From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the North American currency union article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of the WikiProject Numismatics, which is an attempt to facilitate the categorization and creation of accurate and formal Numismatism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join and see a list of open tasks to help with.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Article needs to be split into two 2 Discussions from merged article 2.1 united states arguments for 2.2 Recent POV additions 2.3 CFR 2.4 Name and subject 2.5 Accuracy dispute 2.6 semi-protect 2.7 Disruptive 3 Discussions from this article 3.1 Questions 3.2 cases against 3.3 Bias 3.4 Amero coins 3.5 Citation Needed 3.6 Canada-centric? 3.7 Inconsistent use of ideological adjectives 3.8 New World Order 3.9 Requested merger 3.9.1 Survey 3.9.1.1 Survey - Support votes 3.9.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 3.9.2 Decision 3.10 added constitutionality aspect 3.11 omit Fox "admission" of common currency intent 3.12 Commodities 3.13 Tips on vandalizing this article 3.14 Intro changes 3.15 Wrong article? 3.16 Conspiracy Theory 3.17 You're using the Wrong Terms to say Different things! 3.18 Vicente Fox - Conspiracy theorist? 3.19 External links 3.20 Conpiracy theory? 3.21 North American currency union versus North American Union 3.22 Why call it an Amero? Why not just call it a dollar? 3.23 Basis and origin 3.24 Constitutionality 3.25 Language(s) on the Amero banknotes and coins 3.26 The Amero is becoming a thing of the past 3.27 Changing Statements about Currency of El Salvador and Other Central American Countries

[edit] 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)

I WOULD AGREE because the NAU is clearly happening, and by saying "some would argue that it violates the us constitution" is blatant idiocracy. it DOES violate the constitution clearly, as well as violate the rights of all the citizens within the three countries. the fact this is even being debated is beyond me. what kind of insanity is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.4.70 (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not "idiocracy" to say that "some suggest" it might violate the us constitution, since we don't have a proposal for a North American Union to base a judgment on! All we have are what some in the conspiracy community say is being planned. But the closest any of these pundits have come to supplying evidence is to a) point to the SPP which has nothing to do with those stated goals, b) point to a Task Force which proposed similar concepts to the NAU but has had no influence on policy makers and c) note that Vicente Fox has voiced approval for the concept. Well, duh. He's Mexican. So the only "idiocracy" is from those who can't seem to accept that nothing like the NAU is gonna happen in the foreseeable future as a) no government proposals for anything like this exist b) the current political climate in America forestalls any such thoughts, even if they existed (take a look at the attempts to bring in a free trade agreement with Columbia... Columbia!) and c) Canada and America's economies are on different tracks and the last thing Canada would likely do is hitch a ride on America's sinking ship. Canada Jack (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions from merged article

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Canada should join the EU! 86.111.162.127 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is such a pov article it reads like a some CFR press release, btw the NAU is not a "conspiracy theory" mabye at one time, but it is now discused openly by Bush bberg CFR and in neocon publications, WAKE UP PEOPLE! For those who think that this isn't likely to happen, i would urge you to take a look at the state US economy since 1971, and the world economy for that matter (since all other countries have followed the lead of the US) EVERY fiat currency in the history of the world has failed and the American dollar will be no different. The fed isnt showing any signs of letting up with the printing press, since its inception it has operated on the idea of perpetual inflationism and history is against it. Remember all throughout history bigger government doesnt arrise out of peace and prosperity, it arrises from chaos, and that is exactly what will happen in the future: The fed will keep lowering rates and printing cash, foreigners are already begining to sell off reserves of American Dollars in favor of other currencies and will eventually reject the dollar outright, next commodity prices will spike incresingly, and hyperinflationary processes will set in, which will cause the dollar to be rejected here in the states as well. The Fed was created with the idea of eliminating commodity backed currency (to allow for manipulation ((please read mises and the austrian school)) and will not have any desire to restore soundness to our money. Out of this 'chaos' of a dead dollar, and no desires for a commodity backed currency, the fed will propose only one solution, a new fiat currency: The Amero. This WILL be sprung on the people in surprise, since any talk of such a profound and predictable event will surely be void from the nightly news (hey! did we forget that the feds banks are major shareholders in ALL of American media companies), and out of the despiration people will accept it, and all of its strings attached ie the NAU and its new constitution, which would blow the US constitution and its bill of rights into obsolescence. Please dont write off any logical analyisis of the worlds monitary policy and its conciquences, i urge you guys to read austrian economics and research the history of the Fed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.90.2 (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I always wonder where such nonsense like the above comes from. Clearly from people who have no clue as to how, if a common currency was actually to be contemplated, it would likely be accomplished. But when we see stuff like "the Fed was created with the idea of eliminating commodity backed currency"... we can rest assured that just about anything else you read here can be taken with a grain of salt. Slight problem, 66. Seems the Fed waited SIXTY years to do this.

