Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Could Italy collapse the euro?
Options
Comments
-
Again, I am seeing problems the world over, and some of the worst performing economies with far right governments (political instability) in Europe are outside of the eurozone.
Ignoring local factors and placing the blame solely on the Euro is problematic imo. You remove the Euro you still have those local issues, which are the cause.
The worst you can for the Euro is that it removes some options that were there previously there.
Now, there certainly needs to be improvements, but I am not convinced of throwing the baby out with bath water just yet.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,867 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 35804
Wanderer78 wrote: »ah yes, alan greenspan, the man that believes, 'increasing worker insecurity is good for the economy'! really alan, really!
Do not post in this thread again.We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.
H. H. Asquith
0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote:Why is it that so many people refuse to acknowledge the stagflation the West has been experiencing since the age of third way neoliberalism began as an actual root cause of these problems? Is it not very, very obvious that if you plot the cost of living and the average income on a graph which shows the former increasing significantly more over the time period than the latter, resulting in an ever-growing gulf between the two, that this is a problem?
Did you just invent this "age of third way neoliberalism"?
The cost of living had increased due to economic growth where aspects of the economy can't or don't keep up.
E.g. you can rent an office building in a Dublin and take on 1000 workers very quickly but it would take a long time to add housing for those workers.0 -
Sorry for some reason I had the idea you were from a different generation - I don't like the intergenerational narrative that I used anyway, it is just useful to provide a certain perspective, but misleading also.
I don't want the Euro gone, I want the reintroduction of national currencies - or, better yet, a reform of how the EU operates fiscal policy and the single currency. I think I've gone into a lot of detail in my posts, without it being simplistic.
As I pointed out earlier the use of the Euro throughout the EU is a mandatory goal of the EU, just like the FTA/CU old EEC stuff. Reintroducing the former national currencies is explicitly prohibited in the Treaties. That’s there to stop every currency speculator on the planet from targeting member states like sharks in a feeding frenzy.
Anyone arguing against the Euro is effectively making an argument that they want to terminate their country’s membership of the EU.0 -
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of why a country engages in austerity among many posters here.
Austerity is the process of a State balancing its finances though a combination of tax rises and/or spending cuts. This may involve annual routine minor adjustments in the budget or, more rarely, extraordinary major ones.
A State that does not make efforts to balance its finances runs the very real possibility that it will end up in a Greek style situation or worse. At that point the question becomes whether a State can provide ANY services to its citizens.
Contrary to the belief of some posters, neither politicians nor institutions such as the “Troika” (or the IMF acting on its own) get a thrill in seeing a country undergo severe austerity. They would much rather that a country avoids it since it is lot less hassle for both them and the country concerned.
By the time a country has to call in the IMF or the “Troika”, it has reached the stage where drastic action must be taken to resolve its problems. There is no point in pretending that there is an alternative “magic solution”, since were there a workable easy alternative available that resolved all current and future problems, that is the option that all countries would go for rather than trying to resolve their financial problems.0 -
Advertisement
-
According to the Guardian, a climbdown is on the cards:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/italy-cancelled-league-rallies-signal-political-impasse-may-soon-end0 -
An Ciarraioch wrote: »According to the Guardian, a climbdown is on the cards:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/italy-cancelled-league-rallies-signal-political-impasse-may-soon-end
That might explain the flat markets this morning but something must have happened today as markets all turned down early this afternoon led by Deutsche Bank which is under serious pressure. A DB downgrade would have a knock on effect on the rest of the financial sector.0 -
An Ciarraioch wrote: »According to the Guardian, a climbdown is on the cards:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/italy-cancelled-league-rallies-signal-political-impasse-may-soon-end
As i said, i dont believe these people are stupid or as radical as its let on. Sure there are extremes within them. But the majority are looking right at the UK now and saying to themselves. - no thanks!
So its with great thanks to Nigel Farage that in his want to destruct the EU for the last decade he is gluing it together. He must be delighted.0 -
listermint wrote: »An Ciarraioch wrote: »According to the Guardian, a climbdown is on the cards:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/italy-cancelled-league-rallies-signal-political-impasse-may-soon-end
As i said, i dont believe these people are stupid or as radical as its let on. Sure there are extremes within them. But the majority are looking right at the UK now and saying to themselves. - no thanks!
So its with great thanks to Nigel Farage that in his want to destruct the EU for the last decade he is gluing it together. He must be delighted.
