|
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change.
|
On December 13 2013 07:24 Influ wrote:
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change.
Not at all, for some country having their own currency would greatly help them (economiste like Sapir even quantified the gain) : France is an exemple, but Greece is also one (for Italy, some says it would not be the case).
To me, what prevent countries from leaving the euro is actually a deep deep belief in the idea of the european union. I feel, at least in my country, that people overall really want to be part of some kind of union with other european countries (especially Germany, Spain and Italy, three countries that French feel really close to), and feel really sad about the fact that this union has been done through the economic perspective first and foremost and not through politics and ideas.
We all have this deep fear that leaving the euro would also mean breaking the european union.
On December 13 2013 07:13 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 06:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 06:36 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country. EU did try to make what mostly was a true federation in 2005 but France and Holland turned it down way before the real skeptical countries got to vote no (and there was no doubt some countries would).. Most of all it seems that implementation of the EURO was seen as politically plausible and that window of opportunity was closing... It was a long immplementation and it was opposed in several turns by some countries (not governments, mind you) with the arguments about the uneven market etc. Somehow the though of implementing the EURO so people could learn to love eachother and in that way force a federation through has been proposed. In reality both the EURO and the federation was a certainty for some parties. They wanted it so bad, but forgot to ask the people in their countries... lol I don't think you understand what I meant. 2005 and the Rome treaty was not about making a federation, it was about making a confederation (completly different). It stays a political union. The problem has nothing to do with that, but with the inability to make fiscal transferts within the EU from rich countries to poor countries, or from countries in a good situation to countries in a difficult situation. This was, at no point, discussed in the Rome treaty. Nobody argued that one state, above all countries, should be created and all. In fact it's quite the opposite because the treaty of Lisbon (in 2007) FORBID any "help" from one country to another. Treaty of Lisbon was a result of the Rome treaty going down. I dont think it explicitly forbids help from one country to another. Where does it say so? You could argue that some provisions make it difficult? Confederation vs federation. Ok, I see the difference now. Then again, I would argue that a confederation wasn't the end-step for several parties.
Yes for Lisbon being a result of Rome going down I agree, and it's also true that confederation was definitly a step in the direction of a federation, but the federation is nowhere near (as it suppose for some countries to accept losing money in favor to countries in difficulties... even if it would mean long term gain through overall growth in the euro zone).
It's the article 124-128 of the Lisbon treaty that forbid any country in the euro zone to give monetary help to any other country in the euro zone. Altho it was changed in 2010 (not sure) because the help of Greece was impossible due to the lisbon treaty. (I have a hard time finding an english source, maybe here)
|
On December 13 2013 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:24 Influ wrote:
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change. Not at all, for some country having their own currency would greatly help them (economiste like Sapir even quantified the gain) : France is an exemple, but Greece is also one (for Italy, some says it would not be the case). To me, what prevent countries from leaving the euro is actually a deep deep belief in the idea of the european union. I feel, at least in my country, that people overall really want to be part of some kind of union with other european countries (especially Germany, Spain and Italy, three countries that French feel really close to), and feel really sad about the fact that this union has been done through the economic perspective first and foremost and not through politics and ideas. We all have this deep fear that leaving the euro would also mean breaking the european union. Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:13 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 06:36 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country. EU did try to make what mostly was a true federation in 2005 but France and Holland turned it down way before the real skeptical countries got to vote no (and there was no doubt some countries would).. Most of all it seems that implementation of the EURO was seen as politically plausible and that window of opportunity was closing... It was a long immplementation and it was opposed in several turns by some countries (not governments, mind you) with the arguments about the uneven market etc. Somehow the though of implementing the EURO so people could learn to love eachother and in that way force a federation through has been proposed. In reality both the EURO and the federation was a certainty for some parties. They wanted it so bad, but forgot to ask the people in their countries... lol I don't think you understand what I meant. 