By A. B. Thomas
Despite the failings of the Canadian Federal government in being able to be proactive, it still is seen globally as having a healthier grasp than the American government. Analysts are forecasting that the Canadian loonie will once again reach parity with the American dollar by the end of the year whereas the traditional spot for it is at least 15 to 20 cents behind. The reason? The forecast of a 50 billion dollar deficit represents a 3.3% size of the Canadian economy compared to the 175 trillion deficit of the American Federal government which represents 13% of its economy. Even with these numbers facing each of the governments, they not only have loaned a large amount of money they don’t have but have interests in two major automotive makers in order to keep that industry alive.
It can be assumed with reasonable certainty that the laid off oil sands worker in Fort MacMurray, the tobacco farmer in Kentucky to the unemployed receptionist in Portland are not looking at the Federal bail outs of the automotive industry in a positive manner. For that tobacco farmer whose livelihood is not only being destroyed by the economy but the militaristic actions of the anti-smoking lobbyists, are the federal governments giving billions of money they don’t have to save his industry? What of the oil rig worker? The ever increasing push on finding ‘greener’ energy sources, do the governments plan to throw money to keep that industry to their expectations to? Since the early 1980’s when Lee Iacocca came in to ‘save’ Chrysler, the Canadian and American automotive industry has been in trouble. People were buying the more economical imports. There was a clear trend towards these types of vehicles which the automotive industry refused to redirect their products towards. Both governments give the explanation that “they have every confidence in the automotive industry turning itself around” for their artificial inflation of the automotive companies. One must wonder how this would seem possible when a new car is last on the list for the majority of Canadians and Americans who are more concerned at the moment if they will have food on the table or a roof over their and families heads? If an industry cannot support itself and for over twenty years been engaging in activity contrary to what the public needs and wants are, why should it be given the public’s money? Is it then reasonable to assume that the Canadian and American federal governments that they now have, sufficiently blurred what are supposed to be clear lines between business and politics to the point of no return?
When businesses are failing they either change or dissolve – should not the Canadian and American public be looking at their respective federal governments and demanding that it should follow the rules of good economic policy? It is not based solely on the actions towards the automotive industry, but the nations as a whole where examples of mismanagement that would have folded many companies have been held up high as a tribute to the incompetence of the Federal system as it exists today. In the late 1980’s the Alberta government and the Native-Canadian Lubricon nation came to an agreement on Native self government that both parties felt were fair and left both sides feeling positive. The Canadian federal government negated this agreement because the renegotiation of treaties was the responsibility of the federal department of “Indian Affairs” and not the province’s. To date, there has been no movement towards any renegotiations with any band in Canada. In both countries, the unemployment regulations by the federal governments are causing many to be missed or considered ineligible because they do not qualify under the national standards. The problem with national standards is that they fail to be elastic enough to bend for the current conditions of the different provinces and states, thus putting more stress on those provinces and states welfare systems.
Where the federal governments fail the most in the wastage of public monies is the redundancy of programs. Is there really a need for a federal department of infrastructure, resources, fisheries, education, fish and wildlife; the list goes on; when each province or state has departments that handle these areas because each region is unique in the needs and requirements? How many billions are spent in these departments that are counter-productive to the individual provinces or states perception of need? Does a federal government that isn’t in that specific area have a right to superimpose its will over areas where it does not have a presence to feel the impact of its decisions?
An argument could be made that these redundancies are necessary in order to create national standards. The problem however is that the conditions of the lands that the federal governments and their powers and responsibilities were created in no longer exist. Gone are the days where messages could take days, weeks or months to get through. Gone are the days where borders were under constant attack. Gone are the days where there was more wild country than settled areas.
Each country has its strengths and its own weaknesses. Canada, for its strength, is wealthy in terms of natural resources. Its weaknesses are that, due to the lower population and consequently, less density in its critical hubs, in comparison to world populations, it does not have the military or human resources. Mexico has the strength of a populace that, with all due respect to the Canadian and American public, has a strong work ethic and see jobs as they have to be done and not what their education has brainwashed them into thinking is below them. The United States, strong in military might and population but is weak in the natural resources department. A decade ago it would have been harder to discuss this merging because of the differences in the social constructs, but today the recession has smeared the distinctions to what each government has delegated itself to be responsible for in terms of the public. Yet the federal governments continue to fail because the bureaucracy that they created for themselves has become a monster that cares not for what is occurring around it but in its own appetite.
