Monday, July 7, 2008

Granpa's Political Corner: The United States of Europe Part II

Dr. Jerome R. Corsi in his book "The Late Great U.S.A." noted "several defining characteristics emerge from which parallels can be drawn to the movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada."
"A highly motivated and passionate organizer
Economic union as means to economic growth, which was later followed by political union;
A desire to foster security and eradicate war;
A desire to establish a collective consciousness that superseded national consciousness;
A de facto political union that resulted from economic treaties followed by formal ratification;
The blurring of borders and the transfer of passports from the countries to the "supra-government";
A reticence to acknowledge the real goals of the movement;
The creation of a common currency".

Events indicate that Europe is attempting to form a united group of European nations into what might be termed the United Nations (States) of Europe (European Union).

The United States of America has had a union for over 200 years with now 50 States. We have one Constitution and a federal government to bring together the representatives of each of the 50 states to manage the federal government of, by and for the people. Over time the management of the federal government seems to have changed emphasis from the needs and desires of the governed (what is best for the Nation) to an emphasis on what will benefit business.

We have many "trade agreements" and "free trade agreements" with other Nations. How many of these agreements do you remember being discussed with the general public? Were you ever approached and asked your opinion on these agreements? Did you ever vote to accept the agreements? Did your Congressman ask how you wanted them to vote?

Our Congress decided to give the President of the United States "fast track authority" to make trade agreements. In the process of making "free trade" agreements it seems to me that we have taken from America in order to benefit other nations. We don't seem to be able to set up taxation rules that will help manufacturing in this Nation. In the rush to "free trade" and "globalization" we have made arrangements that make it feasible for business to move to other Nations, produce goods using cheap labor and shipping those goods back to the US cheaper than they can produce the goods in the US. Part of the problem is our very affluent society. Part of the problem is our welfare mentality. Part of the problem is our approach to education in the US. Part of the problem is the trend to socialism and the idea that the federal government should take care of us. Part of our problem is excessive spending, an unbalanced budget and "borrowing" money to keep us afloat. Par t of the problem is the authority to create money, the devaluation of our currency and political hubris.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). The agreements became effective January 1, 1994. From Wikipedia, "The NAAEC, in an endeavour to be more than a set of environmental regulations, established the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, a mechanism for addressing trade and environmental issues, the North American Development Bank (NADBank) for assisting and financing investments in pollution reduction, and the Border Environmental Cooperation Commission (BECC)". "Given the scope of the agreement, which includes very sensitive issues in trade talks such as agriculture liberalization and environment refulation, few countries have shown interest in joining NAFTA".

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was founded in Waco, Texas on March 23,2005 with the stated purpose of providing greater cooperation on security and economic issues. Multiple working groups were formed, some were cochaired by our government officials such as Secretary Rice and the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. From Wikipedia "What differentiates the SPP from other security and trade agreements is that it is not subject to Congressional oversight or approval. The SPP establishes a corporate/government bureaucracy for implementation that excludes civil society participation".

All of this is intended to illustrate how a nation can be influenced to accept a concept.

In Europe they are attempting to establish a central government to control the various countries. However, in Europe the various nations do not have a unifying cause other than economics and perhaps security.

In the US we are unified by freedom. Our government is attempting to form a union with Canada and Mexico with a single central government. We are attempting to destroy our sovereignity and our freedom, the very things that unite us as a nation. The US and Canada and Mexico have very different opinions and no common cause, perhaps economy. It seems to me there are two basic beliefs around which people can unite, freedom and religion.

Think about it. What course do you want your country to follow?

Granpa Graham

1 comment:

morrisonbonpasse said...

What course should the U.S. follow? We should work with the rest of the world to establish a Single Global Currency, managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union.
The success of the euro has shown the world that monetary union is a solid foundation for monetary stability and the optimal monetary union will be a Global Monetary Union. The euro is likely to be the core of the Single Global Currency in such a monetary union.
The Single Global Currency Association promotes the implementation of a Single Global Currency, within a Global Monetary Union and managed by a Global Central bank, by the year 2024. With the successful use of the euro and other common currencies, more and more people and organizations and nations are seeing the advantages of monetary unions. Our website is at
The Association recently published the 2008 Edition of my book, The Single Global Currency - Common Cents for the World. A copy of the 2007 edition is available at the Munchen personal archive at and on the Association's website.
The goal of 2024 is only 16 years away. If one looks at the world before the 2002 distribution of the euro to the people of the EMU, you would have seen in 1986 a Europe with a Soviet Union, an East Germany and a Berlin Wall. At that time, most Europeans would have scoffed at the idea of a new monetary union.
The benefits of a Single Global Currency include:
- Zero transaction costs to exchange currencies. Presently, $3.2 trillion is traded every trading day and all this trading and its associated costs, approximately $400 billion annually, can be eliminated.
- The end of currency fluctuations and currency speculation.
- The end of "Balance of Payments", "Current Account" and "global imbalances" problems for currency areas. There will, of course, still be trade and wealth inequalities, and more visibly; but they will not be compounded by the problem of foreign exchange transactions and reserve requirements. There would be no need for countries to maintain international reserves of other currencies.
- Zero manipulation by countries of their currencies, and thus no more need to cajole and jawbone any particular country or currency area about the value of its currency.
- Zero risk of national and regional currency crises such as occurred in the 1990's in Mexico, Argentina, Malaysia, South Korea and Russia.
- Minimal inflation, assuming that the future global central bank sets and achieves a low inflation rate, just as the European Central Bank has done. It's not clear that a zero inflation rate can be secured, as that would bring an economy perilously close to deflation and a deflation spiral, but certainly a low rate of inflation would be better for the world than the current rates.
- Worldwide asset values will increase by about $36 trillion due to the elimination of currency risk. Such an increase in asset values will cause annual worldwide GDP to increase by about $9 trillion.
- With no currency risk, worldwide interest rates would be lower.
- With zero risk of currency failure and zero manipulation and minimal inflation, the Single Global Currency would satisfy the moral obligation that a stable currency should be considered as a fundamental human right, as is the right to own property. A Single Global Currency would be far more stable than the currencies presently used by billions of human beings
While all these benefits are expected upon the implementation of a Single Global Currency, considerable benefits will also come during the implementation processes which will see the reduction of national currencies as predicted and welcomed recently by Benn Steil in Foreign Affairs.
Of course, not all economists agree with the goal of a single global currency. For those who would label the single global currency utopian, we call their attention to the euro, which began as a plan only about 30 years ago. Who would have thought in the 1970's that Europe would not only adopt a common currency, but also that its member countries would discard their old currencies?
The single global currency might be an enlarged transformation of one of the current major currencies (dollar, euro, yen), perhaps with a new name such as "dey", "eartha", "geo","globo" or "worldo" or it might be a new currency with such a name. How we get to that point is, of course, a major challenge, but there are several possible routes. One is to continue the trend of creating and expanding regional monetary unions, and then combine those monetary unions into one. Another is for smaller countries to continue to "ize" their nations' legal tender, as in "dollarize" and "euroize", as has been done in El Salvador and Monaco. Compatible with all these and other routes is the need to convene an international monetary conference of nations, monetary unions and related organizations, and begin planning for the implementation of a single global currency.
Organizations such as the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements, and individual economists should begin to carefully research and write about the benefits claimed above for the Single Global Currency, and about the costs, too. When the vast benefits become better known, the people of the world will demand a Single Global Currency and ask why we have been burdened so long with the existing multicurrency system, which Nobel Laureate Robert Mundell describes as "absurd."

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Tip Tuesday


Designed by Munchkin Land Designs • Copyright 2013 • All Rights Reserved