As for your other points about greenbacks being sold off etc., there certainly is a risk for the collapse of the US dollar, but the ultimate effect here will likely be the euro becoming a reserve currency and America suddenly subject to the inflationary effects of having commodities denominated in other currencies and debt subject to similar effects. And if that happened, it would be even less likely for other countries to want to align themselves with the greenback especially, as is so in Canada's case, their economies are going in different directions.

Another problem here is the premise that, somehow, Americans will wake up one day with a new currency as a fait accompli. If you look at how countries adopt the euro, you will see that only when certain monetary conditions are met - which centre around economic stability - can a country enter into the eurozone. But you and others like to pretend that when it comes to the amero, not only is economic logic tossed out the window, but seemingly the Fed can, somehow, simply declare the amero a done deal without Canada and Mexico having any say about what for them would be a fundamental economic change. Indeed, for Canada, it makes almost no sense to adopt a currency which is so tied to the American economy. Especially in the scenario you paint above.

And lastly, I remind you that it is now almost April 2008. By the timetable I hear from the conspiracy people, the amero is due to arrive in a mere 21 months. Yet there has been nothing from any of the three governments in question as to the rather huge logistical problems thus entailed. Countries who will not even adopt the euro till 2012 at the earliest already have designs ready, are in a currency band, and have prepared highly detailed plans for the mechanics of the change-over. Yet you think this will happen by January 1, 2010. Tell you what, 64. How about we make a bet. If the change-over happens, I will give you 1000 ameros by the end of January 2010. And if nothing happens, then you give me 1000 American dollars. Seems like a sure bet for you, no? Canada Jack (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

        - The new independent central bank, just like with the Euro 86.111.162.127 (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

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).

[edit] 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)

Simple direct language is not biased, I think we need to be cautious of wiki's progression toward runaway political correctness. Just because this is an encyclopedia doesnt not mean it should be full of grotesque grammatical evasions and orwellian newspeak. "Right-wing conservative economic think tank" is not biased, however "Right-wing conservative" is redundant, which isnt becoming of an encyclopedia, mabye eliminating one of the adjectives would alleviate your concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.90.2 (talk) 01:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

thanks. I'm putting a fact tag in. — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 03:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added the fact tags. The third paragraph is particularly glarring to me because, that characterization of the US economy hasn't been accurate for almost 2 decades now. I hope sources come in and the necessary rewrite along with it :) — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 03:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Exactly, fuck this shit. 65.95.79.36 ([[User talk:|talk]]) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wrong article?

Is it just me, or does the last half of this edit look like something that belongs in either the North American SuperCorridor Coalition or NAU article? --Kralizec! (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is more like a propaganda piece for the Fraser institute and the scores of big-L internet Libertarians.99.240.207.130 (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theory

Some editors seem to object to claims that a North American currency union are in the works are described as a "conspiracy theory." First, as others have pointed out, reliable sources have described these plans as exactly that - a conspiracy theory. Second, in the face of official denials as to the existence of such plans, ie., those who would implement the plans, the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States, have all stated that no such plans are in work, means that therefore the source for these claims are, by definition, unofficial and the plans themselves are, therefore, by definition a conspiracy theory.

And, just to be more to the point: It doesn't matter if those who claim these plans are afoot have PhDs from every university on the planet. The salient point is whether they are in official positions to make such claims. Those mentioned are not. As long as they are not officials from those bodies who would implement the changes, and as long as those officials say no plans are afoot, any claims made otherwise are, by definition, conspiracy theories. Canada Jack (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You're 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EchoTheorem088 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 January 2008

You are quite a piece of work. While you may not agree with me, to delete what I had written on THIS page - where we discuss issues regarding the main page - goes a bit beyond the pale.