Perhaps it is time to put away the egocentric titles of “Canada”, “Mexico” and “The United States of America” and face the fact these three countries are too large and diverse economically to be managed fairly and wisely by a singular federalist political body. It is still important that there be a strong political force but perhaps for North America, the model should be that of the European Economic Union where there is solidarity in the economic and ecological goals though with the leeway of employing methods and policies toward that goal at the discretion of independent states that are sensitive to the needs of their designated populace; creating a single political force by the name of the “North American Economic Union”. Maybe be it is time for people to stand up in stadiums and sing “To whatever you believe or not believe in bless or pardon the NAEU”.
Subversify Staff
It Flag day here. So Im thinking..Hmmmmmm is Anthony suggest we draw on each others strenghts to lessen each others weaknesses…that we find a compromise that works well for all involved..a new way of thinking..a new way of going forward? On flag day..when we have are own flag and our own song? Its almost like you actually thought intelligent
men and woman may actually get together and look at three separate entities and the problems of each..see how they could each separately benefit from each other, and actually act as a government should and solve a problem or two with the health well being and standard of living of its citizens to be the main goal…did fall and hit your head. We have our own flag Anthony..and our own song…thats whats important.
I’ve always been in favor of open borders. The restrictions at the crossings into The United States, Canada and Mexico don’t have nearly so much to do with such anxieties as job losses, drug smuggling (well enabled on both sides of the border, netting top profits through their secretative rings of border transactions) or mass immigration, but the control of trade. When Mexico refused to allow American militia to cross their borders on foot into Nicaraugua and El Salvador, the U.S. put riduculous sanctions of the import of American goods into Mexico, including the prohibitation of perfumes, electrical appliances, incense and chocolate bars. When U.S. citizens discovered they could buy their necessary, life saving pharmeceutical products for less money if they went into Canada, the U.S. medical profession and FDA blew the whistle as unfair competition for their over-priced drugs. A standard unit of currency value for these three countries, each struggling under its own investment of work force and natural resources in an attempt to receive fair equity, would solidify the statement of North American worth as well as ease the restrictions of monopolistic practices.
It’s true that the Continental United States has depleted most of its natural resources, including clean water and available farm land. However, Alaska is still a state with abundant resources, from which the benefits and funds have been channeled into U.S. coffers. Lease sales of Alaskan coastal waters for oil exploration and development paid three billion dollars of the initial debt for the war in Iran. Yet Alaskans have an entire country between it and the United States, and many Alaskans have more family in Canada than in the U.S. Alaska has more in common with Canada than it does with the U.S.; a similar geography, a listing of the same natural resources such as oil, natural gas, timber, fur bearing and indigenous food bearing animals, fisheries, a low population and a demographically cultural identity.
Mexico, despite its high population, is a very industrial country, wasting very little of its natural resources and practicing conservative waste disposal through necessity. Its versatality comes from the will of its people to work in a united effort to pull themselves up by the bootstraps from its poverty. It paid off its debt after the peso crash, despite the staggering sacrifices of the people to eek a survival income at best; and its continuing determination looks for ways to utilize their resources but preserving as much of their unrewable resources as possible for future generations. To the critical eye; Mexico is a wealthy country, with vast, fertile valleys able to grow a variety of vegetables, legumes, grains and fruits. Although its vast oil resources are dwindling, it too is looking forward to the introduction of alternate energy resources. It has at its disposal, precious metals, precious stones, ancient techological and architectural marvels, and as you pointed out, Tony, a willing work force.
A debt has been created from which the entire world suffers. We need to look beyond the superficial paper fluency of that debt, come together as a united North America and decide on our true worth.
An interesting idea this Continental Union, I think it will go over like a Lead Zeppelin. The problem being that the Religous right which seems to be in the majority here in the states has gobbled up, digested and made it a part of itself to be scared shitless of anything that sounds like a “New World Order” That ranks higher than their fear of Computers taking over and Gays teaching their kids in school.
I agree that our nations are all mismanaged and as you say too large. What the Constition did not plan for was the rabid sucess of western expansion and I feel it’s a good time to re-think our government.
As to econmic policies the problem I see is we are stuck in using the same formulas over and over, calling things by the same name, Socialism, Free Market, Communism. What is necessary is something entirely new for this newer situation we have grown and we are not able to make use of the old economic standards.. However most importantly we have to be careful of language,how things are presented snd what we call them. We should have some socioligists, psychologists and spin doctors working with these economists.
