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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Will the euro zone as we know it collapse?

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11 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.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,822 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    The Eurozone is pretty useless...

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 187 ✭✭ftse100


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 24 tralalala


    no


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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 :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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 :D

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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. :p

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge



    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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? :confused:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    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? :confused:


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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. :p


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


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

    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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"?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    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.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    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!).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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.

    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭davwain


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 13,712 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


Advertisement