2005 and the Rome treaty was not about making a federation, it was about making a confederation (completly different). It stays a political union. The problem has nothing to do with that, but with the inability to make fiscal transferts within the EU from rich countries to poor countries, or from countries in a good situation to countries in a difficult situation. This was, at no point, discussed in the Rome treaty. Nobody argued that one state, above all countries, should be created and all. In fact it's quite the opposite because the treaty of Lisbon (in 2007) FORBID any "help" from one country to another. Treaty of Lisbon was a result of the Rome treaty going down. I dont think it explicitly forbids help from one country to another. Where does it say so? You could argue that some provisions make it difficult? Confederation vs federation. Ok, I see the difference now. Then again, I would argue that a confederation wasn't the end-step for several parties. Yes for Lisbon being a result of Rome going down I agree, and it's also true that confederation was definitly a step in the direction of a federation, but the federation is nowhere near (as it suppose for some countries to accept losing money in favor to countries in difficulties... even if it would mean long term gain through overall growth in the euro zone). It's the article 124-128 of the Lisbon treaty that forbid any country in the euro zone to give monetary help to any other country in the euro zone. Altho it was changed in 2010 (not sure) because the help of Greece was impossible due to the lisbon treaty. (I have a hard time finding an english source, maybe here)
I am sorry, but I cannot reach the link. There are several restrictions on EU taking up national debts, but it is "without prejudice" to guarantees. The treaty has had several small changes, so it may be as a result of that. Still, it is referring to the EU budget. I dont think there are any bilateral restrictions.
Edit: Oh there are bilateral restrictions but it is only "without prudent considerations" now.
|
On December 13 2013 08:11 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:24 Influ wrote:
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change. Not at all, for some country having their own currency would greatly help them (economiste like Sapir even quantified the gain) : France is an exemple, but Greece is also one (for Italy, some says it would not be the case). To me, what prevent countries from leaving the euro is actually a deep deep belief in the idea of the european union. I feel, at least in my country, that people overall really want to be part of some kind of union with other european countries (especially Germany, Spain and Italy, three countries that French feel really close to), and feel really sad about the fact that this union has been done through the economic perspective first and foremost and not through politics and ideas. We all have this deep fear that leaving the euro would also mean breaking the european union. On December 13 2013 07:13 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 06:36 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country. EU did try to make what mostly was a true federation in 2005 but France and Holland turned it down way before the real skeptical countries got to vote no (and there was no doubt some countries would).. Most of all it seems that implementation of the EURO was seen as politically plausible and that window of opportunity was closing... It was a long immplementation and it was opposed in several turns by some countries (not governments, mind you) with the arguments about the uneven market etc. Somehow the though of implementing the EURO so people could learn to love eachother and in that way force a federation through has been proposed. In reality both the EURO and the federation was a certainty for some parties. They wanted it so bad, but forgot to ask the people in their countries... lol I don't think you understand what I meant. 2005 and the Rome treaty was not about making a federation, it was about making a confederation (completly different). It stays a political union. The problem has nothing to do with that, but with the inability to make fiscal transferts within the EU from rich countries to poor countries, or from countries in a good situation to countries in a difficult situation. This was, at no point, discussed in the Rome treaty. Nobody argued that one state, above all countries, should be created and all. In fact it's quite the opposite because the treaty of Lisbon (in 2007) FORBID any "help" from one country to another. Treaty of Lisbon was a result of the Rome treaty going down. I dont think it explicitly forbids help from one country to another. Where does it say so? You could argue that some provisions make it difficult? Confederation vs federation. Ok, I see the difference now. Then again, I would argue that a confederation wasn't the end-step for several parties. Yes for Lisbon being a result of Rome going down I agree, and it's also true that confederation was definitly a step in the direction of a federation, but the federation is nowhere near (as it suppose for some countries to accept losing money in favor to countries in difficulties... even if it would mean long term gain through overall growth in the euro zone). It's the article 124-128 of the Lisbon treaty that forbid any country in the euro zone to give monetary help to any other country in the euro zone. Altho it was changed in 2010 (not sure) because the help of Greece was impossible due to the lisbon treaty. (I have a hard time finding an english source, maybe here) I am sorry, but I cannot reach the link. There are several restrictions on EU taking up national debts, but it is "without prejudice" to guarantees. The treaty has had several small changes, so it may be as a result of that. Still, it is referring to the EU budget. I dont think there are any bilateral restrictions.
No no there definitly were, actually they were justifiable by economic theory (principal agent, etc.) but they changed in 2010 after the constitutional court of Karlsruhe considered that the savety plan of Greece was unconstitutionnal in 2010 but I can't find a reliable english source for that.
|
On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country.
The only supporters of the euro believed in a federal Europe? Everyone knew this would happen should the EU not take control of individual country's fiscal policies? I find that hard to believe, considering its modest origins and the preservation of national authority throughout the EU's existence. It seems rather more likely that the proponents of a unified currency considered its success independent of the conditions it presented.
Secondly, it seems hard to believe that there was a willful neglect of what you call "a little economic knowledge" in the formation of the currency in the first place. You're changing the money system; if any novice could say this is a bad idea, why change the money system?
|
I think there is way too much emphasis on the currency at all. In the end the well being of an economy is dependent on how well the actual real economy does. What kind of paper you are using to pay your bills will not help you in the long run. National currencies for the sole purpose of devaluation give an advantage that will disappear the moment everyone starts to employ that strategy.
Montana and California share the same currency. Does anyone think Montana would start growing billion dollar high tech industries just because they'd invent Montana dollars?
|
Zurich15328 Posts
On December 13 2013 08:22 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 08:11 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:24 Influ wrote:
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change. Not at all, for some country having their own currency would greatly help them (economiste like Sapir even quantified the gain) : France is an exemple, but Greece is also one (for Italy, some says it would not be the case). To me, what prevent countries from leaving the euro is actually a deep deep belief in the idea of the european union. I feel, at least in my country, that people overall really want to be part of some kind of union with other european countries (especially Germany, Spain and Italy, three countries that French feel really close to), and feel really sad about the fact that this union has been done through the economic perspective first and foremost and not through politics and ideas. We all have this deep fear that leaving the euro would also mean breaking the european union. On December 13 2013 07:13 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 06:36 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country. EU did try to make what mostly was a true federation in 2005 but France and Holland turned it down way before the real skeptical countries got to vote no (and there was no doubt some countries would).. Most of all it seems that implementation of the EURO was seen as politically plausible and that window of opportunity was closing... It was a long immplementation and it was opposed in several turns by some countries (not governments, mind you) with the arguments about the uneven market etc. Somehow the though of implementing the EURO so people could learn to love eachother and in that way force a federation through has been proposed. In reality both the EURO and the federation was a certainty for some parties. They wanted it so bad, but forgot to ask the people in their countries... lol I don't think you understand what I meant. 2005 and the Rome treaty was not about making a federation, it was about making a confederation (completly different). It stays a political union. The problem has nothing to do with that, but with the inability to make fiscal transferts within the EU from rich countries to poor countries, or from countries in a good situation to countries in a difficult situation. This was, at no point, discussed in the Rome treaty. Nobody argued that one state, above all countries, should be created and all. In fact it's quite the opposite because the treaty of Lisbon (in 2007) FORBID any "help" from one country to another. Treaty of Lisbon was a result of the Rome treaty going down. I dont think it explicitly forbids help from one country to another. Where does it say so? You could argue that some provisions make it difficult? Confederation vs federation. Ok, I see the difference now. Then again, I would argue that a confederation wasn't the end-step for several parties. Yes for Lisbon being a result of Rome going down I agree, and it's also true that confederation was definitly a step in the direction of a federation, but the federation is nowhere near (as it suppose for some countries to accept losing money in favor to countries in difficulties... even if it would mean long term gain through overall growth in the euro zone). It's the article 124-128 of the Lisbon treaty that forbid any country in the euro zone to give monetary help to any other country in the euro zone. Altho it was changed in 2010 (not sure) because the help of Greece was impossible due to the lisbon treaty. (I have a hard time finding an english source, maybe here) I am sorry, but I cannot reach the link. There are several restrictions on EU taking up national debts, but it is "without prejudice" to guarantees. The treaty has had several small changes, so it may be as a result of that. Still, it is referring to the EU budget. I dont think there are any bilateral restrictions. No no there definitly were, actually they were justifiable by economic theory (principal agent, etc.) but they changed in 2010 after the constitutional court of Karlsruhe considered that the savety plan of Greece was unconstitutionnal in 2010 but I can't find a reliable english source for that.
There might have been changes, but Karlsruhe wasn't the reason. The constitutional court rejected all complaints about the 2010 Greece bailout.
It did decide on Germany's take on the ESM in 2011, ruling that the German law ratifying it can't be executed until a final decision has been made. Which was in 2013, when the court ruled that the ESM is in line with the constitution as long as the Bundestag is involved in the decision making (along with a number of less important details).
|
What will coming year bring for the euro?
There still is no unified fiscal system. The inbalance in productivity, and with that the desire for different monetary policys remains.
Germany still prevents a monetary explosion and the bundestag still has the last say in like everything the ecb does.
Still the prospects seem to look good. After rain comes sunshine,right?
Probably yes, i still somewhat expect/hope to see a final downturn in the economy and euro stability,to push the germans into accepting fiscal unity. Maybe spain can be the trigger for that, it definatly is big enough. but atm it does not look like that will happen, even though tappering is on the horizon.
Falling back into a crisis just now we have seem to get out of it seems like a waste so i guess 2014 could become a good year.
Still there is no rush to grow the current economy imo.
There are currently no technologys in development wich have the potential to transform the whole world like in the 90,s with internet. Growing the economy now would only grow the quantity of the economy and not lead to aditional quality. There already is plenty,if not to much, of quantity with 7b people on the world. Its not so bad to step on the brakes for a while. Our grand grand children will be gratefull.
|
2014? more of the same. no real recovery maybe another minor drop.
|
In my opinion whats really at the core of the whole (European) problem is the fact that the financial market is completely inflated and we're constantly bailing out banks and countries. Playing around with different currencies will not significantly change the fact that the growth of the last decades has in large parts been paid with cheap central bank money and ridiculous amounts of credits from the financial sector.
As long as banks are sitting at about 3%-5%(let's be honest, the rise in net assets basically comes from adjusting mathematical models instead of actual money) equity ratios and they don't even need to pay for their losses by themselves we're going to have the same shit over and over again.
The fact that so many countries suffer from high debt and lack of growth can't be primarily accredited to the Euro.(sure the monetary union made these things easier) It's just what naturally happens when you substitute private investments with public funding to create artificial growth and oversleep necessary economical adjustments.
|
On December 14 2013 00:42 Rassy wrote:
What will coming year bring for the euro?
There still is no unified fiscal system. The inbalance in productivity, and with that the desire for different monetary policys remains.
Germany still prevents a monetary explosion and the bundestag still has the last say in like everything the ecb does.
Still the prospects seem to look good. After rain comes sunshine,right?
Probably yes, i still somewhat expect/hope to see a final downturn in the economy and euro stability,to push the germans into accepting fiscal unity. Maybe spain can be the trigger for that, it definatly is big enough. but atm it does not look like that will happen, even though tappering is on the horizon.
Falling back into a crisis just now we have seem to get out of it seems like a waste so i guess 2014 could become a good year.
Still there is no rush to grow the current economy imo.
There are currently no technologys in development wich have the potential to transform the whole world like in the 90,s with internet. Growing the economy now would only grow the quantity of the economy and not lead to aditional quality. There already is plenty,if not to much, of quantity with 7b people on the world. Its not so bad to step on the brakes for a while. Our grand grand children will be gratefull.
