Talk:North American monetary union

Vicente Fox - Conspiracy theorist?

One must admit that "conspiracy theorists" is a politically loaded term and therefore doesn't meet with Wikipedia's stated purpose of striving for bias free articles.

And yeah, if it's only the "conspiracy theorists" who contend that the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico are already taking steps to implement such a currency are you saying then that Former Mexican President Vicente Fox is a conspiracy theorist? For he did state in an October 8th, 2007 interview on CNNs Larry King Live that he and Bush discussed that very thing.

Article needs to be split into two

There are two different things going on in this article: one is a hypothetical discussion of what a North American currency union might look like, based on descriptions in obscure white papers from think tanks and science fiction books. The other is the origin and debunking of the conspiracy theory that such a union actually is being planned by some sort of powerful forces. The two have little to do with each other, for one. Additionally, by keeping the two in one article, the citations for the first look like evidence for the latter--which they are not, and which some of the people who provide them probably do not want them used as. The first article should be the place for discussing serious economic and futurologist viewpoints about what an NACU might be; the second should be devoted largely to a sociological analysis of why people believe in the conspiracy theory--not to details of the theory itself, as that lends undue weight to the idea that said theory is true. I suggest that the two articles be: North American currency union (concept in literature) and North American currency union (conspiracy theory). Randy Blackamoor (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I gave this enough time for discussion/objections, so unless anyone can articulate why I should not do so, I am going to split the article as described sometime within the next few days. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposal. By necessity, if we have an article discussing the conspiracy aspect of it, the article will first have to discuss WHAT is being planned, if anything, which is largely here on this page. SO we'd be repeating a lot of information. As to sociological reasons for the belief of these theories, that surely falls under the heading of "conspiracy theories" and there is already an article on that. Since the amount of unique information - spelling out the beliefs of those who think this is already in the works - is rather thin, it makes sense to keep that aspect of it here. As has been oft-stated on this and the NAU page, once you start to talk about these theories, it becomes a lot of unsourced nonsense and debate back and forth over which fantasy is the "real" agenda etc. Canada Jack (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also object to splitting the article, as doing so would likely lead to a WP:POVFORK. Not to mention the fact that virtually all of the non-WND references we have on this topic focus on the hypothetical union, rather than the conspiracy theory. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussions from merged article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

united states arguments for

The section paragrapth is WAY too POV and unencyclopediac. Zazaban 04:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent POV additions

Recently, there have been large amounts of text added without any sources cited. Each paragraph is to have at least one cite for the info in it, and more if the info within one paragraph is from different pages within a source. This is NOT a guideline or suggestion - proper sources are REQUIRED per WP:ATTR and WP:V POLICIES. Even with proper sourcing, text must adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral point of View policy. - BillCJ 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

CFR

The Council on Foreign Relations also has supported regional and global currencies designed to replace nationally issued currencies.

In an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled "The End of National Currency," CFR economist Benn Steil asserted the dollar is a temporary currency.

Steil concluded "countries should abandon monetary nationalism," moving to adopt regional currencies, on the road to a global "one world currency." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.252.127 (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Name and subject

There is no such thing as the "North American Monetary Union" - it is merely a concept and proposal. As such, I have moved the article to "North American monetary union". In addition, the article is not about the "North American Union", which also does not exist. It is striclty to discuss ideas on a monetary unification of North Amaerica, not ideas for further economic or political unions of the continent. Such material, with proper sourcing, could go to North American Union, which is currently vacant. However, remember that Wikipedia is not the venue for one-sided presentations of anti-CFR/-Bilderberg propoganda, or any other kind of propoganda! - BillCJ 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The name is retarded. The name makes me want to snap. This is retarded. The amero?!!! They are trying to copy the Euro, yet it is called the Euro because it is part of the name...European. EUROpean. There is no AMEROcan. This is retarded. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! FN RETARDED! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.11.70.89 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute

See Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears, Seattle Times, May 19 2007. Moonriddengirl 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the current version is based on urban legend. However, please see the versions before the POV user's edits, which are based (somewhat) on sourced material, and deal with the monetary union specifically, as addressed above. - BillCJ 16:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

semi-protect

I've semi-protected the article, which will allow signed-in editors to edit the page free of the disruptive IP. Bucketsofg 18:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't know anything about the topic, but I am interested in the matter, and will do my best to improve it with verifiable sources. - BillCJ 18:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive

I can include sources but they will only be deleted (ex.Corsi's Late Great USA) . By disruptive you mean people who don't agree with you. Wikipedia is a farce. Find real alternative media/news. IT would seem that the article was generated by people who don't know much about the topic - and then we are not allowed to delete it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How irrational.

http://www.amazon.com/Late-Great-U-S-Coming-Merger/dp/0979045142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.251.82.52 (talk • contribs)

You were being disruptive because:

1. You added large chunks of uncited text into the article. THis may not seem like much to you, but Wikipedia takes copyright LAWS very seriously. Without proper sources, we have no way of knowing if you've copied text verbatim, or written it yourself from other material.
2. You decided, without prior (or any since then) discusion, to change the focus of the article from the idea of having a single currency for North America to a criticism of the SPP, and its supposed preparation for an NAU. The fact that there already is an article on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America which might be better for such a topic doesn't seem to mattr to you - you just decided on your own to change this one!
3. You continually reverted contrustive changes to the article, and requests for discussion. In fact, you're very lucky you've not been blocked for violating the Three-revert Rule.
4. You were adding content from a single point-of-view as if it were gospel truth, with no attempt to represent other views, or give a balanced presentation. This violates the Neutral Point of VIew policy.
5. If you want to dicsuss the so-called North American Union (NAU), then create an article on it. Don't hijack some other page and insist on rewriting it without any discussion beforehand. But if you do create such an article on the NAU, it needs credible, verifiable sources, and it needs to be written from a neutral point-of-view. You have to present the view of people in all 3 countries who are for or against the idea (it's not even a proposal yet). If you aren't willing do do those things, then you aren't writing an encylopedia article, and you'd be better off just writing a blog somewhere. - BillCJ 04:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussions from this article

You people are fools! why create a wikipedia topic if only reads the same propaganda like garbage found everywhere else..having said that the AMERO is an EVENTUALITY (didnt anyone take a macro-econ course?...notice how they snuck the Euro in? its hedgemony of death in this "brave new world" if you ahvent been paying attention since WW2... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.135.111 (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be living in an alternate reality, Mr. Unsigned. The euro was a major part of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, not something "snuck in." Indeed, two of the dozen countries then in the EU opted out of the common currency and remain outside to this day: the UK and Denmark. Some "snuck in." Subsequent countries joining the EU are required to, eventually, adopt the currency, but only when they qualify. Despite this, Sweden has avoided joining. It never ceases to amaze me how many people fall for the nonsense promoted by the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips. But the old adages "b.s baffles brains" and "repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it" are particularly apt in this case.

In other words, the persons who "haven't been paying attention since WW2" are PRECISELY the ones who fall for this b.s., and there is no better word to describe the supposed "plans" to "sneak" this currency through the back door but "b.s." Canada Jack (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions

True or false: this is something that will probably take the place of the United States dollar as the currency of the United States sometime between 2500 and 3000 66.32.121.159 16:43, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm ... let me get in my time machine to see if that happens. *goes ahead in time to 3000, reads history book* Nope. Afraid not. In 2137, America adopts the Mexican peso

