Will the euro zone as we know it collapse?

BMmeow

Is QE, the weakening of the Euro, and Greece leading to the demise of Europe/Euro?

ChicagoIrish

Honestly, I'm hoping we'll be able to get rid of the Eurozone without collapsing with it. The Eurozone is pretty useless, and if Greece decides to default, then there will be a load of countries trying to jump ship as fast as possible. There might be some chaos, but hopefully, if we manage to get out in time, we'll weather it well enough.

oscarBravo

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

The Eurozone is pretty useless...

Now there's a sweeping statement that could do with being backed up.

ftse100

The eurozone won't be abolished. Not a hope. Saying its useless is an absurd statement!

tralalala

no

FreudianSlippers

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

Honestly, I'm hoping we'll be able to get rid of the Eurozone without collapsing with it. The Eurozone is pretty useless, and if Greece decides to default, then there will be a load of countries trying to jump ship as fast as possible. There might be some chaos, but hopefully, if we manage to get out in time, we'll weather it well enough.

How does one get rid of the Eurozone without collapsing it and all of the fringe countries in it?

Anyone who thinks that Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia or Slovenia could suddenly float their own new/revived currency in the current market is in a dream land.

hatrickpatrick

I certainly hope so.
If anyone read the Pendragon books by DJ Machale when they were younger, the whole idea of dominos comes to mind - the non establishment parties don't have to win elections in every single European country in order to start a cascade effect which will bring down the European establishment. It's about getting a ball rolling.
We won't know whether the Greeks have succeeded in doing that until we get a few more election results broadly showing the same trend. However, I can almost assure you that if the next result returns a victory for establishment parties, those who oppose such a revolution will waste no time in declaring Europe-wide victory

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I certainly hope so.

A lot of the anti-Eurozone sentiments seem to be based on, well, sentiment. Very little reason.

If anyone read the Pendragon books by DJ Machale when they were younger

Seems like a rock solid basis for forming a macroeconomic policy...

Tomorrow, we discuss how immigration was handled in Middle Earth.

BoJack Horseman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Tomorrow, we discuss how immigration was handled in Middle Earth.

Gondor granting lands to an influx of Rohirrim worked out well!

efb

The Corinthian wrote: »

A lot of the anti-Eurozone sentiments seem to be based on, well, sentiment. Very little reason.

Seems like a rock solid basis for forming a macroeconomic policy...

Tomorrow, we discuss how immigration was handled in Middle Earth.

There was a large movement of people as far as I recall

The Corinthian

I see Orcophobia is alive and well on Boards. What many don't realize is that many orcs have no other option but to leave Mordor in search of a better life...

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

A lot of the anti-Eurozone sentiments seem to be based on, well, sentiment. Very little reason.

There's plenty of reason in my own outlook. You may not agree with it, but it's there. Have a look at my posting history.

Seems like a rock solid basis for forming a macroeconomic policy...

It's got nothing to do with policy, the book is simply a good analogy for how a political movement doesn't have to win in every single constituency in order to start a revolution. Everyone knows an army doesn't have to win every battle in order to win the war.

The reference was a bit obscure which was foolish. My point is, if the non-establishment lobby doesn't win every single election in Europe, that doesn't mean we can't win enough to fundamentally challenge the European establishment.

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's plenty of reason in my own outlook. You may not agree with it, but it's there.

You just didn't think it important to share it in a discussion on whether the Eurozone as we know it collapse?

Have a look at my posting history.

No. If you can't be bothered to back up your statements in a debate, then why should we be bothered to go through your posting history?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I certainly hope so.
If anyone read the Pendragon books by DJ Machale when they were younger, the whole idea of dominos comes to mind - the non establishment parties don't have to win elections in every single European country in order to start a cascade effect which will bring down the European establishment. It's about getting a ball rolling.
We won't know whether the Greeks have succeeded in doing that until we get a few more election results broadly showing the same trend. However, I can almost assure you that if the next result returns a victory for establishment parties, those who oppose such a revolution will waste no time in declaring Europe-wide victory

What have those children's books got to do with European politics?

Seriously, they are not 1984, Animal Farm or Brave New World.

