Euro - A flawed concept?

Re: re: sorry to go off topic but....!

Hi TB - Fair enough - Though I would recommend that you do a bit of Googling on Florida electoral register issues to give yourself a fair picture of what actually happened in Florida prior to 2000. And for the record, Greg Palast has done a pile of work for the well-respected BBC2 Newsnight programme also.
 
Re: sorting out that Euro thingy

Hi True Blue,

I might try to engage you in comments if you actually put something down that was in some way meaningful.

You might consider what you have written to be a series of economic and political comment etc.

I would consider it (and to be fair it is only my opinion but....) to be some of the worst type of pub commentary - I'd expect better from somebody who has had a trouserful at 1:30 in the morning. Do you really have to be this sloppy?

The phrase (which I have used before on another occasion) is the certainty of stupidity and that certainly applies to you if you truly believe some of the tripe you have posted earlier.

Yes, we play rough on planet Earth sometimes.

Oh and for the record I think that the Euro is a good thing actually. I might point out that it improves efficiency between the various economies in the Euro zone through decreased transaction costs, also improves the potential for intra Eurozone trade which should increase all the more because of the new countries coming in (although I admit that is a bit more long run) etc etc? After all, they are two of the principal reasons why we joined remember?

Or perhaps you have decided that it's bad and that's it. Fine. Great. Thank you so much for sorting that little problem for us.

Happy now?

Rodders.
 
Re: sorting out that Euro thingy

Rodder, Are you out on day release? Your rantings and raving suggest your going thru' some sort of er, withdrawal symptons?

Once again I ask you to critise the four points that I made earlier. Maybe you can't though because you don't have any valid points. Is that it?

By the way I am always happy.

Have a nice day and God Bless America!

Blue
 
Re: sorting out that Euro thingy

It might help if people stopped riling each other but I think that this discussion has gone to the dogs already...
 
Re: re: sorry to go off topic but....!

In response to Blue:

1. Despite the manipulation which occured in the supreme court you can not say the electoral college is a democratic "majority". Heck, the historical reason why the electoral college was implemented was to keep real power out of the masses hands. Check out chapter 1 in "Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)" by Noam Chomsky.

2. Did I say the US should bend over for the UN? No. Did you read that article I mentioned? I guess not as you entirely missed my point. My point was that every president until now, more or less, has been a custodian of that deck of cards. In my analogy the deck of cards represents more than just NATO or the UN. It represents the US's diplomatic relations with the rest of the world.

3. Michael Moore is entertainment, backed loosely with facts. I shuddder to think if anyone reads more in to it than that. And yes, black/white/other, if you support Bush I will call you names (but all in good fun). Why would I hold my tongue because of someone's color? That's reverse prejudice. I work in one of the most diverse cities in the country. If I held my tongue everytime I coworker wasn't white I probably wouldn't say ten words all day. Tip-toeing around someone because they are a different color isn't exactly treating them as equals, is it.

Lastly, no he wasn't right to go to war. If America is supposed to be the good guy, you can't start the war. Despite pissing away the world's goodwill (or good karma) from 9/11, in America's illustrious career of nation building we have caused more problems than we have solved. But again, you missed my point. It was never about Iraq, it was about setting back America's diplomatic relations at least 10 years. When there were two superpowers this damage may have blown over quicker, but now there is just one. History is replete with examples of forces culimating against a sole power. It is human nature to want Rome to fall.
 
Euro stuff

>Rodder, Are you out on day release? Your rantings and >raving suggest your going thru' some sort of er, >withdrawal symptons?

No actually, I lecture in Economics - specifically I lecture in Macro economics. I presaume you have heard of the subject?

The difference between us is that I would like to deal with facts rather than opinions.... You tend to find that people take you more seriously when you can back assertions up.

>Once again I ask you to critise the four points that I >made earlier. Maybe you can't though because you >don't have any valid points. Is that it?

No I can actually make some comments pleasesee below - You dont back up anything you say - experience tells me when somebody does this they don't want to bother really thinking about the issue. As a dinner party comment opinion that might be acceptable but it only takes you so far ok? While you're at it you might as well blame single mothers for all the good it would do you.

>Here’s why I think the Euro is going to fail and fail >miserable it will.

1. Interest rates.

>No country in the Eurozone has complete control of >their interest rates. This is bad for inflation, >competitiveness and hence job creation. What will the >outcome be if the ECB starts hiking up the interest >rates? Surely this would not benefit all countries.