• I think the Amero is highly unlikely. While many Canadians and Latin Americans would fear domination by the USA, ironically, much the USA's people would see the Amero as a setback not only for their sovereignty but their distinctive superpower role. I think a much more feasible idea is a currency union between the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Call it the New Pound Sterling, perhaps. Free traders and internationalists in these four countries can be sold on it by pointing out that rejecting the euro and USD for the NPS is not hunkering down and rejecting globalization and integration; in fact, the NPS would be not only an international currency like the euro, but intercontinental currency, used in Europe, North America, and Australia. Nationalists could be mollified by pointing out that each country would retain much more influence and control over monetary policy than any would if it became a tail tied on to the euro or US dollar. A currency design that had distinctive national elements on at least one side of both the coins and notes (rather than only one side of the coins, as with the euro), would help with this as well. Finally the four countries have more in common with each other than any do with the USA or Europe, with approaches on economic policy that tend to fall midway betwen the two giants. As for the transition, emulating the transition to the euro seems like a good process. -LeoO3

Aside from membership in the Commonwealth, how does Canada have more in common with the UK, Australia and NZ than America? Have you been to Canada lately? If you didn't see maple-leaf flags and bilingual (English/French) signage, it'd be very easy to think you were in the United States. Funnyhat 07:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While Canada's landscape, accent, and various cultural elements are more "American" than "Commonwealth", its fiscal, social, and regulatory policy is closer to that of the UK, Australia, and NZ than the USA. LeoO3 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

humm so this New Pound Sterling thing is some sot of Neal Stephenson-ain like 'Anglosphere'currency am i right? I Could see being taking up in Australia and NZ, But not if Paul Keating era attempts to integrate the economy with the Southeast Asia region pay off as predictedJoey jojo 16:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat, although it specifically excludes the USA. You're right that its thrust goes against the Australian left's de-emphasis of traditional ethno-cultural ties and advocacy of closer integration with Asia. LeoO3 15:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A number of states – such as Argentina and Canada – have at times tied their currency to the United States dollar,

Canada? Is this referring to the old days when the dollar was backed by silver and gold (with the Canadian dollar on teh same standard as the US dollar)? Or was there a tie during the current fiat money era? -- Nik42 08:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, this refers to 1962-70 when the Canadian dollar was pegged at 92.5 cents U.S. - SimonP 12:06, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone think it is likely that by 2500 or 3000, there will be a total of two currencies in the world: the United States dollar, and mundo (or something), a unified currency for the entire rest of the world? JIP | Talk 14:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see this: North American amero, South American peso, euro, CIS ruble, Central-west African franc/afro?, Southern African rand, Middle East dinar, South Asian rupee, Southeast Asian whatever, East Asian yuan, Pacific dollar. These countries will be struggling for which zone to join:

Ukraine, Mexico, Myanmar, Afghanistan?, Transcaucasian countries. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 15:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no point in Mexico being a member of the Union. They are nowhere near the stability of Canada or the United States. It would be like letting the Ukrain join the European Union.Fentoro 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

cases against

• This would be very bad for the people of every country that joined if the U.S. dollar enters a period of hyperinflation.
• Who would control the printing presses?

Carbonate 13:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If there was plans for a North American currency union, I would suspected there would be entry rules and restrictions like those for the euro, like on inflation, so major inflationary pressures will possibly will not exist. There would be a central bank like the European Central Bank and so like the various printing presses.--159753 15:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15017

It's already a done deal. 2010 is the target date. Oh, and printing presses will be controlled by the same people who already control ALL the money printing presses - and that's NOT the US government. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.122.223 (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Bias

This hardly sounds like an unbaised sentence: "The C.D. Howe Institute, one of Canada's right-wing conservative economic think tanks". Can we get a neutral description of what C.D. Howe Institute is? --216.145.49.15 22:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Amero coins

I found an image of amero coins on the image search. Oklahoma Corridor Watch has it.--Edtropolis 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: I have read the webpage, Oklahoma Corridor Watch [1] seem to be an anti-NAFTA website. The coins seem to be just simple mock-ups which seem to be just 2 euro coins modifed with the word Amero on them. Not really encyclopedic, sorry. 159753 19:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure as hell looks that way. Anyhow, Hal Turner's [2] website shows another set of pics (which the asshole decided to watermark) that look a lot more genuine. If anyone has the source images, they might be worth posting here. Sweetfreek 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Turner is passing these off as secretly leaked official coins that the Power Elite are soon planning to set into circulation. But they're not official coins - they're fake and made for people who like to collect fantasy pattern coins. Their designer is Daniel Carr, and his website is http://www.designscomputed.com/coins/amero.html. See also http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=54632. --SirEditALot 20:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would it be called the Amero conidering that both Canada and the US already call their currencies the "dollar"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.28.208.158 (talk) 06:07, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

If its going to be called anything why isn't it "Camero"? I mean I can see having "Amer" in it denoting American (which, yes I know, the continent is called North America but most people when thinking of the word "America" or "American", think USA) and the O which could be argued denotes Mexico's peso or just the ending of the word "mexicO" (altho i think the o is to coincide with the eurO but w/e) but there's nothing denoting Canadas part in it. So I think a "C" for "Canada" in front of the whole name would be fitting. Calling it a Camero would also fit Canada's tradition of having a funny name for its more valuble coins. ie "Loony" and "Toonie". I know wikipedia isn't exactly the place the debate this but since the name is already being debated here I thought I'd bring this point up. Any thoughts?Imperialconqueror 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

<--- Differing cultural and social/economic objectives amongst the other western nations would be another point of contention[citation needed]. ---> Just wondering if a citation is really needed here? I would think this point to be obvious in any situation like this? - 74.119.209.113

Canada-centric?

This article is too Canada-centric. We should revise it for a "worldwide view." -RedBlade7 16:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Not just that, it claims that in canada discussions of adopting the american dollar or having a cross border currency are "common" and then lists one or two infamously ultra-right wing think tanks as proof. That is proof of how UNCOMMON the discussion is, that it's a pet project only of borderline thinktanks, and not something in general discussion with the population.

This article is likely written by one of those think tanks to try to make it seem like it's as natural as pie to adopt the american currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.67.175 (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent use of ideological adjectives

This article is inconsistent in its use of political ideological adjectives. The article describes the Fraser Institute as "conservative" but fails to mention that the C.D. Howe Institute is also right-wing.

The article then goes on to describe the moderately social democratic Council of Canadians as left-wing when the Council does not oppose the fundamentals of capitalist economics in any serious fashion and thus is left-of-centre by any starndards (and even centrist by European standards).

For the time being, I'm going to insert the adjective "conservative" to describe the C.D. Howe Institute and I'm changing the "left-wing" adjective for the Council of Canadians to "left of centre".

If somebody has a better way of working this problem, it'd be great to come up with a more permanent solution which will flow and sound better than my solution.

Ottawastudent 16:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New World Order

While I appreciate your attempt to improve Wikipedia, all our content needs to be verifiable and come from reliable sources, I'm afraid a couple of blog postings don't qualify. - SimonP 12:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that the links should not be included. From WP:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories: "The discussion of a non-mainstream theory, positively or negatively, by other non-mainstream groups or individuals is not a criterion for notability.....If a non-mainstream theory is so unnotable that mainstream sources have not bothered to comment on it, disparage it, or discuss it, it is not notable enough for Wikipedia." --SirEditALot 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the mainstream media won't report on such a theory, but I think it's important to cite all theories and information from all ends of the spectrum (if the article is to be as extensive and relevant as possible). - Anonymous

Wikipedia sources need not be limited to the "media." However, as per WP:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories, if a fringe theory is so unnotable that the only people who have commented on it are its adherants (or other fringe theorists), then it is not significant. Mentioning non-significant views violates NPOV so, if no other sources can be found, the information should not be included in this article. Perhaps it can be included in another article dedicated to such conspiracy theories (e.g. New_World_Order_(conspiracy)). It is not, however, necessary for the "mainstream media" per se to have reported on it to qualify it for inclusion here. All that's necessary is that any non-fringe source has commented about it. --SirEditALot 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into American currency union. -- BillCJ 02:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested merger

North American monetary union and American currency union → North American currency union

(See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages for details on performing mergers.)