FreudianSlippers

Godge wrote: »

What have those children's books got to do with European politics?

Seriously, they are not 1984, Animal Farm or Brave New World.

I saw part of a Hunger Games film a few years ago; now I totally understand the global food chain.

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

You just didn't think it important to share it in a discussion on whether the Eurozone as we know it collapse?

No. If you can't be bothered to back up your statements in a debate, then why should we be bothered to go through your posting history?

I didn't want to derail the discussion by posting something which has been done to death in other threads and would drag this one off topic.

I'm an advocate of MMT and monetary reform. That will never happen as long as the Eurozone survives as it exists today, and in fact it will never happen as long as the current model of debt based money creation by banks as the primary method of getting new currency into circulation survives.

That's before we talk about the loss of individual national sovereignty inherent in a Eurozone-like arrangement.

I have never claimed that it doesn't have positive aspects, but I feel the negatives massively outweigh the positives and that it's simply taken more than a decade for that to become clear. I've come to the conclusion that monetary reform will never be looked at willingly - it will only happen if the system as we know it disintegrates leaving those in power with no choice but to look at alternatives.

Believe me I wish it didn't have to be that way. It would be far better if politicians had the balls to discuss replacement - not reform, replacement - without having to be pushed. But they don't. And so we'll continue with this ridiculous inflation based boom and bust system even though it's very obviously dysfunctional.

It's like DCC's approach to old council flats in D8, which is just around the corner from my college. Sometimes you can renovate, but sometimes they're so fundamentally broken that you have to demolish and build a new structure from the ground up. Sometimes both are possible, but those in charge are too lazy to renovate until the building actually falls down.

The last half decade have shown that with regard to monetary policy, we are living under a regime which favours the latter approach. So be it.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I didn't want to derail the discussion by posting something which has been done to death in other threads and would drag this one off topic.

I'm an advocate of MMT and monetary reform. That will never happen as long as the Eurozone survives as it exists today, and in fact it will never happen as long as the current model of debt based money creation by banks as the primary method of getting new currency into circulation survives.

That's before we talk about the loss of individual national sovereignty inherent in a Eurozone-like arrangement.

I have never claimed that it doesn't have positive aspects, but I feel the negatives massively outweigh the positives and that it's simply taken more than a decade for that to become clear. I've come to the conclusion that monetary reform will never be looked at willingly - it will only happen if the system as we know it disintegrates leaving those in power with no choice but to look at alternatives.

Believe me I wish it didn't have to be that way. It would be far better if politicians had the balls to discuss replacement - not reform, replacement - without having to be pushed. But they don't. And so we'll continue with this ridiculous inflation based boom and bust system even though it's very obviously dysfunctional.

It's like DCC's approach to old council flats in D8, which is just around the corner from my college. Sometimes you can renovate, but sometimes they're so fundamentally broken that you have to demolish and build a new structure from the ground up. Sometimes both are possible, but those in charge are too lazy to renovate until the building actually falls down.

The last half decade have shown that with regard to monetary policy, we are living under a regime which favours the latter approach. So be it.

This dysfunctional system means you are infinitely better off than your grandparents. The alternative better be good.

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I didn't want to derail the discussion by posting something which has been done to death in other threads and would drag this one off topic.

No, but you were fine with soapboxing, because that's what stating a position as fact without any argument, let alone evidence, is.

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, but you were fine with soapboxing, because that's what stating a position as fact without any argument, let alone evidence, is.

Well I have now clarified with an argument.

The evidence is in the fact that we've had 6-7 years since the worldwide financial crisis unfolded (depending on what you define as the beginning of it) and nothing has happened except vague "reform" and tightening up of the existing crumbling pillars. We had a chance to redesign the system and no politicians were courageous enough to even discuss the possibility.

Ergo, as I pointed out in my council flats analogy, it's clearly not going to be rebuilt until it actually falls apart. The idea of pre-emptively sorting it out doesn't seem to have occurred to those in power. One could use Dolphin House in Dublin 8 as a good analogy for that - had they actually repaired and replaced the broken elements of the buildings as time went on, they wouldn't now be looking at having to strip them right down to their skeletons and build them from the ground up. But they didn't, and so they are.

To get back on topic, how do you see the Eurozone evolving, going forward? It's either going to end in a disintegration, or an economic and political union in a United States style, which I for one do not believe the majority of Europe's citizens will ever accept.

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To get back on topic, how do you see the Eurozone evolving, going forward? It's either going to end in a disintegration, or an economic and political union in a United States style, which I for one do not believe the majority of Europe's citizens will ever accept.

I think you're confusing the Eurozone with the EU.

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you're confusing the Eurozone with the EU.

I'm absolutely not, I am referring in that remark to the Eurozone specifically. The crisis has shown that having a bunch of different economies which work in vastly different ways, involve different politics, and are at different stages of the boom and bust cycle we foolishly continue to buy into sharing a common currency, exchange rate, interest rate and most crucially a toothless central bank whose governing rules do not allow it to do everything a central bank needs to do, is unworkable.

One of the following must happen:

- The Eurozone must break up
- Political and economic union must be tightened so that the Eurozone as a whole has substantially more control over member states' economic models (in other words, some degree of synchronization will be required)
- The rules of the ECB must be relaxed so that monetary financing is not prohibited in a time of crisis, a rule which has never made sense and which has most certainly worsened what could have been a smaller continental crisis.

If you see a way out of this apart from the above then please point it out. The current status quo is a long and protracted recession hoping that artificial mathematics will sort the situation out on its own, and not giving a f*ck about how many ordinary, living human beings have to endure horrendous pain in the process. If the Eurozone leaders choose that option, they will simply be illustrating that they have absolutely no compassion towards the people who elected them - and that's a sure-fire way to start a genuine revolution. Which is what I believe is already underway, with establishment parties around Europe getting a royal ass kicking in polls and elections.

Of the remaining three options, the Germans are so ridiculously paranoid based on somewhat irrelevant history that they will never concede to #3, and apparently it's ok for them to do a solo run and block something even when everyone else wants it, even though when Ireland did the same we were bullied into revisiting it.
#2, if implemented, will be so strongly resisted by citizens around Europe that if it is forced upon us it will have ultimately the same effect as the current status quo - eventual revolution. The people of Europe have made it very clear time and again that they don't want to live in a United States arrangement - we like our national sovereignty even if our leaders don't care about it.
That only leaves #1 - the ultimate breakup of the Eurozone.

As I say, if you see any other way out of this, go ahead and point it out?

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm absolutely not, I am referring in that remark to the Eurozone specifically.

So you see the Eurozone evolving into "an economic and political union in a United States style", rather than the EU?

Hmmm... is this confusion on your part or are you attempting to sell some sort of Trojan Horse theory to us?

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you see the Eurozone evolving into "an economic and political union in a United States style", rather than the EU?

Hmmm... is this confusion on your part or are you attempting to sell some sort of Trojan Horse theory to us?

Not at all. The Eurozone cannot continue to exist as it is without some degree of economic synchronisation - as I've said, having one interest and exchange rate, along with one toothless central bank, to govern a large group of states with wildly different economic policies and types of economy is unworkable.

So the countries within the EU who are not members of the Eurozone are not in this position. No confusion at all on my part. Those who are part of the Eurozone will have to form a much closer economic policy (and therefore political policy) union, or it will collapse. I believe that such a move would trigger widespread revolt in the affected countries.
The alternative is to continue with the status quo which repeatedly screws and ignores ordinary human beings, which will also lead to revolt.

Ergo I stand by my argument that the Eurozone is headed for collapse one way or another. The EU has every chance of surviving.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To get back on topic, how do you see the Eurozone evolving, going forward? It's either going to end in a disintegration, or an economic and political union in a United States style, which I for one do not believe the majority of Europe's citizens will ever accept.

Why does it have to evolve?

It was in a banking collapse crisis only a few years ago and has managed to overcome that crisis.

It is now facing a potential deflation crisis and is taking steps to address this. If that works, why would things have to change?

If something can survive two crises, it may not need changing.

This is a bit like the debate on a united Ireland - there are a group of people out there who believe that there is something wrong with the status quo but they can't really explain what it is.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Why does it have to evolve?