A PIIGS default is possible. Martin Wolf thinks they'll all default (~47:30) at some point.
|
On December 13 2013 10:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country. The only supporters of the euro believed in a federal Europe? Everyone knew this would happen should the EU not take control of individual country's fiscal policies? I find that hard to believe, considering its modest origins and the preservation of national authority throughout the EU's existence. It seems rather more likely that the proponents of a unified currency considered its success independent of the conditions it presented. Secondly, it seems hard to believe that there was a willful neglect of what you call "a little economic knowledge" in the formation of the currency in the first place. You're changing the money system; if any novice could say this is a bad idea, why change the money system?
Why should I care that you find it hard to believe ? As I said Mundell wrote about all that back in 1961 : just educate yourself and check optimum currency area on wiki. Mundell is a nobel winning economists, not a novice, and the euro obviously had enormous positiv impact on all european economies, the problem was that the currency area was not optimal as it had a structural weakness in regard to exogene shock : the inability to permit fiscal transferts in the union.
Now if your question is : why would you still build a currency zone if you know it has a structural weakness ? I see three reasons: some did not agree on the theory(Mundell himself back in 1970 built a different model of OCA that had opposite conclusions than the first) some considered that you could make it an optimum currency area afterward (through federalism) and finally there was a deep belief that shock and crisis were part of history (the euro zone is one of the safest zone in the world, if not for the euro today).
On December 13 2013 08:11 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 07:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 07:24 Influ wrote:
It's getting stupid that every clown is trying to get attention with anti € talks. There is nobody left who thinks that the € the way it was done was a good idea. This still almost doesn't mean anything for today. It's not 2001 anymore and we can't just turn the clock back. It's like complaining about air polution because we travel with cars instead of horse drawn carriages.
The worst thing about this whole € talk where everyone is complaining and noone has a serious solution, is that it's a huge distraction from the real problem. People have to understand that the reason that nothing will change about the € is that most european countries are too scared to have an own currency and be target of attacks from the financial industry. As long as gamblers have the power to overthrow whole nations and it's inevitable that the people pay the price and the banks have the benefit there is no chance that anything will change. Not at all, for some country having their own currency would greatly help them (economiste like Sapir even quantified the gain) : France is an exemple, but Greece is also one (for Italy, some says it would not be the case). To me, what prevent countries from leaving the euro is actually a deep deep belief in the idea of the european union. I feel, at least in my country, that people overall really want to be part of some kind of union with other european countries (especially Germany, Spain and Italy, three countries that French feel really close to), and feel really sad about the fact that this union has been done through the economic perspective first and foremost and not through politics and ideas. We all have this deep fear that leaving the euro would also mean breaking the european union. On December 13 2013 07:13 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:48 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 06:36 radiatoren wrote:On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country. EU did try to make what mostly was a true federation in 2005 but France and Holland turned it down way before the real skeptical countries got to vote no (and there was no doubt some countries would).. Most of all it seems that implementation of the EURO was seen as politically plausible and that window of opportunity was closing... It was a long immplementation and it was opposed in several turns by some countries (not governments, mind you) with the arguments about the uneven market etc. Somehow the though of implementing the EURO so people could learn to love eachother and in that way force a federation through has been proposed. In reality both the EURO and the federation was a certainty for some parties. They wanted it so bad, but forgot to ask the people in their countries... lol I don't think you understand what I meant. 2005 and the Rome treaty was not about making a federation, it was about making a confederation (completly different). It stays a political union. The problem has nothing to do with that, but with the inability to make fiscal transferts within the EU from rich countries to poor countries, or from countries in a good situation to countries in a difficult situation. This was, at no point, discussed in the Rome treaty. Nobody argued that one state, above all countries, should be created and all. In fact it's quite the opposite because the treaty of Lisbon (in 2007) FORBID any "help" from one country to another. Treaty of Lisbon was a result of the Rome treaty going down. I dont think it explicitly forbids help from one country to another. Where does it say so? You could argue that some provisions make it difficult? Confederation vs federation. Ok, I see the difference now. Then again, I would argue that a confederation wasn't the end-step for several parties. Yes for Lisbon being a result of Rome going down I agree, and it's also true that confederation was definitly a step in the direction of a federation, but the federation is nowhere near (as it suppose for some countries to accept losing money in favor to countries in difficulties... even if it would mean long term gain through overall growth in the euro zone). It's the article 124-128 of the Lisbon treaty that forbid any country in the euro zone to give monetary help to any other country in the euro zone. Altho it was changed in 2010 (not sure) because the help of Greece was impossible due to the lisbon treaty. (I have a hard time finding an english source, maybe here) I am sorry, but I cannot reach the link. There are several restrictions on EU taking up national debts, but it is "without prejudice" to guarantees. The treaty has had several small changes, so it may be as a result of that. Still, it is referring to the EU budget. I dont think there are any bilateral restrictions. Edit: Oh there are bilateral restrictions but it is only "without prudent considerations" now.
Yeah they changed after the Greek fiasco as I said, but it was still there until 2010.
|
On December 14 2013 06:04 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 10:17 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On December 13 2013 05:34 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2013 04:41 Saumure wrote:
To whoever told me the € shouldn't be abandoned, even Christopher Pissarides (nobel of economics in 2010) who always defended it said it should be. (can't quote since the article is not in English and I have not found it in that language) I'd also like to hear his rationale from a recent perspective. People who've been pronouncing gloom and doom on the Euro come at it from all different ways, so I've no idea what his principal reason is. One of the world’s leading economists will today admit he was wrong to back the creation of the euro – and call for it to be dismantled.
Sir Christopher Pissarides, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2010, was once a passionate believer in the benefits of the single currency.
But in an extraordinary change of heart, today he will warn the euro is creating a ‘lost generation’ of unemployed youngsters and is ‘dividing Europe’.
The Cypriot-British economist will call for action to ‘restore the euro’s credibility in international markets’ and to ‘restore the trust that Europe’s nations once had in each other’.
But, in a lecture at the London School of Economics, where he teaches, he will add: ‘Regretfully, I do not see either materialising.’
His comments come days after Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, dismissed claims that the crisis in the eurozone is over. That's one writeup from the daily mail. (Full article includes more recent statements from Lagarde) Anybody with a little economic knowledge KNEW the euro would actually lead to the current situation if nothing was done to give a unified fiscal policy inside the EU. It has been proved since mundell and the theory of the optimum currency area in 1961 (yes the economic problem of a unified currency area in europe were already discussed more than 40 years before the euro)... The only thing that lead some people in thinking that the euro was a good economic idea is the belief that the europe would actually move toward a federal union before the arrival of an exogene shock, but they obviously refused the see that staying as a clandestine passenger was too beneficial for some country. The only supporters of the euro believed in a federal Europe? Everyone knew this would happen should the EU not take control of individual country's fiscal policies? I find that hard to believe, considering its modest origins and the preservation of national authority throughout the EU's existence. It seems rather more likely that the proponents of a unified currency considered its success independent of the conditions it presented. Secondly, it seems hard to believe that there was a willful neglect of what you call "a little economic knowledge" in the formation of the currency in the first place. You're changing the money system; if any novice could say this is a bad idea, why change the money system? Why should I care that you fine it hard to believe ? As I said Mundell wrote about all that back in 1961 : just educate yourself and check optimum currency area on wiki. Mundell is a novel winning economists, not a novice, and the euro obviously had enormous positiv impact on all european economies, the problem was that the currency area was not optimal as it had a structural weakness in regard to exogene shock : the inability to permit fiscal transferts in the union. Now i your question is : why woulf you still build a currency zone if you know it hzs a structural weakness ? Three reason: some did not agree on the theory(Mundell himself back in 1970 built a different model of OCA that had opposite conclusions than the first) some considered that you could make it an optimum currency area afterward (through federalism) and finally there was a deep belief that shock and crisis were part of history (the euro zone is one of the safest zone in the world, if not for the euro today).