It is at time allowable to have the international financers control openly the currieencies of the Nothe American continent. Each counter is Sovereign upon its own borders. The concept borders being attacked has moved from physical application onto a paper standard. The countries of Europe did not want the consolidation of their monies. It happened as a result of international financers driving debt into such high proportions that the host countries were forced to do this.
Now a standardized European Union is forced into economicly standardizind of laws. The borders have been broken and what results is the facade of independent nations.
The Unites States is Bankrupt and owned by its creditors. Has been since 1789. However it is the corporate “United States”, the fictituos entity United States under Article I §, clauses 16 and 17 that is bankrupt, and not the Sovereign citizens of the(u)nited States of America.
An Ameri-dollar would break all international borders between the countries of North America anf force said contries to consolidate under the rule of Equity and hence no longer be seperate and independent nations.
The focus of the people have and continue to be subverted away from nationalism into communistic values of a one world government.
It would be an error to believe that an economic bloc would lead to a North American political system. I can see areas combining, such as Alaska, The Yukon Territories and British Columbia, or Texas and the Tamaulipas region as the resource concerns would be similar, however the historical differences in accumulation of lands are far too diverse and would be contended, more so in Canada as most of the treaties with the Native Canadian tribes were negotiated (though with the same malice and screw over-ship of) over the more American round up and exile to specific areas. Though there is the American perchance to throw around the word ‘communism’ as the evil empire to freedom, it is hard not to notice that what Americans find distasteful about the socialistic nature of Mexico and Canada in it being closer to the ‘commies’ than the ol’ Red, White and Blue propagates itself as, it is hard not to argue that even using words like ‘bailout’, ‘grants’, ‘guaranteed loans’ and ‘incentives’ are the same as ‘subsidies’ that are handed out by the government. What valid argument can be put forth that the communistic ideal of government control of industry is not prominent in the U.S. today? A person can call a vibrator a personal massager all they want, but in the end, its still a vibrator.
Economics and politics are not naturally occurring Siamese twins, nor would they be considered fraternal twins, but more like distant cousins, twice removed and possibly not at all depending on the paternity suit. The two are put together under an arranged marriage of ideals by those who believed that they were far more adept to assign importance to resources than the majority of those around them. Until this delusion of the masses is re-introduced as being separate, there will be a co-joining of the two which inevitably leads to derision between sectors of what should be a stable economic area and countries such as China will capitalize on this to their advantage. The U.S. should be strongly opposing the conflict but rather than acknowledging the weaknesses in their own system, the American government and industry are targeting those they can bully such as Canada and Mexico.The United States is the ceremonial eunuch in the harem of the World Bank; with the majority of its intimidative prowess a tip of the hat to what it formerly was rather than what it is today, with that even slowly wearing thin. In the sixties the U.S. made the Soviet Union back down over nuclear weapons; today the U.S. cannot even flex its muscles enough to make North Korea release two wrongly imprisoned reporters. The concept of one world government will never be a remote possibility, for there will always be those who will not accept it. I, for one, still seek a small South or Central American country to rule – I would never give up that goal to submit to a singular entity to tell me whom and where I can enslave to indulge my hedonistic passions, which would lead me to believe there are others who would similarly oppose rather than kill their dreams of world domination.
I think the Americas would have a much greater say if they presented a united economic front based on their resources. Isn’t that the issue behind fiat moneies? Monies loaned and traded with no true resources behind them. China has built its buying power on the ability to manufacture cheaply and in large quantities. Now, with stock piles of merchandise scattered world wide, it wants to reign in some of its loans. How is this any different than the conditions set and mandated by the financial banks from which you wish to separate, little chief? The emphasis is on manufacturing value versus raw resources; and this is the issue that has been going on since 1789. We are all in the same boat; the United States, Canada and Central America. A fiat value has been placed on our resources through institutionalized International trade without once consulting the constituents who live there and rightfully own the raw materials. There is no reason the countries whose resources are at stake shouldn’t come together and agree on a unified value. Separate economy from the political structure. That was the first initiative.
Before anyone begins to say or believe that there is no real or implied connection between economics and politics, please read “This is Your Freedom, America”.
The Euro Dollar, in its application has destroyed the Sovereign Nationality of all the previous Nations. The same people who forced the Crown of England from rule of the land into figureheads of State, are the ones responsible for enacting the application of the Ameri- Dollar. And guess what they are the international bankers. The elitist few of the world.