Actually the Lega Nord is in the same EU political group as France’s Front National, Austria’s FPÖ etc. So they really are both stupid and radical.0 -
There's an element of talking past each other a bit here. Focusing on the problems with the Euro, doesn't mean ignoring local factors or placing the blame solely on the Euro - neither does it mean wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and get rid of the Euro.Again, I am seeing problems the world over, and some of the worst performing economies with far right governments (political instability) in Europe are outside of the eurozone.
Ignoring local factors and placing the blame solely on the Euro is problematic imo. You remove the Euro you still have those local issues, which are the cause.
The worst you can for the Euro is that it removes some options that were there previously there.
Now, there certainly needs to be improvements, but I am not convinced of throwing the baby out with bath water just yet.
The worst you can say for the Euro, is that its design is fundamentally flawed and can only be fixed in one of two ways: 1: Complete centralization of fiscal policy in the EU, or 2: Reintroducing national currencies (which can include keeping the Euro as an exchange currency).
Perhaps it's better to focus on the bits where we (kind of) agree: That there need to be improvements.
My view, is that if we don't see improvements soon, that we are running the risk of political instability that will threaten the Euro - especially when the next economic crisis hits.
My view also, is that the only room for improvements, consist of either option 1 or 2 above (introduced gradually or not).
I don't view the status quo, things staying the way they are now, as sustainable - yet I don't see people offering alternatives, to my options 1 and 2 above.
What way do you see things going, or would like to see things go, to improve upon the current situation with the Euro?0 -
Advertisement
-
Nothing is mandatory everything is negotiable. The EU can decide to change at any time - it's just a political matter.As I pointed out earlier the use of the Euro throughout the EU is a mandatory goal of the EU, just like the FTA/CU old EEC stuff. Reintroducing the former national currencies is explicitly prohibited in the Treaties. That’s there to stop every currency speculator on the planet from targeting member states like sharks in a feeding frenzy.
Anyone arguing against the Euro is effectively making an argument that they want to terminate their country’s membership of the EU.
It's pretty easy to blur the lines between e.g. specialized bonds that can be made to operate like a currency, without being a currency - creating a quasi-currency that can operate alongside the Euro, while sidestepping the treaties.0 -
Nothing is mandatory everything is negotiable. The EU can decide to change at any time - it's just a political matter.As I pointed out earlier the use of the Euro throughout the EU is a mandatory goal of the EU, just like the FTA/CU old EEC stuff. Reintroducing the former national currencies is explicitly prohibited in the Treaties. That’s there to stop every currency speculator on the planet from targeting member states like sharks in a feeding frenzy.
Anyone arguing against the Euro is effectively making an argument that they want to terminate their country’s membership of the EU.
That’s a complete misunderstanding of the process of changing the EU Treaties. The EU Treaties are there so that the EU members can achieve specific goals - any country that no longer agrees with the goals of the EU is free to leave and it is completely unrealistic to expect every other country to abandon a core goal of the EU just because one country suddenly changes its mind about what it has previously agreed.It's pretty easy to blur the lines between e.g. specialized bonds that can be made to operate like a currency, without being a currency - creating a quasi-currency that can operate alongside the Euro, while sidestepping the treaties.
Actually no it isn’t “pretty easy to blur the lines”. Apart from the fact that you open the door to every currency speculator going on a feeding frenzy like a pack of sharks, your idea suffers from the serious problem that it is basically “unconstitutional” under the terms of the EU Treaties (and indeed our own domestic constitution). “Blurring the lines” on constitutional matters is unsustainable since either you take the rule of law seriously or you don’t. And, the simple reality is, if a state goes down that dark road, the best solution for the average person is to leave as fast as they can.0 -
No you're reading me wrong - the EU treaties can be renegotiated, in co-operation with the rest of the EU - it's solely a political matter.
If you issue a new type of government bond, allow them to be used to cancel out an equivalent amount of tax due to Revenue, and make them transferable - then you've got a quasi-currency that blurs the lines between bonds/debt and a currency (legally equivalent to bonds, yet can act like a currency) - and that's pretty much all you need to sidestep laws restricting currencies, as it's pretty much impossible to apply the law consistently against that, in a way that doesn't also end governments ability to produce bonds.0 -
listermint wrote: »An Ciarraioch wrote: »According to the Guardian, a climbdown is on the cards:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/31/italy-cancelled-league-rallies-signal-political-impasse-may-soon-end
As i said, i dont believe these people are stupid or as radical as its let on. Sure there are extremes within them. But the majority are looking right at the UK now and saying to themselves. - no thanks!
