Union Currancy

My thought is that you should look into just who this "Hal Turner" person is whom you've linked, HOLLYWOOD. I realize you're not expressing support here, but in my opinion even supplying Hal Turner's words as an informative link tarnishes the reputation of the person doing so.

On the amero, as a theoretical concept: Sure, Why not? Monetary unions are no big deal, though most monetary unions (such as West African States or East Caribbean States) are comprised of numerous countries with economies too small to justify making separate currency systems in each individual country. Frankly, I see little need or incentive for such a "small" union of three relatively large economies. You'd really want to unify all of North and South America to make it worthwhile.

However, whatever the future monetary union currency will be called, it almost certainly won't be called an "amero". The word "amero" is a portmanteau of the words "America" and "euro", implying a euro-like coinage, only for North America. It illustrates the concept of what it's promoters are trying to achieve, but the name means nothing. I'm sure, once the decision to adopt a unified currency was made and after considerable public consultation, a far more meaningful and appropriate currency name would be chosen.

Finally, monetary unions require considerable effort and trust to establish and maintain, and this is difficult to do without some kind of unified political framework in place. Remember, in Europe, first there was trade union (the European Economic Community) then political union (the European Community, which became the European Union) and finally monetary union (the Eurozone). North America is still struggling to get through the "trade" stage; political and monetary union is still a long way off.

On the particular amero notes mentioned: I have no idea what they are, or who made them, but I suspect either Hal Turner himself or one of his buddies printed them up, or they're fantasy issues, not unlike the "banknotes" of "Antarctica" printed by these guys. Because neither the amero nor the Antarctic dollar actually exist, there are no laws anywhere preventing anyone printing up whatever whacky designs they please.

On the amero coins mentioned: these were produced as private fantasies by Daniel Carr, a coin designer and medal-maker who is an occasional poster here on this forum. They were not made in any official government mint, are not being made by the billions and stockpiled in some secret location ready for release, and are not going to resemble anything like any actual future "amero" coinage.

On Hal Turner: I've never heard of him before I read this post, and frankly I wish I was still in ignorance. He's clearly deluded. Most UFO sightings come with more credible "truth".

Sap summed it up rather well; there is nothing I can add.

To add to Conder101...

The government wouldn't take 90% by reducing values either (It would make their public debt a bigger burden). The best way to reduce the wealth of citizens is through inflation (They do it now and have for years, but it is a modest tax currently). Most of people's wealth is tied up in paper assets and inflation hurts them very badly. You would still make your $15 an hour, but it would only buy 1/10 of what it did.

Now, people attempt to pass on this tax on their savings but increasing the required rate of return (interest). If inflation is 3% and you want 3% real return, then you would charge 6.09% (1.03 X 1.03).
See the tax is getting passed on, but if you lend them money today for 10 years and inflation goes to 10% next year----the lender is eating that 7%. That inflation is caused through money supply (government controlled to a degree) and velocity of money (little government control if any).

Therefore, there is no free lunch. Printing money out of thin air causing old dollars to be worth a little less in the long run. It is a tax that government gets, but never has to send a bill to the people for it.

Another example, a lot of people bought houses they couldn't afford. Who pays for it? maybe bank shareholders, bank debtors, MBS investors, taxpayers, future borrowers, and etc. Someone has to pay to the bill... the question is who when the homeowner doesn't? Debt forgiveness doesn't make it go away... it just move the cost to someone else.


-SWUSC