And Is the North American Union the same as NAFTA?
I heard mention of a so-called North American Union for the second time, but this time on late night U.S. news yesterday. The news coverage had much dialogue about NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement. Well, really all the dialogue was about NAFTA. In fact, I thought the story was just about NAFTA. Well, the story started off speaking of a “North American Union”. This is what picked my interest. It was fairly new terminology to me. I decided to Google it. Well, NAFTA web references curiously revealed a few coin prototypes out of the Denver mint. Coins called the Amero are connected with the North American Union.
A-M-E-R-O.
N-A-U.
N.A.U. isn’t as nice sounding at E.U., but I’m connecting the dots folks. Is that why Bush’s last presidential speech was in Peru? Is that what has driven Bush's U.S.-Mexico immigration policies? Who will be the national parties to such preferential access to national markets under N.A.U.? What countries are North American enough for inclusion? What we do know now is that Obama wants to open up NAFTA to renegotiations. Like the E.U.'s development, maybe NAFTA is the first in a coming series of treaties designed to pave a road to N.A.U.
Now to free market and protectionism talks. The Group of 20 nations have finished their honeymoon in Washington D.C. where they began discussing the fate of free market capitalism (if Bush's opening speech is any indicator of the global issue before us) and pledged to calendar successor meetings for the next year or so. A big question is whether the current laissez faire trans-Atlantic policies towards certain multinational transactions require more regulation, especially in transparency and accountability in the global trade of securities. Certainly, the volatility in the stock markets indicates global commerce has developed into a dynamic global market driven by increases in international communication and transfer of resources heretofore unforeseen by the humanity. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may have an increased regulatory role in an Obama administration.
Do we need more inter-governmental regulation of a globalized free market? The illuminati story has been told for centuries. I even read an old book printed from the 1700s in an Amsterdam library that told the full story in no uncertain terms. The economic power and sophistication of multinational entities naturally requires governmental oversight across national borders. In fact, the economic agendas and sophistication of some governmental actors require inter-governmental oversight. My prayers are with Obama as he leads the U.S. through this tunnel. May his decisions be illumined.
There is also a lot of talk about protectionism and how we, meaning the U.S., shouldn’t try to protect our markets from all of the exports from China and other countries. We should continue to be good consumers, even when we can't afford to consume discretionary items. Well, the beautiful thing about supply and demand is that these things naturally work themselves out, making no need for instituting artificial trade barriers. As the trough shrinks, thrift arises.
The U.S. manufacturing industry has declined at least in part to wide-open free market policies that created economic incentives to U.S. companies to transport manufacturing to cheaper labor markets. Simultaneously, we as Americans in the U.S. have been groomed into a super-size me consumer society. A case in point is the U.S. auto industry that is now requesting federal protection checks. The U.S. automakers have encouraged the super-size me culture for years by pushing larger gas-guzzling motor vehicles. Now they are feeling the backlash. The fundamental question is how can demand be made to follow an artificially sustained supply? Will the government also issue another batch of consumer checks conditioned on their use towards auto purchases among the Big 3 automakers? Should the hand be so visible?
Protectionism is just bad some say. Free markets require more governmental oversight. There is indeed a need to maintain a delicate balance between the two. In the meantime, I will just keep my eye on studying this Amero just a bit closer.
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided here may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this blog does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this blog nor transmissions between you and the blogger through this blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
I heard mention of a so-called North American Union for the second time, but this time on late night U.S. news yesterday. The news coverage had much dialogue about NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement. Well, really all the dialogue was about NAFTA. In fact, I thought the story was just about NAFTA. Well, the story started off speaking of a “North American Union”. This is what picked my interest. It was fairly new terminology to me. I decided to Google it. Well, NAFTA web references curiously revealed a few coin prototypes out of the Denver mint. Coins called the Amero are connected with the North American Union.
A-M-E-R-O.
N-A-U.
N.A.U. isn’t as nice sounding at E.U., but I’m connecting the dots folks. Is that why Bush’s last presidential speech was in Peru? Is that what has driven Bush's U.S.-Mexico immigration policies? Who will be the national parties to such preferential access to national markets under N.A.U.? What countries are North American enough for inclusion? What we do know now is that Obama wants to open up NAFTA to renegotiations. Like the E.U.'s development, maybe NAFTA is the first in a coming series of treaties designed to pave a road to N.A.U.
Now to free market and protectionism talks. The Group of 20 nations have finished their honeymoon in Washington D.C. where they began discussing the fate of free market capitalism (if Bush's opening speech is any indicator of the global issue before us) and pledged to calendar successor meetings for the next year or so. A big question is whether the current laissez faire trans-Atlantic policies towards certain multinational transactions require more regulation, especially in transparency and accountability in the global trade of securities. Certainly, the volatility in the stock markets indicates global commerce has developed into a dynamic global market driven by increases in international communication and transfer of resources heretofore unforeseen by the humanity. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may have an increased regulatory role in an Obama administration.
Do we need more inter-governmental regulation of a globalized free market? The illuminati story has been told for centuries. I even read an old book printed from the 1700s in an Amsterdam library that told the full story in no uncertain terms. The economic power and sophistication of multinational entities naturally requires governmental oversight across national borders. In fact, the economic agendas and sophistication of some governmental actors require inter-governmental oversight. My prayers are with Obama as he leads the U.S. through this tunnel. May his decisions be illumined.
There is also a lot of talk about protectionism and how we, meaning the U.S., shouldn’t try to protect our markets from all of the exports from China and other countries. We should continue to be good consumers, even when we can't afford to consume discretionary items. Well, the beautiful thing about supply and demand is that these things naturally work themselves out, making no need for instituting artificial trade barriers. As the trough shrinks, thrift arises.
The U.S. manufacturing industry has declined at least in part to wide-open free market policies that created economic incentives to U.S. companies to transport manufacturing to cheaper labor markets. Simultaneously, we as Americans in the U.S. have been groomed into a super-size me consumer society. A case in point is the U.S. auto industry that is now requesting federal protection checks. The U.S. automakers have encouraged the super-size me culture for years by pushing larger gas-guzzling motor vehicles. Now they are feeling the backlash. The fundamental question is how can demand be made to follow an artificially sustained supply? Will the government also issue another batch of consumer checks conditioned on their use towards auto purchases among the Big 3 automakers? Should the hand be so visible?
Protectionism is just bad some say. Free markets require more governmental oversight. There is indeed a need to maintain a delicate balance between the two. In the meantime, I will just keep my eye on studying this Amero just a bit closer.
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided here may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this blog does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this blog nor transmissions between you and the blogger through this blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment