnt' that hard...

False. Absolutely false. ( EU was made up by a core of relitively equal first world economies )...

Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and France are all first world economies. All are members of the club the eight largest economies in the world. It's true Germany is stronger than any of them economically, but it's not stronger than all of them economically. That would not be the case in a United States of North and Central Amerca. The EU is not a good model for such a North, Central Amercian Union.

[GibbsFactor]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/mar/17/economics.useconomy

Indeed, it is somewhat surprising that there is not already rioting in the streets, given the gigantic fraud perpetrated by the financial elite at the expense of ordinary Americans.

It's scary. Everyone thinks everything is good because they know the rules of this particular game. But not too many people are stepping back and asking if the game itself is fundamentally flawed. It's almost as if they accept it for the only thing available and that it's got to turn around. Why we continue to kick ourselves in the nuts is beyond me.

[zoony]

Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and France are all first world economies. All are members of the club the eight largest economies in the world. It's true Germany is stronger than any of them economically, but it's not stronger than all of them economically. That would not be the case in a United States of North and Central Amerca. The EU is not a good model for such a North, Central Amercian Union.

You left out Portugal.

And Greece, Slovenia, Cyprus, and Malta.

Not to mention this list. (notice the criteria is set, and countries interested in joining must engage in the process)

All other EU members are formally expected to join the eurozone eventually, except for Denmark and the United Kingdom, who have derogations under the Maastricht Treaty. The following members have acceded to ERM II, which they must spend two years in before they can adopt the euro.

[edit] Slovakia

The koruna has been part of ERM II since 28 November 2005, requiring that it trade within 15% of an agreed central rate; this rate was changed on 17 March 2007. It is expected to be changed once more before the final central rate is set.[citation needed]

Slovakia aims to adopt the euro on 1 January 2009. The target date still holds and the proposed entry will be assessed in May 2008.[14] Although in June 2007 an analyst of a Danish bank said, "there is still a chance Slovakia [...] will be blocked from joining [...] due to the reluctance of the Slovak government to keep spending under control."[15] As of autumn 2007, the government deficit is lower than expected.

[edit] Estonia

The kroon is part of ERM II, though in practice it is pegged to the euro at a rate of 15.6466 krooni = 1 euro (it was formerly pegged to the German Mark at 8 krooni = 1 German Mark).

Estonia has currently no target date for the changeover, although the last target date was for 1 January 2010.[16] The kroon is pegged to the euro at a fixed rate, almost all shops show prices in euro. Stamps also carry their euro face value.[17] Estonia originally aimed to adopt the euro on 1 January 2007, but this was postponed to 1 January 2008 (because Estonia did not meet the inflation criterion[18][19]) and then to 1 January 2010.[20]

The date has slipped further due to the expected inflation level.[21] In September 2007, Estonian Prime Minister Andrus Ansip said Estonia was most likely to join the euro zone in 2011 or 2012. On 11 November 2007, he vowed to continue tight fiscal policies because he wanted the country to adopt the euro as soon as possible despite current high inflation.[22]

[edit] Lithuania

The Lithuanian litas is part of ERM II and in practice it is pegged to the euro at a rate of 3.45280 litai = 1 euro.

Lithuania originally set 1 January 2007 as the target date for joining the euro, but their application was rejected by the European Commission because inflation was slightly higher than the permitted maximum.[23] In December 2006 the government approved a new convergence plan which, whilst reaffirming that the government wanted to join the eurozone "as soon as possible", said that expected inflation increases in 2007-8 would mean the best period for joining the euro would be 2010 or after.[24] Prime Minister Gediminas Kirkilas said on 4 December 2007 that Lithuania "will be able to join the eurozone in the time frame of 2010 to 2011."[25]

An opinion poll published in January 2007 showed that more Lithuanians opposed euro adoption than supported it.[23]

[edit] Latvia

The lats is in ERM II, and floats within 1% of the central rate, Ls 0.702804 = €1. Latvia expects to adopt the euro in 2012 at the earliest,[26] but originally aimed to adopt the euro on 1 January 2008. Due to problems with inflation, Latvia was forced to delay this date.[27]

[edit] Denmark

The krone is part of the ERM II mechanism, requiring that it trade within a 2.25% band of a central exchange rate — a narrower band than most ERM II members. Following Denmark's initial rejection of the Maastricht treaty in a referendum, Denmark negotiated an opt-out from eurozone membership under the Edinburgh Agreement, and is not obligated to adopt the euro.