What I wrote still stands - Canada Jack (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the improper deletion [3] of comments and re-attrib'ed as best I could. Feel free to correct my fixes as necessary. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is not considered to be a reliable, third-party, published source. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As for vandal-like approach not only to changing the article but even discussing it, well I think that says a lot.

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"?

Not sure what you fail to grasp here. We're not talking about some small official somewhere saying "this isn't happening." We are talking about categorical denials by all three governments, including in Canada's case, the Head of Government himself! No one here pretends that the concept has never been discussed, hell that's what half the article is about! But when it comes to actually implementing the changes proposed, given the denials of officials - including, despite your pleas otherwise, some of the highest officials in the affected countries - other sources by definition must be claiming that these plans are being carried out by officials in secret against the wishes of the citizenry. There is a term for such notions: conspiracy theories.

Have these notions in fact been described by reliable sources as being "conspiracy theories"? Why yes, which is why the citation was there. Not entirely sure as to what your point about Bush and the Saudis is...

"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.

??? I can only judge from the above that you are utterly confused by what we are talking about. Does the above quote, in any way, suggest that there are in fact plans to implement any common currency, be it north american or world? No! He simply asserts that that would be a good idea.(!)

The line in question, however, deals with the contention that plans are afoot to actually implement concepts like the one stated above. There is a very large difference. And those assertions are "conspiracy theories."

"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!

Uh, no. It isn't. So far, we are to base the reality of this being implemented on a 2-minute interview on CNBC with an investment banker who says "you may want to visit a couple of websites to see how far long it is..." If that quote doesn't tell you anything, I don't know what to say. Clearly, this person is getting his information from the very websites which claim this is happening and now those websites are citing him as a confirming source.(!)

Take a deep breath and sit down. Think. Ask yourself these questions: Is Mr Previs a member of the government of Canada, Mexico or the United States? Is he therefore in a position to speak knowledgeably about whether this currency is in fact going from what he describes as "proposed" to something else? Or is he, as an investment dealer, simply saying that, hey, if this thing was actually enacted, investors should take note?

AGAIN, this is precisely why we go by authoritative and reliable sources. Since those sources in this case are completely lacking - as they deny any plans afoot - any such plans to enact a conspiracy must be coming from unofficial sources. And since it is clear from what you have posted so far that so far any "confirmation" comes from those who believe that those unofficial sources are correct, you have a rather high hill to climb here.

"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."

Hmmm. We keep coming back to WND. And what is WND? It is a website with heavy contributions from Mr Corsi who either owns the site or heavily influences it. And which is probably where Mr Previs based his contention that the amero is around the corner. The problem is the WND is not an authorative source, it publishes the opinions of some who claim fact but who have failed to establish the facts they claim. In terms of wikipedia, we can cite these people, but only in context as to what they claim. Your mistake is to assume that their claims can supercede the claims of the officials in position of authority to actually carry out those claims. They can't, at least at wikipedia. Therefor, given official denials, the claims that these plans are afoot are, by definition, conspiracy theories. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Canada Jack said it well. "Conspiracy theory" isn't being used pejoratively. Have you bothered to look up the definition of "conspiracy?" --Strothra (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

He has stated no such thing. He stated then as he has stated many times that for Mexico, the idea of a NAU would be a good thing, as would a common currency. He has spoken many times optimistically about the eventual culmination of such a plan, but he has also expressed frustration at the political climate in America which makes such plans more remote. He has also spoken about the experience of Spain in joining what became the EU in 1986 as an example of the potential benefit for Mexico, with a per-capita income something around US$8,000, in such a trade body. Canada Jack (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/money_masters.php <-- not a theory , just truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.225.216 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 22 January 2008

The phrase "b.s. baffles brains" has never been more apt. I encourage everyone who wants a good laugh to click on the above. You'd think that once Communism collapsed that the wind would go out of the sails of those who see plots all around. Nope. If more people knew the history of these paranoid conspiracy movements, they'd realize that despite 100+ years of plots etc., the predicted results never happen, and the sinister players, once they disappear or are forgotten, are simply replaced by a new cabal to fit the same old scenario. By why deal in facts when you have a good yarn? It's a round world they try to shove into their square holes... Canada Jack (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

