End of the Euro and "European Dream"? EC head: "We can't finance oursocial model...."

End of the Euro and "European Dream"? EC head: "We can't finance our
social model...."

"...A monetary union comprising independent states, each with its own
peculiar economic and political interests, histories, cultural norms,
laws, and fiscal systems, was bound to end up in the current crisis.

All that borrowed money, however, was necessary for funding the lavish
social welfare entitlements and employment benefits that once
impressed champions of the “European Dream.” Yet, despite the greater
fiscal integration created by the E.U., sluggish, over-regulated, over-
taxed economies could not generate enough money to pay for such
amenities.

Now, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, admits,
“We can’t finance our social model....”

google it for the source of the article in its entirety.

On Oct 22, 11:23*am, "O'Deez, PJ" wrote:
End of the Euro and "European Dream"? EC head: "We can't finance our
social model...."

"...A monetary union comprising independent states, each with its own
peculiar economic and political interests, histories, cultural norms,
laws, and fiscal systems, was bound to end up in the current crisis.

All that borrowed money, however, was necessary for funding the lavish
social welfare entitlements and employment benefits that once
impressed champions of the “European Dream.” Yet, despite the greater
fiscal integration created by the E.U., sluggish, over-regulated, over-
taxed economies could not generate enough money to pay for such
amenities.

Now, the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, admits,
“We can’t finance our social model....”

google it for the source of the article in its entirety.

But, far more importantly I think, the recent allowing in of a dozen
or more second-grade nations who simply never matched the financial
strengths demanded for original membership, all in the the name of
rapidly creating a larger, more powerful political unit that some
original members, at least, simply did not want.
Plus rampant uncontrolled (and, to date, even unaudited) spending.
A total mess and the potential destruction of an originally worthwhile
aim.

On 2011-10-23 05:04:42 -0500, Surreyman said:

But, far more importantly I think, the recent allowing in of a dozen
or more second-grade nations who simply never matched the financial
strengths demanded for original membership, all in the the name of
rapidly creating a larger, more powerful political unit that some
original members, at least, simply did not want.
Plus rampant uncontrolled (and, to date, even unaudited) spending.
A total mess and the potential destruction of an originally worthwhile
aim.

What I never understood, and maybe someone out there more plugged-into
Europe can tell me, is why the hurry? Why hurry up in the first place
and have one big eurozone?

Apparently the political legac of WW2 means Germany has to be bound in
an initial eurozone, and the same political legacy means France does
too. So was a France-German -only eurozone originally mooted? Maybe
France-Germany-Benelux? And then let that worked for 10 to 20 years
and settle out, and then add more countries one at a time?

Why the hurry?

As a traveller, it has been convenient to have but one currency for
most of the places I've visited. But hooking up the mediterranean
countries with the northern countries at the same time was extremely
plainly a bad idea from the start. Even I saw that coming, as a mildly
informed American.

In contrast, the United States of America incrementally grew to its
present size over 150 years.

--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

Dan Stephenson wrote:

What I never understood, and maybe someone out there more plugged-into
Europe can tell me, is why the hurry? Why hurry up in the first place
and have one big eurozone?

Apparently the political legac of WW2 means Germany has to be bound in
an initial eurozone, and the same political legacy means France does
too. So was a France-German -only eurozone originally mooted? Maybe
France-Germany-Benelux? And then let that worked for 10 to 20 years and
settle out, and then add more countries one at a time?

Well, if you start at WW2, you should see it this way:

In 1951, the European Coal and Steel Community was founded. France,
Germany, Italy, Benelux.

In 1957, the European Economic Community followed.

In 1993, the European Economic Community emerged into the European
Community.

(And in 2009, the whole thing was offically renamed into the European
Union.)

Why the hurry?

Some might say the Euro was 50 years in the making. It's yet one more
step. And if you feel strong enough, why not make a leap?

But hooking up the mediterranean countries
with the northern countries at the same time was extremely plainly a bad
idea from the start. Even I saw that coming, as a mildly informed American.

- Ireland is not a mediterranean country. Ireland, Spain and Portugal
were called the "European tiger states" not too long ago (i.e. until
major US banks and insurances ****ed up half the world's credit system).

- Italy is Europe's third (or forth) largest economy.

- It wouldn't help France, Europe's second largest economy, to keep
mediterranean countries out of Euroland. French banks would still have
major investments in those countries. It's been that way for decades.

And that's where we get to the problem. Basically, nobody cares if the
Greeks go belly up, it wouldn't affect the Euro - if only French banks
would not have that much money in credits down there.

It's not like all the helping money stays in Greece right now. It's
going right back to those who hold Greek bonds. Guess why France is so
interested in helping Greece - and Germany not (or, at least, not that
much).

In contrast, the United States of America incrementally grew to its
present size over 150 years.

You're right, but:

Count how many wars the US had to fight on its continent within the past
150 years (no, the civil war doesn't count and killing some Apaches,
Comanches or whoever else not much above the sticks-and-stones level
neither). Like, none?

Now do the same for Europe. Even though by today's standards it might
look slightly ridiculous, you'll get an idea of how much time Europe
seemed to have after WW2. The driving forces in European integration,
including the Euro, have witnessed WW2.
If you where shocked at 9/11, don't take a look at the results of
Operation Gomorrah over Hamburg. Or the battles at the French-German
border in late WW1. That's war between industrialized nations. That's
what happened right here, not on Fox News. That's what moves European
integration forwards, sometimes in bigger steps than necessary.

