North American monetary union

One argument is that it would save up to $3 billion in currency transactions.[3] The same authors also stated that Canada's GDP could rise by up to 33% in a 20-year period given the adoption of a single currency.

The idea of a common currency has historically been unpopular in English-speaking Canada, in comparison to the French-speaking province of Quebec where it has received more support. A 2001 opinion poll found that in Quebec over 50% of respondents favored the idea of a shared currency, while in the rest of Canada a majority of respondents opposed the idea.[4]

Lower levels of currency cooperation have been practiced in the Americas before. Some nations such as Argentina and Brazil have at times tied their currency to the U.S. dollar.[5][6] Some of them, such as Aruba, The Bahamas, Barbados, and the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean, still do.[7][8][9]

The U.S. dollar is officially accepted alongside local currencies in El Salvador (since 2001), Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Peru, Honduras, Panama, Bermuda and Barbados, and in practice two of these countries (El Salvador and Panama) are fully dollarized.[10][11][12][13][14] In 2000, Ecuador officially adopted the U.S. dollar as its sole currency.[15] In a few areas of Canada, the U.S. dollar can be accepted as currency alongside the Canadian Dollar, particularly in areas near border crossings.[16] An example of this effect is Niagara Falls, Ontario,[17] with large numbers of U.S. tourists (businesses still may not accept U.S. currency depending on their policy). The same is also true for the Canadian Dollar in many U.S. cities near the United States-Canada border.

From the point of view of the Canadian and Mexican governments, a major obstacle to the creation of a unified currency is the sheer dominance of the United States in any such union.

A paper from University of California, Santa Barbara puts forward the idea that the United States simply has too many advantages from the status quo to move toward a single currency.[19] The United States dollar already acts as a global currency, meaning any transition to a 'new' currency would risk compromising this position and could cause a shift toward the euro or yen. The U.S. dollar is currently being used in over half of all the world's exports, double the total United States foreign trade. The adoption of the amero could threaten the seigniorage that the U.S. currently gains from its dollar. While seignorage would still be gained from the amero, this would be shared among the Bank of Canada, the Federal Reserve, and the Banco de México. Therefore, even if the amero were used just as much as the U.S. dollar, the advantages would be shared among two or more countries, and not exclusively held by the United States.

Several problems could arise in regards to macroeconomic management. By submitting to a common currency, the countries would lose considerable autonomy in the management of the currency itself, including the setting of interest rates. Amongst the three potential participants, there is considerable difference in policy which would have to be reconciled.

Debt is a factor affecting currency prices. As of 2010, the debt of the United States continues to increase, while the debt of the Canadian federal government is being reduced.[20] This is a clear advantage for Canadians and it would not be reflected if the currencies were to merge. The importance of commodities also factors into this equation.

A concern with any unified North American currency is the differing economic situations between each country. The Eurozone comprises broadly similar service-based economies[21] based on high public spending (compared to the United States), high taxes and wealth being created by the sale of goods and services. North America on the other hand has three distinct economies; one based mainly on manufacturing, industry and agriculture with a demand for free trade (Mexico), another based on services such as retail, with higher taxes and low public spending (United States), and a third based on services with higher taxes and higher public spending, with a large sector in primary goods such as oil, mining and lumber (Canada).

Some observers blamed the Eurozone crisis partly on a lack of effective fiscal union. The Budget of the European Union is relatively small compared to the budgets of the Eurozone countries, which are set independently. Leading up to the crisis, some countries incurred more debt than the unenforced EU guidelines called for. Due to the centralized monetary union, countries experiencing problems were unable to apply local monetary policy to recover, and destabilized the currency which is also used by more economically healthy countries. The national budgets and debt levels of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, on the other hand, are also set completely independently, which could cause similar problems in a situation where monetary policy was centralized.

In contrast, the economies of the various states of the United States are strongly integrated. Internally, the U.S. also has strong fiscal federalism - all but one of the fifty states have a balanced budget amendment, and the federal budget is large compared to state budgets, resulting in effective federal stabilization of the currency and national economy.

In November 2006, Lou Dobbs alleged on his CNN program that a "North American Union" was being implemented, without the knowledge and consent of the people who would be affected by the Union.[22] The episode also briefly mentioned various claims about a common currency. The report focused on uncertainty prior to Felipe Calderón taking office as President of Mexico in late 2006, but never provided any substantive evidence to support this claim. The report suggested the union would be implemented by 2010,[22] a deadline which came and went without such a union being implemented.

In 2006, Conservative Caucus Chairman Howard Phillips, WND columnist and author Jerome Corsi, activist Phyllis Schlafly, among others, reportedly formed a coalition against a North American Union.[23] On January 22, 2007, Republican Representatives Virgil Goode of Virginia, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Walter Jones of North Carolina, and Ron Paul of Texas were among the 43 federal lawmakers who introduced H. CON. RES. 40, a resolution advocated by the coalition, that expressed:

The sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico or Canada.