We should probably keep a close eye on this article's external links. I received an email from the owner of a web domain who expressed ... disdain for the direction of this article. When he voiced displeasure that the link to his web site has been removed from the article multiple times, I directed him to WP:EL and suggested he bring it up for discussion on this talk page. Given his rather colourful reply, I doubt the matter is resolved. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The link in question http://www.amerocurrency.com/ satisfies the criteria for inclusion according to WP:EL as an external link. 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs)

I am not sure I agree. With prominent advertising on the left, right, and bottom of every page, it certainly fails WP:EL's "objectionable amounts of advertising" criteria. Does the site "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article"? Not as far as I can tell, especially as half of "The Amero" section is devoted to external links (including a link to this Wikipedia article, a link to the The Fraser Institute as already exists in this article, and a help.com message board). Likewise, the inclusion of reliable sources on the site are few and far between.

While the site may be an excellent clearinghouse for NAU-topics, it appears to add little unique value itself and has objectionably large amounts of advertising. In short, it strikes me as being a textbook-case of a personal web page, which falls squarely under "links normally to be avoided." --Kralizec! (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't concede the objection based on "adding little unique value" -- what is the objective criteria of uniqueness that you are applying here? I think the site is unique on its singular focus on discussion of a common North American currency.

http://www.amerocurrency.com/SPPprogram.html is a well-written summary of the fears that critics of open borders have with the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

I don't concede the objection based on "large amounts of advertising". The information content of the site far outweighs its advertising, the level of which I see as consistent with other many other web sites engaged in political advocacy across the political spectrum and routinely linked on the Wikipedia as EL's.

Far from being a "personal web page", it is according to its own "About Us" page anonymous.

Finally, our task here is to apply objective criteria to the inclusion of an external link. We're not web site critics. patsw (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps New Union With Canada And Mexico: Open Borders For US would make a good external link for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America article as it at least links to its sources. That said, "Sovereignty is not infinitely valuable" adds nothing that cannot be gained by linking to its only source [4]. This lack of unique content coupled with the objectionable amount of advertising and the fact that the site is trying to sell amero coins, tells me that it is not an appropriate link for the North American currency union article. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing http://www.amerocurrency.com/SPPprogram.html again, I agree as to its quality. However as that is not the topic of this article, I moved it to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America article and replaced the www.amerocurrency.com link in this article with a direct link to its only source, that being Dr. Pastor's United States Senate testimony. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conpiracy theory?

What is the conspiracy theory behind it? I am not getting it.. There has been several projects coming from NAFTA about introducing a currency union.. There is no conspiracy...

Please, let's make Wikipedia less scandalous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.182 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you even know what NAFTA is? How can a treaty propose anything? There is no group called NAFTA. There is a NAFTA secretariat which resolves disputes over the implementation of the treaty, that's the closest thing. Randy Blackamoor (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] North American currency union versus North American Union

The following was first written on User talk:Kralizec!‎ regarding this edit. It is replicated here for reference and further discussion.

The source for the statement that a NA currency union is a conspiracy theory given is the article on IHT.com, which actually states:

The North American Union is a supranational organization, modeled on the European Union, that will soon fuse Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single economic and political unit. The details are still being worked out by the countries' leaders, but the NAU's central governing body will have the power to nullify the laws of its member states. Goods and people will flow among the three countries unimpeded, aided by a network of continent-girdling superhighways. The US and Canadian dollars, along with the peso, will be phased out and replaced by a common North American currency called the amero.

And:

The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics.

The conspiracy theory is that there is a supranational organization being formed from Canada, the United States, and Mexico that would subvert national sovereignties. The currency union is only one component of this supposed organization, which would also implement unimpeded trade and expand continental road frameworks (given the opportunity). The current opening sentence excessively emphasizes one possible means of implementing the currency union (through a secret conspiracy) without any consideration of the purely academic discussion on the pros and cons of the matter.

