"A system built, not on economic logic, but on political hubris and vanity."

a bad idea at the time, a bad idea now and it'll be a bad idea tomorrow...bring back the pound !!! and the mark and the drachmas, franc, etc..then we can tell which country is pulling the load by the value of their currency...

Hmm, "seething" Germans... that did not go well last time.

Unfortunately,phantom, this time around they DON'T have a charismatic Leader.

Long ago, Jane Jacobs wrote (and I don't know if it was in "Cities and the Wealth of Nations" or a follow up article; can't find a 'net reference) that not only were supra-national currencies (like the euro, though it didn't exist yet) a bad idea, even national currencies had their flaws.

Since she was living in Toronto at the time, she used Canada as an example. Since Ontario was booming at the time she was writing, and the Maritime economy was moribund (plus ca change..), she said Maritimers were unable to let their local currency devalue to a point where their labour would be competitive. A local Maritime currency (the puffin? the codpiece?) would give them the flexibility to adjust exchange and interest rates to reflect local economic conditions.

In a sense, this is what Mul-unclear is railing about, except he mistakenly picks a single sector to blame, instead of Central Canada's malaise. If Western Canada had their own currency (the sandy? or combining BC and SK's biggest exports, the ashpot?) their exchange rate vis-a-vis the US$ would undoubtedly be higher than a central Canadian $ (and I can't think of a name for that dismal piece of coin).

There would be some interesting decisions to make - e.g. what currency do you pay your taxes in? Is there an "international loonie" for settlement outside the country? I would think allowing regional currencies to trade outside the country would open them up to manipulation - not that Goldman would ever consider that - so that doesn't look like a road to go down. Still, there are plenty of countries with less than 10 million in population that manage to have their own currency, so I don't think the problems are insurmountable.

Don't worry for now. The "I know better" elitist ineffectual twits running the EU will fail miserably.

the person to worry about is the next one or the one after that. She/He will be ruthless and cunning enough to take over the EU, and gather the power to themselves.

Can you said Vladimir Ilyich? Or Adolph? Someone will be ruthless enough to cow the unelected bureaucrats. And the scattered local governments will be divided. And the ruthless bastard will consolidate power by whatever means necessary.

rd

Unhappily this is how the story of unbridled power always ends with a weak leadership. Nature always pills up from the pit some wolfing to rally the other predators to confine the wandering sheep.
As well as the would be money, power hyenas.
The latter usually killed by the new "Masters".

I can sympathize with the German taxpayer.

They're kinda like the western Canadian taxpayer sending their hard-earned money to the pit of Quebec and some points further east.

Throw some Farage clips up for some giggles . He gets it .

"Hmm, "seething" Germans... that did not go well last time."

No it didn't. Those sharp looking Hugo Boss designed black uniforms might just be coming back into fashion in Germany again.

The Europeans, it seems to me, are quite content to let their respective governments handle these sorts of things. They may like or dislike the European Union or the euro but do little in terms of demanding popular input.

Now, it is too late to do anything about it. Even if Germany were to withdraw (or the system goes kaplooey before then), they would still be in the hole because of the rest of Europe.

Reap what one sows, ect.

"A system built, not on economic logic, but on political hubris and vanity." will collapse when the economic progress breaks down, and what is left of national interest will reassert itself.

Then The Phantom's thoughts might just come to pass.

I'm sure most of here have enjoyed Nigel Farage's views on the apparatchiks running the EU and on the EU itself.

For your viewing pleasure.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/09/nigel-farage-trapped-inside-an-economic-prison/

KevinB:

You're right about Jane Jacobs, and indeed it was "Cities and the Wealth of Nations". You may recall, however, that she even considered devolving yet one more step: that currencies be based on the major city in the area, spreading out as that city's influence predominates. This idea derived directly to one of her central tenets: that cities are the prime generators of innovation and wealth.

This idea looks ever more feasible as almost everyone can easily be connected to fluctuating exchange rates through mobile devices and the internet. But your caveat about currency manipulators and speculators rings a loud alarm bell. If there's a way to avoid that hazard while still letting the currency in question move freely against others -- well, I haven't come across it yet.

Any further ideas?

I can sympathize with the German taxpayer.
They're kinda like the western Canadian taxpayer sending their hard-earned money to the pit of Quebec and some points further east.

No, it's the Canadian taxpayer sending their hard-earned money to free loading farmers from coast to coast, but mostly to leeches on the western prairies. When do we get a referendum on that, teabaggers?

Gleick cleared of charges.....

http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/gleicks-institute-clears-gleick/

...opps, nevermind

http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/gleick-seemingly-now-un-cleared-of-forgery/

Phil take a pill, your hatred is showing!

The Euro, and to a large extent the EU, was a cynical attempt by central bankers and their political cronies to spread the fiscal liabilities and currency deficientcies of weak socialist governments across the more productive economies of Europe, and transnational commerce.

It was an epic failure because, not only are the tax paying public who are held hostage to this socialist debt rationalization scheme, ready to revolt, but it encouraged irresponsible socialist regimes to be even more wanton in deficit spending - the debt of which impacts the Euro as well as their own currencies.

Bankers 0, Citizens 1

You like leeches, will in ajax?

Phil, your argument escapes me. Freeloading farmers? Would your reference be to milk, egg, chicken marketing boards? Geez, Phil, they're mostly in Ontario and Quebec. But leeches on the prairies, I can't sort that one out at all. Have you got your geography confused?

Im with -----> Schultz

The Germans may be "seething" but I have no sympathy with their dilemma. When the Euro was created, all the member nations signed a binding agreement committing themselves to restricting fiscal deficits to a very small percentage of their total GDP.

In principle, this would have addressed the issue of a needed common fiscal policy.

However, Germany in the 1990s was short of cash to pay for the restoration of former East Germany. It was the first one to violate the treaty deficit provisions. Well, if the Germans are going to fail the test of leadership in showing fiscal discipline, why should anyone else? Helmut Kohl has a lot to answer for.

A;; socialist governments in Europe have run drficits and borrowed from central banks in the leading euro nations - their current debt load average is over 50% of GDP Anything over 50% of GDP means the nations productivity is collapsing.

Have you got your geography confused?

No, your teabagging brain is typically stunted. Marketing boards and supply managed products don't cost the taxpayer one thin dime. The biggest drain on the taxpayer is the freeloading, non-supply management plow jockeys in SK and Alberta. Try using what little brains nature has given you. It doesn't hurt. Really.

Geez, Phil, I've got to hand it to you. Your brain is working overtime. If marketing boards don't cost the taxpayer anything, then your taxpayer mustn't eat or drink any managed commodity. Or are you so blinded by your ideology as not to have noticed the substantially higher prices we pay for those products vs. the US and why we can't find export markets for them. Supply management has no place in any society.

The taxpayer doesn't subsidize managed commodities, the consumer does. But only if they choose to. The taxpayer, on the other hand, has no choice whatever in subsidizing the rural conservative, non-supply management welfare bum. They (we) are forced to do so. So which is better? Choice or no choice? Freedom or slavery? If supply management were eliminated, all of those farmers would then be jumping on the welfare bum gravy train, after taxpayer $$$billions were shelled out to compensate them for their quota. That would be genius, canuck.

Phil, so what you're saying is there's no subsidization if there's no consumption. You're right on that (surprise!)but only if you choose not to consume poultry, eggs and milk products. I can't speak for you, but I'm not about to give any of those up. But neither does that mean I condone supply management. However, I continue to have difficulty understanding just who the "rural conservative non-supply management welfare bum" is. Who is this elusive villain?

I can't speak for you, but I'm not about to give any of those up.
That's entirely up to you. You are consenting to that subsidization.

However, I continue to have difficulty understanding just who the "rural conservative non-supply management welfare bum" is. Who is this elusive villain?

Well, in SK, there are 50,000 of them, sucking the lifeblood out of honest paychecks to the annual tune of about $600.00 for every man, woman and child in the province. Or, to put it another way, country simple, the federal and provincial governments spend $20,000.00 on every welfare bum farmer (non supply management) every year. Yer welcome.

Phil: help me here. "There are 50,000 of them". 50,000 of whom? Who the hell is "them"? What is a "welfare bum farmer"? Are you implying that somehow there are 50,000 farmers on the prairies who are being subsidized?

Are you implying that somehow there are 50,000 farmers on the prairies who are being subsidized?

No, I'm stating that there are 50,000 in SK alone. I'm not implying anything. How can you comment on the subject when you are obviously as ignorant as the day is long? Do some research, then get back to me.

Phil, I asked a straight forward question, but I'll expand on it for you. Who is being subsidized, how and for what?
Not at all odd (although less than civilized) that when challenged, you revert to personal insults. Methinks you know not of that which you speak. Rather, you have this ideological perception of...something. And therein lies your skirting of the question.

I know it runs counter to teabagging dogma, but there really is no virtue in willful ignorance, 66.

Phil, you still haven't answered my question. I can only assume from that that you have no evidence or data to back your rant. I'm done with you. You aren't worth my time.

You aren't worth my time.

Nor, evidently, is Mr. Google. Just keep watching fox and sun, and when you aren't doing that, keep your head up your arse. Don't let pesky facts get in your way.