A referendum on joining the eurozone was held on 28 September 2000, resulting in a 53.2% vote against joining. In recent years, monthly polls[28] usually show that the majority now wants to join the eurozone. In 2007, the Danish parliament considered an assessment of Denmark's four exceptions from the Maastricht Treaty. On 22 November 2007, the newly re-elected Danish government declared its intention to hold a new referendum about abolishing the four exceptions, including the euro, by 2011.[29] It remains unclear if people will vote on each exception separately, or if people will vote on all of them together,[30] but a poll in November 2007 showed 52% support for the euro, and 39% against it. This support was higher than that for any of the other opt-outs.[31]

It remains unclear if Greenland and the Faroe Islands will adopt the euro should Denmark choose to do so. Both are parts of the Kingdom of Denmark, but remain outside of the EU. The Faroe Islands currently uses Danish banknotes printed with Faroese motifs — the Faroese króna — and Greenland plans to introduce a similar system. Under the current system, both will continue to use Danish coins.

[edit] Obliged to join

The following members must first join ERM II before they can adopt the euro.

[edit] Bulgaria

The lev is not part of ERM II, but has been pegged to the euro since its launch. It was previously pegged on a par to the German Mark (1.95583 leva is 1 euro). Hence, Bulgaria already fulfilled the great majority of the EMU membership criteria and must, from 2009, comply with the Maastricht criteria to join the eurozone in 2012, the tentative deadline set by Finance Minister Plamen Oresharski.[32]

While the currency board which pegs Bulgaria to the euro has been seen as beneficial to the country fulfilling EMU criteria so early,[33] the ECB has been pressuring Bulgaria to drop it as it did not know how to let a country using a currency board join the euro. The Prime Minister has stated he would wish to keep the currency board until the euro was adopted, but factors such as high inflation, an unrealistic exchange rate with the euro and the low productivity is made worse by the system.[34]

[edit] Czech Republic

The Czech Republic is similarly bound by the Treaty of Accession 2003 to join the euro at some point, but this is not likely to come soon. The koruna is not part of ERM II. Since joining the EU in 2004, the Czech Republic has adopted a fiscal and monetary policy that aims to align its macroeconomic conditions with the rest of the European Union. Currently, the most pressing issue is the large Czech fiscal deficit. Originally, the Czech Republic aimed for entry into the ERM II in 2008 or 2009, but the current government has officially dropped the 2010 target date, saying it will clearly not meet the economic criteria. It has been suggested that 2013 is the earliest possible changeover date.

[edit] Hungary

Hungary intends to replace the forint in the period 2010-2012, depending on Hungary's economic performance. The forint is not part of ERM II.

Hungary originally planned to adopt the euro as its official currency on 1 January 2010, but that date has been abandoned because of the excessively high budget deficit. The current plan is to prepare a road map in mid-2008, without any target date.[35]

Realistically, it is difficult for Hungary to join the eurozone in the foreseeable future until Hungarian public finances are better managed. Currently, the yearly budget deficit accounts for 6% of GDP, while public debt accounts for 69% of GDP.[36] Hungarian public debt is growing faster than Hungarian GDP.

[edit] Poland

Poland is bound by the Treaty of Accession 2003 to join the euro at some point, but current indications are that this will not be for several years to come as economic criteria must be met. The złoty is not part of ERM II, itself a requirement for euro membership.

Poland currently does not have a timetable for joining the eurozone or ERM II. In May 2006 the former Polish government had set its target date for euro introduction for 1 January 2012. The new prime minister, Donald Tusk, declared at the new government launch in November 2007, that its intention is to join as soon as possible, but only after the budget is close to balance. This is expected to delay the ERM II entry until 2011 and euro entry until 2013 or 2014.[37]

[edit] Romania

The leu is not yet part of ERM II. The Romanian government has announced plans to join the eurozone by 2014. The plan also stipulates to adhere to the ERM-II no sooner than 2012.[38] The president of the ECB said in June 2007, that "Romania has a lot of homework to do ... over a number of years" before joining ERM II.[39]

To simplify future adjustments to ATMs at the adoption of the euro, when the Romanian new leu was adopted in 2005 (at 10,000 old lei to 1 new leu) the new banknotes were issued to the same physical proportions as euro banknotes. The old leu notes were substantially wider than the new notes.

[edit] Sweden

According to the 1994 accession treaty [1], approved by referendum (52% in favour of the treaty), Sweden is required to join the euro and therefore must convert to the euro at some point. Notwithstanding this, on 14 September 2003, a second referendum was held on the euro, the result of which was 56% against adopting the common currency versus 42% in favour.[40] The Swedish government has argued that staying outside the euro is legal since one of the requirements for eurozone membership is a prior two-year membership of the ERM II; by simply choosing to stay outside the exchange rate mechanism, the Swedish government is provided a formal loophole avoiding the requirement of adopting the euro. Some of Sweden's major parties continue to believe that it would be in the national interest to join, but they have all pledged to abide by the result of the referendum for the time being and show no interest in raising the issue.