So its with great thanks to Nigel Farage that in his want to destruct the EU for the last decade he is gluing it together. He must be delighted.
Actually the Lega Nord is in the same EU political group as France’s Front National, Austria’s FPÖ etc. So they really are both stupid and radical.
And Five Star share a Eurogroup with UKIP. Anyway, it all appears to have calmed down with a compromise Cabinet:
https://mobile.twitter.com/FerdiGiugliano/status/10022240036233338880 -
No you're reading me wrong - the EU treaties can be renegotiated, in co-operation with the rest of the EU - it's solely a political matter.
I have just pointed out that renegotiating isn’t as easy as you think and that doing so would immediately open the doors to currency speculators going into a “feeding frenzy”. That alone should be reason to reflect on its desirability.
In addition, as the use of the Euro is an explicit goal of the EU member states, the member states do not want to do this. Other than your dislike of the Euro (and hence, ipso facto, of our EU membership), there is no reason for the member states to do this.If you issue a new type of government bond, allow them to be used to cancel out an equivalent amount of tax due to Revenue, and make them transferable - then you've got a quasi-currency that blurs the lines between bonds/debt and a currency (legally equivalent to bonds, yet can act like a currency) - and that's pretty much all you need to sidestep laws restricting currencies, as it's pretty much impossible to apply the law consistently against that, in a way that doesn't also end governments ability to produce bonds.
And, again, why should the member states do this? The sole reason is the creation of a quasi-currency intended to destroy the Euro. It would be completely contrary to the EU Treaties to do this. This is the constitutional law equivalent of “never mind what the constitution says, we’ll just drive a coach and horses through it”.0 -
There's an element of talking past each other a bit here. Focusing on the problems with the Euro, doesn't mean ignoring local factors or placing the blame solely on the Euro - neither does it mean wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and get rid of the Euro.Again, I am seeing problems the world over, and some of the worst performing economies with far right governments (political instability) in Europe are outside of the eurozone.
Ignoring local factors and placing the blame solely on the Euro is problematic imo. You remove the Euro you still have those local issues, which are the cause.
The worst you can for the Euro is that it removes some options that were there previously there.
Now, there certainly needs to be improvements, but I am not convinced of throwing the baby out with bath water just yet.
The worst you can say for the Euro, is that its design is fundamentally flawed and can only be fixed in one of two ways: 1: Complete centralization of fiscal policy in the EU, or 2: Reintroducing national currencies (which can include keeping the Euro as an exchange currency).
Perhaps it's better to focus on the bits where we (kind of) agree: That there need to be improvements.
My view, is that if we don't see improvements soon, that we are running the risk of political instability that will threaten the Euro - especially when the next economic crisis hits.
My view also, is that the only room for improvements, consist of either option 1 or 2 above (introduced gradually or not).
I don't view the status quo, things staying the way they are now, as sustainable - yet I don't see people offering alternatives, to my options 1 and 2 above.
What way do you see things going, or would like to see things go, to improve upon the current situation with the Euro?
The problem in your reasoning is that you perceive this as a binary choice (with your preference clearly being for the latter option).
That is a false dichotomy though. There is no requirement that the EU member states must opt for option 1 if they dislike option 2.
There are numerous examples around the world where countries and states avoid option 1. For instance, since 1945, the CFA has covered 14 disparate countries (technically there are two CFAs but they are used interchangeably) as also the CFP has covered 4 countries. This has been done without any need for any “complete centralization of fiscal policy” in the countries concerned. Likewise historically the Pound, Franc etc were the currencies of their respective empires but that didn’t mean they shared a centralised fiscal policy. Nor indeed, in the years 1922-79, did the existence of a 1:1 link between the Pound and the Punt mean that the Chancellor stood up in London and announced what our fiscal policy would be.
Equally, even in countries that are full Federations, it is not correct to assume that “the centre” decides fiscal policy since both taxation and spending are carried out at community level, state/province/canton level, and federal level. In the case of many federal states, taxation and spending are highly devolved, not centralised.
It is therefore incorrect to assume that a union of sovereign nations, which is what the EU is, would require a degree of fiscal policy centralisation that would be anathema to both countries that are Federations and those nations that share a common currency such as the CFA.0 -
You're still talking as if I want rid of the Euro, when I've been talking of reintroducing national currencies or quasi-currencies alongside the Euro.I have just pointed out that renegotiating isn’t as easy as you think and that doing so would immediately open the doors to currency speculators going into a “feeding frenzy”. That alone should be reason to reflect on its desirability.
In addition, as the use of the Euro is an explicit goal of the EU member states, the member states do not want to do this. Other than your dislike of the Euro (and hence, ipso facto, of our EU membership), there is no reason for the member states to do this.
And, again, why should the member states do this? The sole reason is the creation of a quasi-currency intended to destroy the Euro. It would be completely contrary to the EU Treaties to do this. This is the constitutional law equivalent of “never mind what the constitution says, we’ll just drive a coach and horses through it”.
You can do this the 'nice' way through renegotiating, or you can achieve a similar thing through the unilateral way with quasi-currencies.
Being made up of a special type of government bonds, they are not subject to the treaties you discuss - because bonds aren't currency.0 -
Separate currencies with linked exchange rates - of predominantly colonies without full sovereignty, no less... - are not the same as a single currency.The problem in your reasoning is that you perceive this as a binary choice (with your preference clearly being for the latter option).
That is a false dichotomy though. There is no requirement that the EU member states must opt for option 1 if they dislike option 2.
There are numerous examples around the world where countries and states avoid option 1. For instance, since 1945, the CFA has covered 14 disparate countries (technically there are two CFAs but they are used interchangeably) as also the CFP has covered 4 countries. This has been done without any need for any “complete centralization of fiscal policy” in the countries concerned. Likewise historically the Pound, Franc etc were the currencies of their respective empires but that didn’t mean they shared a centralised fiscal policy. Nor indeed, in the years 1922-79, did the existence of a 1:1 link between the Pound and the Punt mean that the Chancellor stood up in London and announced what our fiscal policy would be.
Equally, even in countries that are full Federations, it is not correct to assume that “the centre” decides fiscal policy since both taxation and spending are carried out at community level, state/province/canton level, and federal level. In the case of many federal states, taxation and spending are highly devolved, not centralised.
It is therefore incorrect to assume that a union of sovereign nations, which is what the EU is, would require a degree of fiscal policy centralisation that would be anathema to both countries that are Federations and those nations that share a common currency such as the CFA.
The reason I view it as a dichotomy between the choices of fiscal centralization or the return of national currencies - is because I view any in-between situation, like we have now, as politically unsustainable in the long run, due to the economic imbalances caused by the current setup (and how that leads things to deteriorate politically, in a way that threatens the single currency).
What makes or breaks federal states or emerging federal states, economically, is whether or not they have strong redistributive powers - to use fiscal policy to redistribute significant double-digit GDP sums between different regions within the federation, to make up for the imbalances caused by sharing a common currency (imbalances that negatively affect trade competitiveness in most regions) - that's what the EU is missing, that's where the imbalance is, that centralization would correct.
What you seem to be arguing is that we maintain the current imbalances, seem to suggest that it's all working fine, and that we need not do anything about it - I think that's unsustainable, with political events in Italy being an early indication of that (and we're not even in a fresh economic crisis, yet...).0 -
You're still talking as if I want rid of the Euro, when I've been talking of reintroducing national currencies or quasi-currencies alongside the Euro.I have just pointed out that renegotiating isn’t as easy as you think and that doing so would immediately open the doors to currency speculators going into a “feeding frenzy”. That alone should be reason to reflect on its desirability.
In addition, as the use of the Euro is an explicit goal of the EU member states, the member states do not want to do this. Other than your dislike of the Euro (and hence, ipso facto, of our EU membership), there is no reason for the member states to do this.
And, again, why should the member states do this? The sole reason is the creation of a quasi-currency intended to destroy the Euro. It would be completely contrary to the EU Treaties to do this. This is the constitutional law equivalent of “never mind what the constitution says, we’ll just drive a coach and horses through it”.
You can do this the 'nice' way through renegotiating, or you can achieve a similar thing through the unilateral way with quasi-currencies.
Being made up of a special type of government bonds, they are not subject to the treaties you discuss - because bonds aren't currency.
Le Pen lost the French presidential election because Macron pounced on this suggestion by her during their last debate - in Ireland, for instance, when would individuals or businesses use An Punt Nua as opposed to the euro, and juggling between two currencies would merely serve to undermine confidence in both.0 -
If it's accepted by Revenue for payment of taxes, then anyone in need of paying taxes would have use for the special bonds - and if demand for the bonds was low, causing it to exchange at less than its original Euro value - lets say 90% - then corporations needing to pay taxes, could use Euro's to buy up the bonds from the private market, and get a further 10% tax cut when using those bonds to pay taxes - ensuring demand rises enough to keep the bonds roughly in parity with the Euro.
So yea, you can have a quasi-currency sidestepping the EU treaties, while simultaneously operating alongside the Euro - and if it's setup correctly, it's very easy to guarantee high demand for it, and that it would successfully circulate and be used widely.0 -
Advertisement
-
If it's accepted by Revenue for payment of taxes, then anyone in need of paying taxes would have use for the special bonds - and if demand for the bonds was low, causing it to exchange at less than its original Euro value - lets say 90% - then corporations needing to pay taxes, could use Euro's to buy up the bonds from the private market, and get a further 10% tax cut when using those bonds to pay taxes - ensuring demand rises enough to keep the bonds roughly in parity with the Euro.
So yea, you can have a quasi-currency sidestepping the EU treaties, while simultaneously operating alongside the Euro - and if it's setup correctly, it's very easy to guarantee high demand for it, and that it would successfully circulate and be used widely.
You can't have something illegal.0 -
It's a bond, not a currency - it sidesteps the legal definition of a currency.0
-
-
Yes, it's backing the point I made earlier - that of the two solutions to the problems the Euro creates, fiscal centralization or reintroduction of national currencies - the latter can be achieved unilaterally without EU treaty renegotiation (because the bonds completely sidestep currency laws), and while keeping the Euro - contrary to other posters claims that treaties prevent it.0
-
Yes, it's backing the point I made earlier - that of the two solutions to the problems the Euro creates, fiscal centralization or reintroduction of national currencies - the latter can be achieved unilaterally without EU treaty renegotiation (because the bonds completely sidestep currency laws), and while keeping the Euro - contrary to other posters claims that treaties prevent it.
The EU Treaties explicitly reference “a SINGLE currency, the euro” (TEU Art 119.2) and “the use of the euro as the SINGLE currency” (TEU ART 133).
Attempting to re-introduce any form of “national currency” by any sleight of hand or by calling it anything else is an EXPLICIT breach of the EU Treaties. That is completely illegal under EU law and is unconstitutional under Irish law.0 -
The EU Treaties explicitly reference “a SINGLE currency, the euro” (TEU Art 119.2) and “the use of the euro as the SINGLE currency” (TEU ART 133).
Attempting to re-introduce any form of “national currency” by any sleight of hand or by calling it anything else is an EXPLICIT breach of the EU Treaties. That is completely illegal under EU law and is unconstitutional under Irish law.
Apart from being illegal, the other completely fantastical element is that he assumes that people would buy these "bonds".0 -
Separate currencies with linked exchange rates - of predominantly colonies without full sovereignty, no less... - are not the same as a single currency.The problem in your reasoning is that you perceive this as a binary choice (with your preference clearly being for the latter option).
That is a false dichotomy though. There is no requirement that the EU member states must opt for option 1 if they dislike option 2.
There are numerous examples around the world where countries and states avoid option 1. For instance, since 1945, the CFA has covered 14 disparate countries (technically there are two CFAs but they are used interchangeably) as also the CFP has covered 4 countries. This has been done without any need for any “complete centralization of fiscal policy” in the countries concerned. Likewise historically the Pound, Franc etc were the currencies of their respective empires but that didn’t mean they shared a centralised fiscal policy. Nor indeed, in the years 1922-79, did the existence of a 1:1 link between the Pound and the Punt mean that the Chancellor stood up in London and announced what our fiscal policy would be.
Equally, even in countries that are full Federations, it is not correct to assume that “the centre” decides fiscal policy since both taxation and spending are carried out at community level, state/province/canton level, and federal level. In the case of many federal states, taxation and spending are highly devolved, not centralised.
It is therefore incorrect to assume that a union of sovereign nations, which is what the EU is, would require a degree of fiscal policy centralisation that would be anathema to both countries that are Federations and those nations that share a common currency such as the CFA.
They aren’t seperate currencies.
One group of 9 countries use one currency, the other five use another currency. Both are linked on a 1:1 basis so are de facto used interchangeably by people and referred to as the CFA. In addition, another 4 use the CFP. All the countries concerned have full sovereignty.The reason I view it as a dichotomy between the choices of fiscal centralization or the return of national currencies - is because I view any in-between situation, like we have now, as politically unsustainable in the long run, due to the economic imbalances caused by the current setup (and how that leads things to deteriorate politically, in a way that threatens the single currency).