In article ,
Johannes Kleese wrote:

Now do the same for Europe. Even though by today's standards it might
look slightly ridiculous, you'll get an idea of how much time Europe
seemed to have after WW2. The driving forces in European integration,
including the Euro, have witnessed WW2.
If you where shocked at 9/11, don't take a look at the results of
Operation Gomorrah over Hamburg. Or the battles at the French-German
border in late WW1. That's war between industrialized nations. That's
what happened right here, not on Fox News. That's what moves European
integration forwards, sometimes in bigger steps than necessary.

What about globalization?

Between the US, which is forging free trade agreements as fast as it
can, to the ascendance of China, integration was almost a necessity?

Or at least a common market, since Germany depends so much on exports?

On 24/10/11 15:06, Martin wrote:

Germany and Benelux had fairly constant rates of exchange for a long
period before the Euro.

And a reasonably regular exchange of explosives and other nastiness.

Germany wanted an open market for its exports.
France wanted a European federal republic using German wealth.

No, France wanted an absolute guarantee that Germany wouldn't invade
them for a forth time in less than 100 years.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

Some might say the Euro was 50 years in the making. It's yet one more
step. And if you feel strong enough, why not make a leap?

Because there is no support from the population. The majority opposes
it. If that's not a reason, what is.

The population opposes it because most people have no idea what's going
on and don't care to get informed. At least not besides reading tabloids.

Just take look at the Euro/USD exchange rate and the public opinion
about it: When the rate went down shortly after the Euro's birth, people
cried, 'we're all going to hell' (despite a cheap Euro helps exports).
Now it's been up for several years - and that ain't right, either (cause
an expensive Euro hurts exports).

A currency should be a made to measure suit for its national economy,
so its money supply and its value can be adjusted according to the
nation's GDP development, price rate, national debt or any number of
other things that need caring.

Funny thing is that the praised German central bank and it's mighty Mark
pretty much cared mostly about just one thing: price rate.

You should be happy about the European central bank, which has taken
quite some beatings recently for caring about your "other things",
especially the national debt of Greece and other countries.

- Ireland is not a mediterranean country. Ireland, Spain and Portugal
were called the "European tiger states" not too long ago

based on milking the EU fir every penny.

Well, you might laugh at it, but that's the idea of a community, the
strong helping the weak. Not the rich getting richer.

- Italy is Europe's third (or forth) largest economy.

Italy has had zero economic growth for a decade.

And is still the third (or forth) largest economy. Apparently they still
sell enough pizza and ice cream.

And that's where we get to the problem. Basically, nobody cares if the
Greeks go belly up, it wouldn't affect the Euro - if only French banks
would not have that much money in credits down there.

UK banks have substantial investments in Greece and Ireland

The UK is not part of Euroland and doesn't really see itself as part of
Europe anyway :

On 10/23/2011 02:56 PM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
On 2011-10-23 05:04:42 -0500, Surreyman said:

But, far more importantly I think, the recent allowing in of a dozen
or more second-grade nations who simply never matched the financial
strengths demanded for original membership, all in the the name of
rapidly creating a larger, more powerful political unit that some
original members, at least, simply did not want.
Plus rampant uncontrolled (and, to date, even unaudited) spending.
A total mess and the potential destruction of an originally worthwhile
aim.

What I never understood, and maybe someone out there more plugged-into
Europe can tell me, is why the hurry? Why hurry up in the first place
and have one big eurozone?

Apparently the political legac of WW2 means Germany has to be bound in
an initial eurozone, and the same political legacy means France does
too. So was a France-German -only eurozone originally mooted? Maybe
France-Germany-Benelux? And then let that worked for 10 to 20 years and
settle out, and then add more countries one at a time?

Why the hurry?

As a traveller, it has been convenient to have but one currency for most
of the places I've visited. But hooking up the mediterranean countries
with the northern countries at the same time was extremely plainly a bad
idea from the start. Even I saw that coming, as a mildly informed American.

In contrast, the United States of America incrementally grew to its
present size over 150 years.


It's worth noting that some member states of the USA at various times
have faced bankruptcy.

Tom P wrote:
On 10/23/2011 02:56 PM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
On 2011-10-23 05:04:42 -0500, Surreyman said:

But, far more importantly I think, the recent allowing in of a dozen
or more second-grade nations who simply never matched the financial
strengths demanded for original membership, all in the the name of
rapidly creating a larger, more powerful political unit that some
original members, at least, simply did not want.
Plus rampant uncontrolled (and, to date, even unaudited) spending.
A total mess and the potential destruction of an originally worthwhile
aim.

What I never understood, and maybe someone out there more plugged-into
Europe can tell me, is why the hurry? Why hurry up in the first place
and have one big eurozone?

Apparently the political legac of WW2 means Germany has to be bound in
an initial eurozone, and the same political legacy means France does
too. So was a France-German -only eurozone originally mooted? Maybe
France-Germany-Benelux? And then let that worked for 10 to 20 years and
settle out, and then add more countries one at a time?

Why the hurry?

As a traveller, it has been convenient to have but one currency for most
of the places I've visited. But hooking up the mediterranean countries
with the northern countries at the same time was extremely plainly a bad
idea from the start. Even I saw that coming, as a mildly informed American.

In contrast, the United States of America incrementally grew to its
present size over 150 years.


It's worth noting that some member states of the USA at various times
have faced bankruptcy.

Right now, for instance, California, with an economy larger than many
countries, is in major trouble!
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad