Will the euro zone as we know it collapse?

Godge

BMmeow wrote: »

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

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2015/0204/677716-euro-zone-pmi/

"The euro zone private sector grew at its fastest pace in six months in January as firms reduced prices at the steepest rate in nearly five years, a business survey showed today. "


http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2015/0204/677799-euro-zone-retail-sales/

"Retail sales in the euro zone were the highest in almost eight years in December as Christmas shoppers splashed out on presents, food and fuel, likely encouraged by falling prices in the bloc. "


For something which is supposedly in demise according to half the posters on this thread, the Eurozone looks in pretty good health today according to these figures.

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

By "The Establishment" I mean those who support the currently established institutional structures which rule our world, from currencies to politics.

By anti-establishment I mean those who seek to challenge or dismantle them.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

By "The Establishment" I mean those who support the currently established institutional structures which rule our world, from currencies to politics.

By anti-establishment I mean those who seek to challenge or dismantle them.

With the exception of loony radicals that want to reset the clock to the year zero, there are almost none of these.

Most of those that are upset at "The Establishment" are upset because it is others, not them, with their bums on the seats of power. It merely requires a change of bums to make them happy.

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

With the exception of loony radicals that want to reset the clock to the year zero, there are almost none of these.

Most of those that are upset at "The Establishment" are upset because it is others, not them, with their bums on the seats of power. It merely requires a change of bums to make them happy.

Why do you regard those who want true overhaul as "loony radicals"?

The Corinthian

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

That's not what I asked. You spoke of the Eurozone, rather than the EU, as the entity becoming a political entity and I asked you to confirm that this is what you meant. Now you have slithered out of doing so and have toned down what you said to simply discuss some lesser 'evolution' of the Eurozone.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why do you regard those who want true overhaul as "loony radicals"?

Personally, I'd regard those who inject unsubstantiated conspiracy theories as supposed fact into discussions and take every opportunity to evangelize crackpot economic theories as loony radicals. Or at least loony.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why do you regard those who want true overhaul as "loony radicals"?

I would have thought my reference to "reset the clock to the year zero" would have explained that given the chilling events it refers to, however, in case it hasn't, I draw a sharp distinction between people who blindly advocate smashing things to pieces because "of course" things will only be improved by doing so (when there is considerable historical evidence that such an attitude almost always makes matters much, much worse) and people who advocate for the IMPLEMENTATION of SOLUTIONS - which although radical at first glance - are based on an in-depth knowledge of the problems they are seeking to address.

Our society has a poor track-record of implementing solutions (whether non-radical or radical) as it has almost a knee-jerk conservative reaction to them. That though is not to say it needs "smash everything to pieces" as - despite the impression of many posters - our society isn't hell and in fact remains one of the better ones on this planet (although it does seem that it does so, in spite of our best efforts to alter that on some occasions!).

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

By "The Establishment" I mean those who support the currently established institutional structures which rule our world, from currencies to politics.

By anti-establishment I mean those who seek to challenge or dismantle them.

More or less what I said. Personally I prefer to consider "the establishment" as those in positions of power, because they are, after all, in positions of power. They may have a different approach to policy, even radically different, but they're in power, and that brings with it a set of problems, constraints, opportunities and needs which differ much less than possible policy stances, plus embedding in a support machinery and decision-making environment which tends to insulate the individuals involved from their prior reality.

If the individuals concerned can avoid being seduced into the bubble - and the Greek FinMin has, I think, already noted how easy that is - then one might continue to consider them as 'anti-establishment' even though they're part of the establishment. I consider it rare, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

More or less what I said. Personally I prefer to consider "the establishment" as those in positions of power, because they are, after all, in positions of power. They may have a different approach to policy, even radically different, but they're in power, and that brings with it a set of problems, constraints, opportunities and needs which differ much less than possible policy stances, plus embedding in a support machinery and decision-making environment which tends to insulate the individuals involved from their prior reality.

If the individuals concerned can avoid being seduced into the bubble - and the Greek FinMin has, I think, already noted how easy that is - then one might continue to consider them as 'anti-establishment' even though they're part of the establishment. I consider it rare, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The difference is I see the positions of power themselves as "the establishment", with who occupies them being largely irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned it's about dismantling the actual power structure, not merely changing the face of it. The way political and monetary power is structured in society at the moment is designed in such a way that massive numbers of ordinary people are routinely and needlessly shafted.

hatrickpatrick

View wrote: »

I would have thought my reference to "reset the clock to the year zero" would have explained that given the chilling events it refers to,

Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean resetting the clock in terms of technology, knowledge, economics, what?

however, in case it hasn't, I draw a sharp distinction between people who blindly advocate smashing things to pieces because "of course" things will only be improved by doing so (when there is considerable historical evidence that such an attitude almost always makes matters much, much worse) and people who advocate for the IMPLEMENTATION of SOLUTIONS - which although radical at first glance - are based on an in-depth knowledge of the problems they are seeking to address.

I agree entirely. Unless it's unbelievably dire, destroying a power structure and leaving a vacuum nearly always leads to more assholes assuming power - Iraq is a pretty good example of this. As is Egypt.

Our society has a poor track-record of implementing solutions (whether non-radical or radical) as it has almost a knee-jerk conservative reaction to them. That though is not to say it needs "smash everything to pieces" as - despite the impression of many posters - our society isn't hell and in fact remains one of the better ones on this planet (although it does seem that it does so, in spite of our best efforts to alter that on some occasions!).

But it could be far, far better if we made some simple changes. The problem is that vested interests who hold the keys to the power structures oppose those changes, so one of the only potential ways to make changes is to demolish the power structures themselves.

It all boils down to whether you believe the current system for creating money is the most efficient system we could use, and whether you agree with continuously investing enormous amounts of power in the hands of an incredibly small number of people.

A smaller side issue is whether you agree with the rules (largely insisted upon by Germany and no one else, it would seem) which prevent the ECB from using the full, normal powers of a central bank - monetary financing etc - in times of crisis. But all of that would be irrelevant if the system was changed anyway.

davwain

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.

There is already a de-facto currency zone with another well-known international currency: the American dollar. Yet some countries and territories, outside the US, that use the greenback, do so because their own countries' currencies have (in some cases) crashed and burned. Ecuador's and Zimbabwe's respective then-currencies (the sucre and dollar, respectively) plummeted like stones, until the currencies were effectively rendered useless. Extreme hyperinflation made Zimbabwe's dollar a pretty much useless currency. Today, the US dollar is one of at least a few currencies used in place of Zimbabwe's now obsolete dollar.

Will the Euro/ Eurosystem collapse?
Yes of course it will

Will the Euro/ Eurosystem collapse in our lifetimes?
There is certainly no historical evidence to indicate that the Euro would fall apart because of QE. If anything, QE acts as an adhesive, binding the countries together in ever tighter union, as financial institutions of the core members purchase the bonds of the weaker, peripheral members of the area, which are purchased in turn from the core NCBs like the Bundesbank.

Even if QE has some destabilising effects on the currency, it's difficult to envisage the break-up that seemed fairly likely three or four years ago, at least not in the near future.