A very optimistic timetable is to hold a new referendum in 2012 and adopt the euro in 2015. A faster timetable is unlikely, while a slower one is more than likely. Prior to the September 2006 parliamentary elections, all major parties agreed not to raise the question before the following parliamentary elections (to be held in September 2010). The parties seem to agree that Sweden would not adopt the euro until after a second referendum. The Prime minister stated in December 2007 that there will be no referendum until there is a stable support in the polls [41]. The polls have instead shown a stable support for the "no" alternative. The latest one from November 2007 showed 35% yes, 51% no, 14% uncertain.[42]. The EU has made it clear that it will tolerate this with respect to Sweden but not those member states that joined in 2004 or 2007.

[JMS]

You have taken the position that nothing can change.

I have taken the position that cows can not fly. I have not taken the position nothing can change. I believe change is likely in fact. But change won't and shouldn't come on the EU model.

Interesting, in that you can pull a weblink out of thin air to discuss any topic from the American Revolution to Bill Russel, but you are completely blind to what is going on in Europe right now..

We weren't discussing Europe right now. We were discussing the origins of the EU, which occured between 1950's to 2000, culminating in the Euro being adopted as a common currency and the economies being tightly joined.

I think the European example is something you should read up on. You don't think the United States and Canada could establish a currency, and have a set criteria to join? And then help 'applicants' get on track to eventually become members?

The US and Canada could, only it wouldn't be a partnership, The US economy is almost 10 times that of the Canadian economy. Besides Canadians aren't clamoring for it; and America's long term interest in population is not significantly bolstered by Canada's pultry 33 million people. From Canada's perspective there just isnt' that much to be gained. For example. Canada is rich in oil, like mexico.. But we already control Canada's oil as terms of NAFTA. We agreed to pay Canada the going rate and they agreed to sell us all their oil. Increased standard of living... Nope; Canada already ranks ahead of the US in standard of living. Increased Security... Canada already is secure. They don't have any beligerant countries on their boarders, not counting the US on occation.. There just isn't much incentive for Canada, nor the US to join, even as our economies continue to be tightly linked.

What I was saying couldn't and shouldn't happen is a US Mexico merger on the EU model. There is a much more significant need and desire for this to happen than a Canadian merger on both sides of the boarder. But unlike with Canada, the econmy, gdp, per capita income levels, and corruption of public officials are significantly different between the US and Mexico.

I'm not saying a US Mexican merger is unlikely. I'm saying it's unlikely to be modeled on the EU's framework. I'm also saying it's far more likely in the event of such a merger that Mexico would adopt the dollar outright, or peg the peso to the dollar; rather than the US accepting a new Ameros currency.

And the fact that you think the US government would engage in something voluntarily in order to wreck the economy and serve the best interests of Mexico says a lot about your outlook on things. Just sayin'

"wreck the economy"? I didn't say that Bush's attempt at wrecking the US econmy was part of our strategy to assimilate Mexico... I don't believe it is. It actually works against such a plan. A strong US economy is essencial to absorbing Mexico, because earning money is how we are luring Mexico's workforce into the United States.

I said that the US's strategy to make the Mexico economy more and more dependent on the United States until a union is a defacto reality. We already have about 20% of the Mexican workforce in the US, likely more, and they still are voting in Mexico. If the McCain amnesty bill went through you would eventually have the majority of Mexico's workforce in the US legally, mostly US citizens; and still voting in Mexico's elections. Likewise most of Mexico's GDP is already tied to the remittances of illegal and soon to be legal workers in the US sending money home. When that number doubles or tripples; Mexico will be part of the United States and American citizens will be the most important voting and economic block in Mexico.

That is how the union will occur, in my opinion.

As I've said before, I believe there is a 21st centry manifest destiny movement in this country to expand southwards down to the canal. I just don't think many Americans are aware of it.

[JMS]

You left out Portugal.

And Greece, Slovenia, Cyprus, and Malta.

My point was that the EU was originally set up as a partnership. With the core members being relatively equal first world wealthy countries. (Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy )... Not that since the Genisis of the EU they haven't accepted impoverished countries...

I'm saying is that if you added up all the countries in north and south America together... their combined economies would not be as large as half of the United States Economy. In the US model, we have no equal, not even a peer. It's totally different situtation and thereforw will be a totally different power arrangement..

Example.... In the EU the presidency rotates between the member states. That aint happenning here. We aren't farming out our foreign policy to Mexico's officials even on a part time basis.

In the EU each member state has a veto over decisions effecting the entire union. That ain't happenning here either. Mexico will not get a Veto on US trade policies.

The Ameros, might work for Mexico. It wouldn't work for the US. The Peso doesn't help the US dollar at all if you merged the two. Nor would seeding the ability to print Amero's in Mexico as the EU does across boarders be something that the US would find appealing.

Don't get me wrong, there is much that would be apealing in such a merger for a lot of folks, just not on the EU model.