Now I see you're arriving at something. First you said it was obvious that it would lead to the current situation of sovereign debt. Why embark on the journey if, as you say, you know its end is defaults and unstable markets? The benefits in the short term were positive, the positive impact on economies (coinciding with some great trade benefits from other EC policies) was good. It wouldn't be the first time politicians make the political popular move with knowledge of long term problems.
|
On December 13 2013 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:
For me the biggest reason for the failure of the euro is that lying and hiding nations did with there finances. There were rules to help keep the euro stable, 3% max budget debt ect, and they were ignored or lied about. That more then anything caused its failure.
Perhaps if countries actually tried to keep a healthy economy/budget instead of thinking the EU was promised land and they could fuck about this might have never happend.
This is nonsense because it is contradictory. The euro was used, and defended, as a tool for poor countries to catch up richest countries : in effect, it gave the opportunity for the poorest member of the euro zone (like Greece) to take credit at the same interest rate as the richest member of the same zone (Germany). It was basically created in part to permit poor to endebt theirselves at the best interest rate possible (and it worked, up until the 2007 subprime crisis - the exogene shocks nobody wanted to see).
See the government bonds rate for european countries (considering the euro was built between 1999 and 2002) :
And now you're saying it's not normal, they had too much debt. It's really difficult to actually have a sane discussion on the europe if people have no knowledge on basic macroeconomic.
You can't on one hand give a tool to countries which make it possible for them to endebt themselves easily, and force them to accept a stupid pro cyclical rule at the same time, and then afterwards cry a bunch because people did not respect the stupid rule.
|
I am sorry WhiteDog, but I have searched thoroughly for what you claim and it didn't happen. The German constitutional court didn't gp against the deal and some of the deal in question was vetoed by Cameron.
There was no change to the Lisbon treaty 124-128. The only article that has changed is 136, which is a prolonging of the temporary help in article 122. It passed in 2011 and has been in force since 2013:
Source (I know the source is crap, but I have confirmed the majority of it in other sources)
Edit: More credible source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/110/11003.htm
|
On December 15 2013 23:44 radiatoren wrote:I am sorry WhiteDog, but I have searched thoroughly for what you claim and it didn't happen. The German constitutional court didn't gp against the deal and some of the deal in question was vetoed by Cameron. There was no change to the Lisbon treaty 124-128. The only article that has changed is 136, which is a prolonging of the temporary help in article 122. It passed in 2011 and has been in force since 2013: Source (I know the source is crap, but I have confirmed the majority of it in other sources) Edit: More credible source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/110/11003.htm
I found it : article 125 of the Lisbon treaty.
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=no-bail_out-clause
http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-viii-economic-and-monetary-policy/chapter-1-economic-policy/393-article-125.html
1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.
|
On December 15 2013 23:44 radiatoren wrote:
The German constitutional court didn't gp against the deal and some of the deal in question was vetoed by Cameron.
Yes it did, and it ruled that it's unconstitutional as long as the Bundestag doesn't have a vote about it before sending the money.
If there is one on the other hand if the outcome is positive, then sending money is fine according to the german constitutional court.
|
On December 16 2013 02:32 SilentchiLL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 23:44 radiatoren wrote:
The German constitutional court didn't gp against the deal and some of the deal in question was vetoed by Cameron.
Yes it did, and it ruled that it's unconstitutional as long as the Bundestag doesn't have a vote about it before sending the money. If there is one on the other hand if the outcome is positive, then sending money is fine according to the german constitutional court.
Those were votes on the ESM and EFSF funds. And that ruling is from 2012. The Lisbon treaty has the same buts and ifs.