Because people are being hurt by it, lives are being affected, and recent poll and election results have shown that people are increasingly unlikely to put up with that.

It was in a banking collapse crisis only a few years ago and has managed to overcome that crisis.

"Overcome" in the sense that the result has been widespread misery for human beings…?

It is now facing a potential deflation crisis and is taking steps to address this. If that works, why would things have to change?

Because even if it works, without fundamental reform, there will be another crisis in a few years.

If something can survive two crises, it may not need changing.

This is a bit like the debate on a united Ireland - there are a group of people out there who believe that there is something wrong with the status quo but they can't really explain what it is.

Quality of life is dropping and people aren't happy. Human beings are suffering needlessly. Isn't that enough?

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because people are being hurt by it, lives are being affected, and recent poll and election results have shown that people are increasingly unlikely to put up with that.



"Overcome" in the sense that the result has been widespread misery for human beings…?



Because even if it works, without fundamental reform, there will be another crisis in a few years.



Quality of life is dropping and people aren't happy. Human beings are suffering needlessly. Isn't that enough?

Everything is relative.

The EU ended the possibility of civil war in Western Europe following two world wars driven by intra-European rivalry.

That increase in prosperity and the saving of lives brought out by the European project far far outweighs the "suffering" of the last few years.

Standards of living are rising again in Europe but if we are truly interested in an equal world, we would be happy with a slow drop in the quality of life in Europe if standards were rising across the rest of the world. Which is what is happening.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Everything is relative.

The EU ended the possibility of civil war in Western Europe following two world wars driven by intra-European rivalry.

That increase in prosperity and the saving of lives brought out by the European project far far outweighs the "suffering" of the last few years.

We're discussing the Eurozone here, not he EU.

Standards of living are rising again in Europe but if we are truly interested in an equal world, we would be happy with a slow drop in the quality of life in Europe if standards were rising across the rest of the world. Which is what is happening.

That's ridiculous if it's unnecessary. It's like saying that feminists should be happy if women's rights were increasing very slowly, but men's rights were plummeting to match them.

We should be aiming for a higher quality of life across the board.

Arsemageddon

Godge wrote: »

Everything is relative.

The EU ended the possibility of civil war in Western Europe following two world wars driven by intra-European rivalry.

This auld guff about the EU is trotted out time and time again. The reason there was no major war in Europe after WW2 is because the US and the Soviets had massive numbers of troops stationed in western and eastern Europe and had nuclear weapons pointed at each other. If anyone should get the credit for preventing another major European war its the yanks.

That increase in prosperity and the saving of lives brought out by the
European project far far outweighs the "suffering" of the last few years.

"Suffering"? why the need for the inverted commas? For someone who considers themselves an expert on economic matters you seem to be very dismissive of basic economic data from across Europe for the last six years.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's plenty of reason in my own outlook. You may not agree with it, but it's there. Have a look at my posting history.



It's got nothing to do with policy, the book is simply a good analogy for how a political movement doesn't have to win in every single constituency in order to start a revolution. Everyone knows an army doesn't have to win every battle in order to win the war.

The reference was a bit obscure which was foolish. My point is, if the non-establishment lobby doesn't win every single election in Europe, that doesn't mean we can't win enough to fundamentally challenge the European establishment.

If they win enough, they are the "European establishment". Even if they only win some, they're still part of that establishment, and if they're persuasive enough, they can become the leaders of the dominant paradigm within it.

It's not an apocalyptic showdown, it's just politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

If they win enough, they are the "European establishment". Even if they only win some, they're still part of that establishment, and if they're persuasive enough, they can become the leaders of the dominant paradigm within it.

It's not an apocalyptic showdown, it's just politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is like saying that if anti-racist parties get elected, they become part of racism.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is like saying that if anti-racist parties get elected, they become part of racism.

Er, what? No, if anti-racist parties were elected to a racist "establishment", there would then be an anti-racist faction in that establishment. If it were sufficiently large or persuasive, the "establishment" would become anti-racist.

I think you're rather setting up an "establishment" which isn't a real thing, but some kind of timeless and imaginary evil principle. That was rather my point about it being just politics, not some kind of existential struggle between darkness and light.

cordially,
Scofflaw