As I have pointed out that is a false dichotomy.What makes or breaks federal states or emerging federal states, economically, is whether or not they have strong redistributive powers - to use fiscal policy to redistribute significant double-digit GDP sums between different regions within the federation, to make up for the imbalances caused by sharing a common currency (imbalances that negatively affect trade competitiveness in most regions) - that's what the EU is missing, that's where the imbalance is, that centralization would correct.
Again you are assuming that all Federal states do that today and, even where it is true today, it most certainly was not true when most Federations were in their infancy.
And that leaves aside the point as to why the EU member states should emulate a Federation when the EU isn’t one.What you seem to be arguing is that we maintain the current imbalances, seem to suggest that it's all working fine, and that we need not do anything about it - I think that's unsustainable, with political events in Italy being an early indication of that (and we're not even in a fresh economic crisis, yet...).
First up, I’d question whether we actually do have “current imbalances” and whether they are an overall problem (as opposed to discrete problems to be addressed at member state or regional level). Second, the problems in Italy relate to them having failed to address their domestic political and economic issues. Reform is painful but that doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary and redenominating their national accounts won’t make Italy’s national debts disappear (since they are overwhelmingly domestic).0 -
You're spinning this in circles here. You can't enforce currency laws against bonds - because bonds are not a currency.The EU Treaties explicitly reference “a SINGLE currency, the euro” (TEU Art 119.2) and “the use of the euro as the SINGLE currency” (TEU ART 133).
Attempting to re-introduce any form of “national currency” by any sleight of hand or by calling it anything else is an EXPLICIT breach of the EU Treaties. That is completely illegal under EU law and is unconstitutional under Irish law.
At what points does a bond satisfy the legal definition of a currency? When it is made transferable? When it is accepted in lieu of tax payments?
You can't apply currency laws against bonds.
Can you progress this beyond repetition of the same assertions, and explain how a bond can be made illegal using currency laws? (and under which specific laws?) Governments issue bonds all the time - are they doing this illegally?0 -
My question is why are we claiming the Euro is the problem when Italy’s political, economic and social history has been like this since the modern economy began after WWII.
It boomed for a period in the 60s and 70s but always against the backdrop of major social and political turmoil. Then it had big reforms in the early 80s which saw it get on track for a while with debt levels falling a and the economy growing, surpassing the UK and France in scale for a while.
Then by the 1990s it was back to stagnation and rising debts.
I actually don’t see much having changed except that the Euro has put a spotlight on the problems to some extent.
When I look at Italy I see a country that is living in the past economically. It was a world leader in areas like car manufacture, white goods, industrial machinery and all of that and that’s mostly slipped away due to lack of real innovation and lack of exciting new products.
You can blame some of it on globalization but you can blame a lot of it on local stagnation of industry.
Then you’ve had a persistent problem with systemwide corruption, failure to collect taxes amounting to something like 25% of GDP and a political system, with a house and senate that have equal power and just chaotically bounce bills back and forth for years. You’ve also got a massive socioeconomic divide between north and south that has festered for decades, despite loads of talking and loads of failed attempts to repair it.
This is a country that attempted to prosecute seismologists for failing to predict an earth quake...
It’s a country that saw nothing odd about having, Silvio Berlusconi, effectively the Italian Trump, as PM for years.
Yet somehow it’s all down to “somebody else” the Euro, foreigners, the Germans, the EU ... anyone except the electorate.0 -
Advertisement
-
9 out of 14 countries using the CFA are in the Least Developed Countries list:They aren’t seperate currencies.
One group of 9 countries use one currency, the other five use another currency. Both are linked on a 1:1 basis so are de facto used interchangeably by people and referred to as the CFA. In addition, another 4 use the CFP. All the countries concerned have full sovereignty.
As I have pointed out that is a false dichotomy.
Again you are assuming that all Federal states do that today and, even where it is true today, it most certainly was not true when most Federations were in their infancy.
And that leaves aside the point as to why the EU member states should emulate a Federation when the EU isn’t one.
First up, I’d question whether we actually do have “current imbalances” and whether they are an overall problem (as opposed to discrete problems to be addressed at member state or regional level). Second, the problems in Italy relate to them having failed to address their domestic political and economic issues. Reform is painful but that doesn’t mean it isn’t necessary and redenominating their national accounts won’t make Italy’s national debts disappear (since they are overwhelmingly domestic).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Least_Developed_Countries
They're not really a positive example of a currency union producing successful results.
Why are you still talking as if I want the Euro gone? (you imply this by saying I suggest Italy redenominate their accounts)
I'm going to have to stop responding if I keep getting misrepresented like that, because it's leading things in circles.0
Advertisement