On December 16 2013 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 23:44 radiatoren wrote:I am sorry WhiteDog, but I have searched thoroughly for what you claim and it didn't happen. The German constitutional court didn't gp against the deal and some of the deal in question was vetoed by Cameron. There was no change to the Lisbon treaty 124-128. The only article that has changed is 136, which is a prolonging of the temporary help in article 122. It passed in 2011 and has been in force since 2013: Source (I know the source is crap, but I have confirmed the majority of it in other sources) Edit: More credible source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/110/11003.htm I found it : article 125 of the Lisbon treaty. http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=no-bail_out-clausehttp://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-viii-economic-and-monetary-policy/chapter-1-economic-policy/393-article-125.htmlShow nested quote +1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.
but you forgot:
2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may, as required, specify definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 123 and 124 and in this Article.
You can do a lot of sneaky workarounds under the current treaty. That Germany is locked up politically and legally and UK wants out of any responsibility is not a problem of the EU treaties.
|
On December 16 2013 02:54 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2013 02:32 SilentchiLL wrote:On December 15 2013 23:44 radiatoren wrote:
The German constitutional court didn't gp against the deal and some of the deal in question was vetoed by Cameron.
Yes it did, and it ruled that it's unconstitutional as long as the Bundestag doesn't have a vote about it before sending the money. If there is one on the other hand if the outcome is positive, then sending money is fine according to the german constitutional court. Those were votes on the ESM and EFSF funds. And that ruling is from 2012. The Lisbon treaty has the same buts and ifs. Show nested quote +On December 16 2013 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On December 15 2013 23:44 radiatoren wrote:I am sorry WhiteDog, but I have searched thoroughly for what you claim and it didn't happen. The German constitutional court didn't gp against the deal and some of the deal in question was vetoed by Cameron. There was no change to the Lisbon treaty 124-128. The only article that has changed is 136, which is a prolonging of the temporary help in article 122. It passed in 2011 and has been in force since 2013: Source (I know the source is crap, but I have confirmed the majority of it in other sources) Edit: More credible source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldeucom/110/11003.htm I found it : article 125 of the Lisbon treaty. http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=no-bail_out-clausehttp://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-the-functioning-of-the-european-union-and-comments/part-3-union-policies-and-internal-actions/title-viii-economic-and-monetary-policy/chapter-1-economic-policy/393-article-125.html1. The Union shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of any Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project. but you forgot: Show nested quote +2. The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may, as required, specify definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 123 and 124 and in this Article. You can do a lot of sneaky workarounds under the current treaty. That Germany is locked up politically and legally and UK wants out of any responsibility is not a problem of the EU treaties.
I was saying that the structural problem of the euro was that it didn't permit fiscal transfert within the union, which makes it weak against any kind of exogene shocks (as the optimum currency area theory stated back in 1961). This clause, even if it does permit some "workarounds" as you say, specifically forbid any kind of fiscal transfert between countries, it's a fact. Now I was wrong in the details (it didn't changed altho the constitutionnal court did rule against it) but it does not matter to the point at hand.
|
A court in Portugal has rejected a plan to save an estimated 388 million euro next year through pension cuts. It could become a major stumbling block in the country’s planned exit from the international bailout in June.
13 judges unanimously considered "unconstitutional as this violates the principle of trust", the 10 percent cut in state pensions for anyone getting more than 600 euro a month, which would save the government 388 million euro.
The Portuguese parliament has already agreed to budget cuts of 4 billion euro, says Euronews.
The court is seen by economists as the major obstacle to narrowing the budget deficit, proving to creditors the sustainability, and escaping the bailout, as it has rejected a series of austerity measures.
After investors lost confidence in the country's ability to pay its debts, Portugal submitted to a €78 billion ($107 billion) bailout program with the European Union and International Monetary Fund in 2011, which will end next June.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://iuwest.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/piigs-interest-rates-1993-2011.jpg?w=600&h=435)