An Ameri -Dollar realized would destroy the Sovereign borders of America, Canada and Mexico. The natural rule of the land would be turned over to the same Banking Societies who lend fiat monies to entire nations and then insure compliance wishes through bankruptcy debt shadow, or Corporate Veils. This is how the Crown of England fell.
It is not of consequence for the distance of communities in relation to economic application of a standardized North American currency that concerns me.
It is rather the loss of Sovereign identity, of individual nations, through subversion of independent currencies by bankruptcy assurances in retailation for non-compliance that scares the Hell out of me.
Further, the pictured Ameri-dollar at the top of this article, upon its face shows, in plain English how the Americas would be defeated nations.
Let’s explore.
Front of reference monies:
1. Federal Reserve note wording next to the denomination in upper left corner. This brings foreword the prima face evidence of the destruction independent forms of Federal government into a single structured Federal Government. The defeat of 3 Sovereign Nations by stroke of currency.
2. United Federation of North America. The word “Federation” infers the deference of independent Law into communal(ist) subservience of external policies and precedence.
Back of reference monies:
1. The North American Union. Wording should not construe the union (or description) of Sovereign American countries. Rather reference monies supplies proof of stabilization of currencies through union(istic) singular economic policies and not holistic law.
2. CINQUANTE wording at right of description of monetary amount at mid level of reserve note. Reference Cinquante, meaning Ordinal number. Whom ordains said number.
3. CINCUENTA wording at left of description of monetary amount at mid level of reserve note. Reference Centavo Coins. Conversion of currency from source to external political monies not beholden to internal laws or said host country.
If I could reference the fine print on said “Federal Currencies” there would be more. However there is sufficient rhyme and reason to be suspicious of this Standardized North American currency.
Further, the pictured Ameri-dollar at the top of this article, upon its face shows, in plain English how the Americas would be defeated nations.
Let’s explore.
Front of reference monies:
1. Federal Reserve note wording next to the denomination in upper left corner. This brings foreword the prima face evidence the destruction of independent forms of Federal government into a single structured Federal Government. The defeat of 3 Sovereign Nations by stroke of currency.
2. United Federation of North America. The word “Federation” infers the deference of independent Law into communal(ist) subservience of external policies and precedence.
Back of reference monies:
1. The North American Union. Wording should not construe the union (or description) of Sovereign American countries. Rather reference monies supplies proof of stabilization of currencies through union(istic) singular economic policies and not holistic law.
2. CINQUANTE wording at right of description of monetary amount at mid level of reserve note. Reference Cinquante, meaning Ordinal number. Whom ordains said number.
3. CINCUENTA wording at left of description of monetary amount at mid level of reserve note. Reference Centavo Coins. Conversion of currency from source to external political monies not beholden to internal laws or said host country.
If I could reference the fine print on said “Federal Currencies” there would be more. However there is sufficient rhyme and reason to be suspicious of this Standardized North American currency.
Further, the pictured Ameri-dollar at the top of this article, upon its face shows, in plain English how the Americas would be defeated nations.
Let’s explore.
Front of reference monies:
1. Federal Reserve note wording next to the denomination in upper left corner. This brings foreword the prima face evidence the destruction of independent forms of Federal government into a single structured Federal Government. The defeat of 3 Sovereign Nations by stroke of currency.
2. United Federation of North America. The word “Federation” infers the deference of independent Law into communal(ist) subservience of external policies and precedence.
Back of reference monies:
1. The North American Union. Wording should not construe the union (or description) of Sovereign American countries. Rather reference monies supplies proof of stabilization of currencies through union(istic) singular economic policies and not holistic law.
2. CINQUANTE wording at right of description of monetary amount at mid level of reserve note. Reference Cinquante, meaning Ordinal number. Whom ordains said number.
3. CINCUENTA wording at left of description of monetary amount at mid level of reserve note. Reference Centavo Coins. Conversion of currency from source to external political monies not beholden to internal laws or said host country.
If I could reference the fine print on said “Federal Currencies” there would be more. However there is sufficient rhyme and reason to be suspicious of this Standardized North American currency.
Sorry about the tripple post.
also, 1 and 2 on the the reference of back of “Reserve note should mirror. Meaning i goofef and one should read “on leeft” and two should read “on right”. Appologies to the true readers.
Covering my mouth and giggling in a most ladylike manner…
Marvellous, thanks for posting!
Wow dude, this is extremely good information, thanks.