Kelvinc (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You bring up a very valid point. I have restructured the lead to reflect the fact that the NACU was proposed by the Fraser Institute first, then conspiracy theorist began flocking to it later. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with simply labeling this as a "conspiracy theory" when the concept in fact has been around for many years and seriously debated. Indeed, here in Canada, the dollar (Canadian) was long at a fixed-rate to the US dollar and debate flares up on occasion whether we should set a fixed rate or adopt or enter into a monetary union. Therefore to now describe it as a "theorized economic and monetary union" is entirely appropriate, as is the later description of claims that this is in fact being implemented as coming from "conspiracy theorists." Canada Jack (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha exactly. As a Canadian as well, I've heard talk of a common currency as a serious and not-so-serious suggestion over the years, and I'm sure many of the proponents would be surprised to find themselves labelled as part of a conspiracy theory. It looks from the history that there's been a push to suggest there's a serious belief that this is all being implemented under the cover, and a reaction pull away to de-emphasize the idea, but the weird result was that both sides seemed to not realize that talk about this has been going on for ages before any (legit or conspiracy) economic integration actually took place. Kelvinc (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is always the problem with these pages which surround the North American Union. Being a reasonable Canuck, Kelvinc, you no doubt can appreciate the difference between the discussions and debates about various concepts which could see the light of day or could, just as easily, be deep-sixed, and the actual implementation of such proposals. For many, it would seem, the mere existence of a concept somehow suggest that this will be forced upon an unwilling populace. So when Vicente Fox expresses his support for the concept of a common currency or a North American Union-style body, this somehow "confirms" the concept is being implemented. Pointing out that it is entirely unsurprising for the poorest member of NAFTA to hope for a body like the EU to elevate Mexico in a way countries like Spain and Ireland were elevated by the European Union does nothing to stem the ferocious paranoia surrounding the rational discussion of these issues.

But if your greater point is to suggest that any mention of economic integration is too quickly labeled "conspiracy theory," I agree there is some truth to that, though I think we generally describe the various concepts here without too loosely applying that sobriquet. We should, however, as you correctly point out, make clear the distinction between the various concepts out there on what should or could happen, and the claims that these concepts are in fact being implemented outside of normal scrutiny. The latter is a conspiracy theory, the former are merely proposals. Canada Jack (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why call it an Amero? Why not just call it a dollar?

A lot of North American and Caribbean countries use dollars as the currency, and many Latin American countries use US dollars as a second currency - and so it would make sense for any unified North American currency to be called a "dollar", especially given the existence of Spanish dollars in days of old. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there is some sense to that, but we are simply reporting what has been suggested, not trying to come up with a better idea. Seems to me that "amero" was just pulled out of the air in reference to the euro, it was never a serious suggestion as to an actual name, it just easily conveyed the idea of a euro-style common currency. But many have adopted the name as their catch-all for a unified currency. Indeed, conspiracy theorists maintain that we will soon be using a currency called an "amero," though the 2010 implementation date seems rather unlikely to be met. If one looks at the euro, ignoring the fact that all countries signed something called the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 which obligated them to adopt what would eventually be called the euro, (save for Britain and Denmark who chose not to adopt the euro), countries who adopted the euro first had to lock their currency into a tight band to a common currency for a minimum of two years, then meet the economic criteria (low debt, inflation, budget deficit, etc.), THEN apply to adopt, then be approved. Cyprus and Malta, for example, entered the EU in May 2004, entered the ERM II which locked their currency into a narrow band in May 2005, applied for entry in ERM III (i.e., exchanging their currency for the euro) in 2007, were approved in July 2007 as the European Council had determined they had met the criteria for entry, then adopted the euro on January 1, 2008. But, it would seem if some conspiracy theorists are correct, we will wake up one day and see not only that Canada Mexico and the United States have converted to something called the "amero," but we'd no doubt have to pay for the paper with ameros to read about it. Presumably black helicopters will have swooped over chimneys across North America and the jack-booted types will have taken a page out of Santa Claus's book and replaced our change jars with ameros. Actually, when you think about what some say is in the works with the "amero," one wonders if these same people also believe in Santa Claus... Canada Jack (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basis and origin