• Both topics overlap considerably. American currency union has much better sourcing, but focuses primarily on North America. North American monetary union has better detailed discussions, but from fewer sources, and is currently under an ill-advised AfD in liue of proper discussions. Merge would solve the problem of few balanced sources, and improve the resulting artilce. Final article name fully negotiable. - BillCJ 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

Survey - Support votes

• Support - Per my nomination. - BillCJ 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support - 159753 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC) It seems like the article twice, or perhaps in a North American curency union, but with a section on the amero.
• Support - Both articles seem to be about the exact same subject. - --SirEditALot 04:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support, same topic. —Nightstallion 13:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• Oppose -

Decision

No contest. I'll be removing most unsourced items unless I think they are crucial to the article, or very likely to be true. I'll also be moving the article to North American currency union, as we did not have any other proposals, but again, I am open to other titles. - BillCJ 01:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

added constitutionality aspect

plz add more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.66.206 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Had a few people here adding stuff which flatly declares any such talk as "unconstitutional." Seems to me it is best to present that as a contention and to add a few links - which I have done.Canada Jack 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

omit Fox "admission" of common currency intent

Someone did the same to the Independent Task Force on North America page which had this supposed "admission" by Vincente Fox on Larry King the other night that plans were afoot to bring in a common NA currency.

This is covered on the talk page there, here is the transcript of the supposed "admission."

KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"

FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...

KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?

FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.

It would seem that in discussing a possible process for a Latin American common currency, the phrase "like we are trying to do with NAFTA" in discussing enhancing trade agreements is an "admission" that currency union itself is on the table. At least, that's the claim from some, and Conservapedia, for one, has this on their home page. Canada Jack 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this some sort of obsession with some, this belief that Vincente Fox on Larry King the other night, "confirmed" a plan to adopt a common NA currency? He did no such thing! I removed, again, this untrue claim, a claim easily dismissed by reading the above transcript.Canada Jack 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Commodities

Canada's economy is far more centred around commodities than the United States (I believe around 12% to 1% of GDP). As such, and given future demand for commodities, a separate Canadian dollar allows it to fluctuate based on the price of resources. This has positive and negative implications. The recent rise in Oil price (Canada being a net exporter) allows the price to increase and take "potential" gains from this. We're the currencies to be merged, this could not happen. This issue is far more complex but I certainly believe that "response to commodity prices" needs to be included as an argument, maybe more a criticism. Canking 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be more on the Canadian aspect of critism of a proposed united currency. As the article stands, it is decidedly American in terms of the arguments against it. In some quarters, it seems that it is seen as a "given" that Canada and Mexico would leap at the chance to piggy-back on the US dollar, when for reasons such as you state that is not the case at all. In fact, there is a lot of resistance to the notion in Canada that we should join the US dollar or create an Amero-type currency. It IS more welcomed, the concept, in Quebec, but I doubt most Canadians would favour the idea, peso included or not. Canada Jack 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tips on vandalizing this article

The best way to complain about a nonexistent, vague plan to do something you can't define is to post your boring opinions on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter that the existence of any "North American currency union" is part of a larger insane conspiracy theory involving Jews, aliens, and Bush doing WTC--go ahead and have a furious debate about something imaginary, muck like two nerds standing outside a comic book store arguing about whether the Hulk can beat up Superman. Under no circumstances should you worry about the war in Iraq, the repressive enforcement of American drug laws, cronyism in the Justice Department, or discrimination against homosexuals in marriage laws--issues with actual relevance to justice and prosperity in America have no place in Fictitious Debate Land. It's important that the people who obsess enough about politics to put unreadable chunks of diarrhea into Wikipedia articles about their pet political theories be the most uninformed and uninsightful people in the world regarding actual political issues.