Grubel might have coined the term "Amero" in 1999 based upon the Euro, but the idea of the U.S. and Canada having a shared currency goes back much farther. Some ideas that have been kicked around: Pegging the Canadian dollar at US dollar and Having Quebec and the US share the dollar should a referendum be successful. Group29 (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And, it should be noted, similar ideas were not only around in the past, but implemented as well. As mentioned elsewhere, Canada once pegged her dollar to the American dollar. And the Bretton Woods system in place from 1946 until 1971, saw many world currencies set to a fixed rate in terms of gold. The fixed rates were adjusted over that period for many currencies, but the concept of fixed-rate currency regimes is an old one. In Canada's case, we weren't part of the system, and our currency floated from 1950 to 1962. (see Canada dollar) Then, from 1962 to 1970, the dollar was fixed at 0.925 to the American dollar. Canada has floated her dollar since 1970, and Bretton Woods collapsed after Nixon took America off the gold standard.

The main argument against returning to at least tying the loonie to the greenback is that Canada would effectively cede monetary control to the Federal Reserve. And, with economies going in different directions - Canada has a resource-based and export-based economy, and are thus far largely avoiding the recession America is probably currently experiencing - locking currencies may not be in our best interests. But many claim that despite economic logic suggesting otherwise the amero is being implemented behind our backs - and will be imposed in a bare 22 months, no less. It doesn't make much sense, but these aren't often rational claims anyway. Canada Jack (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutionality

I don't think there is really an argument here for money being printed by the federal reserve as unconsitutional. The Congress has the power to coin money, and they created/fund the Federal Reserve to do the task for them. It's not as if the Federal Reserve operates completely independently of Congress they still have to answer to them. Flproject131 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language(s) on the Amero banknotes and coins

Canadian Laws and Constitution would never allow the use of notes and coins that aren't bilingual (English and French). Americans would most probably feel uneasy with the idea of using notes that are "half-french" only to accommodate 8 million Canadian Franch (francophones). Francophones would accounts for only 2.4% of the combined US+Canadian populations (33 million, 331 million). Language issues, which shouldn't be dismissed, would most probably delay the adoption of such a currency. The issue and resulting debate would also boost the Quebec sovereignty movement, which would either advocate creating a national currency or join the Euro zone with a special status. Currently, popular support for Quebec's independence is stagnating at 40-45%. Hugo Dufort (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those would be difficult issues to overcome. However it is kind of a moot point as proposals for a North American currency union have yet to make it out of think-tank and academic circles. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee you'd think they'd want to get this all straightened out soon, eh? I mean we are all supposedly going to be using this currency on January 1, 2010, only 22 months from now!

But in all seriousness, this would probably not be the issue you think it would be. There are only three languages in all likelihood which have to be accommodated: Spanish, English and French. Both Canadian and American currency also use Latin. But all can be rendered in the same alphabet and the numbering system is, of course, universal. In Europe, with many official languages, the language issue only comes up with non-Latin alphabets. So, Greek coins say "1 EYPΏ" on the nation side. Bulgaria will have a similar issue when it starts to issue euros, maybe in 2011 or 2012, as "EURO" will have to be rendered in Cyrillic. On banknotes, the only words are "EURO" and "EYPΏ," the Greek equivalent, and whatever the Cyrillic equivalent turns out will be added down the road (there is a debate over the exact Cyrillic rendering of "euro."). Canada Jack (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Canada Jack (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Amero is becoming a thing of the past

here in mexico we are just a few months away in replacing our peso with silver ounces. the mexican pure silver ounce coins "libertad" will come into circultaion here before the end of this year, so that's a big step away from the "amero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.50.77 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh really?^{[citation needed]} --Orange Mike | Talk 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, San Antonio does feel a lot like Mexico, doesn't it?  :) You know those ounces have been out since the 80s? — robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 17:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just 19 months now till the jack-booted thugs swoop down from the black helicopters to replace the coins in your penny jar with Ameros.... too bad no one in Canada has been informed of these plans, as the Canadian mint is making plans to issue their Olympic coins through 2010... Canada Jack (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changing Statements about Currency of El Salvador and Other Central American Countries

El Salvador does not have its own currency, so I am correcting the statement. Nicaragua and Honduras also accept the dollar alongside their official currencies. --74.167.157.95 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)