In all seriousness: there is no North American currency union, there is no plan to create one, the only place it exists is in science fiction. It is unworthy of an article at all, and having one just shows how far Wikipedia is gone into the thrall of conspiracy theorists and obsessive autistic nerds who can't figure out what is and is not important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randy Blackamoor (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard it stated so well. Thanks Randy Blackamoor.99.240.207.130 (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the contention that a common currency for North America will not happen, but it's not true that this hasn't been discussed. As such, the concept deserves a page. But, agreed, the level of paranoia and misinformation over this issue is astounding. Even if the concept was brought to the various parliaments for enactment, does anyone believe that it would pass muster in Canada and America? Not for a second. Yet, in a sign of how frivolous some websites are, Conservapedia had a front-page reference to the supposed "admission" by Vincente Fox that this is a "plan" being worked upon by the three countries. I suppose black helicopters are going to swoop down at night, enter every house in North America via the chimneys, and replace the US/Canadian/Mexican pennies in the coin jars with Amero coins... Canada Jack 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro changes

The North American currency union is an actual proposal not just a conspiracy theory. I feel the first sentence should mention it is a controversial proposal there is no doubt that it has been proposed. The conspiracy aspect of it is whether the US, Canada, and Mexico are currently in the process of implementing it behind the backs of their citizens. --Cab88 (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There has to be some dividing line between "thing someone has thought about" and "proposal." Human teleportation, the union of the entire world under one government, and expeditions to other stars have also been extensively written about by science fiction writers and perhaps have their supporters--but can we say they are "proposed" if no serious attempts are being made to implement them right now? Randy Blackamoor (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you or I believe the respective governments of Canada, Mexico, and the US are doing, original research and un-sourced conspiracy theories do not belong on Wikipedia. As such, these sorts of changes to the lead section should be cited and verified via a reliable, published source. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's the whole point. There is no reliable, published source that says a North American currency union actually is being implemented--just thinly veiled anti-Jewish conspiracy theories on Youtube like "Zeitgeist." This is why the article is a disaster. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! However this article is still 1000% (or at least eleven citations) better than the festering pile of WP:OR formerly known as the NAU article prior to its deletion and create-protection. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your using the Wrong Terms to say Different things!

My rejection of the term "Conspiracy theorist" is with the pejorative spin that's placed on the statement that the nations involved are not at least expressing interest in the matter - even when their (the governments) associates have made claim that the process is in motion, and past mere concept. Why is it that when anyone, even highly educated people, report on a matter, only to have some "official" office dismiss the claim, it become "conspiracy theory"?

E.g.: Bush family ties to the Saudies - the receipts are still there! There vacation photos, contracts, etc. But because the "alleged" says "no" everyone turns a blind eye?

"In an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Affairs, entitled "The End of National Currency," CFR economist Benn Steil asserted the dollar is a temporary currency. Steil concluded "countries should abandon monetary nationalism," moving to adopt regional currencies, on the road to a global "one world currency."

Again, this statement is made not as "conspiracy theory," but as an assessment and recommendation by an establish Economist.

"WND previously reported Steve Previs, a vice president at Jeffries International Ltd. in London, said the amero "is the proposed new currency for the North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico."

Oops! There you have it, an independent, third-party, who is vice president for a prominent London investment firm that works directly with IMF, said it was happening! Not "maybe," but "right now." World bankers who own the FED - Is that DEFINITIVE enough? Taking that info, someone could that it is happening!

"WND also reported the African Union is moving down the path of regional economic integration, with the African Central Bank planning to create the "Gold Mandela" as a single African continental currency by 2010. The Council on Foreign Relations also has supported regional and global currencies designed to replace nationally issued currencies."

This is further a demonstration of how these banks are making these statements are supporting their recommendation for the Amero currency.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57980