I think the major point here is that the control of interest rates is done on an economic basis rather than a political one - this has to be a good thing. However, I would accept that some countires might suffer from what is called asymmetric shocks ie Ireland MAY have something occur to the economy that is unique to us and the current monetary policy may not be best suited to us at that time. However, this POTENTIAL problem should drop in all likelihood as the Euro zone economies move closer together.

>2. Socialism.

>The powers to be in the Eurozone (France and >Germany) are socialist states with power hungry >unions, inflated costs of living and suffocating red tape >and bureaucracy.

Yeah, I really feel for these oppressed peoples (who are much better off then we are (and don't even get my started about the States in terms of living standards!)

Stuff like worker rights (joining those pesky unions etc)
I reall feel their pain, really


>The French and German’s have already broken their >promises before (with deficits) and they’ll do it again. >The French are extremely hell bent on their own >interests and no one else’s unless of course it benefits >them. For instance, the French anti-war stance had >nothing to do with ‘saving’ Iraqi people but maintaining >the status quote when it came to their oil, business >and arms contracts with Sadam.

Oh and the US were there to bring democracy mom and apple pie to the Iraqi's?? Don't get me wrong I'm gald to see Saddam out - but it should have been done through the UN rather than securing yeat more oil for the US and keep Mr Cheney's pension sweet!

>If the Euro begins to
>flounder they’ll twist the rules to suit themselves. For >example, when Ireland was voting the second time >around for the nice treated the Germans and French ?>were drawing up final drafts to chuck us out if we had >refused the second time. Another example would be >eastern European states supporting the US in the Iraqi >war. They were told, publicly and in no uncertain >terms, that their support for the US was a bad thing >and could see them excluded from membership. If >that’s not bullying I don’t know what is. This sort of >behaviour will lead to a ‘four legs good, two legs bad’ >syndrome (Animal farm George Orwell?).

How can I say this delicately? Well ok one point I would agree with you on is that once the rules are set they apply to everybody and if the rules are broken a country should face the appropriate sanction.

As for being fired out of the EU - Please stop willya? It's dross like that the no campaign used at the time!
But just to clarify this for you - you're WRONG OK???

How were they going to kick us out - invade????

As for your claim re: bullying Eastern European counties being bullied - DATA???

Yes, I can see that the candidates countries we SO bullied they aren't coming in. Oh no, I'm wrong 10 are joining in May!!

One other thing, since you appear to be of a right of centre presuasion. I would argue that social democratic (ok you call them socialists!) actually manage the macroeconomies better than their right wing counterparts (Remember the boom-bust years of Mrs T and our own dear Charlie and Mary duet of 1997 on??)

>3. We are not that important!

>Contrary to popular opinion us Irish are, …er, not that >important. We are a small country with a population >tipping 4 million. Look, I am proud to be Irish and we >have achieved some great things but I think it’s gone >to our heads. We are how in the presidency of the EU. >Providing we do what the big boys tell us to do we’ll be >fine. Step out of line and feel the crack of the whip. >This government knows it can’t make any real >changes/decisons unless bureaucrats, ‘officials’ and >vested interests give the go ahead. This means that >the presidency is nothing but a puppet. Those in real >control are unaccountable which will lead to mistakes ?>being made and rampant corruption – needless to say >not good for business.

We're small yes - (can't change the laws of physics Jim)being currently 1% of the EU market. However we punch well above our weight in the EU as a whole and 2 countries will never have complete ownership of the EU as an institution - I think the UK, Italy Spain and Poland might have a thing or two to say about that.

The last bit is a rant, what more can I say? Where are your facts please?

4. Economy:

>Our economy is more in tune with the British and >American economies and not the Europeans.

Hmmm.... While the UK and the US is important to us in terms of being trading partners, I don't think you can make the jump you did (Remember France and Germany are pretty important to us too!) I would also think that over relience on 2 economies is a bad thing for us - Also it should be worth pointing out that Ireland has the lowest level of trade with the new guys coming in in May - You don't think we should do something about that?

In relation to some points made by other posters:
‘Surely you might just as well say is the concept of a single currency for all 50 states of the US a flawed concept?’

-America has a common history and culture much more intwined than EU states. Their currency has worked the jury is still out on ours.

We're currently working out a common history with the rest of Europe - it's called the EU. So when the US formed it a good thing but not for us yeah?

I think you're forgetting that one of the founding reasons for the EU is to make sure that no more wars are fought on our continent.

I also think (in Ireland at least) that we have very strong historical links with parts of Europe (UK France and Spain)

Finally, I'm sure learned commentators said the same about the emergence of the US dollar at the time! Relevance to the argument?

>By the way I am always happy.

I'm very glad to hear it!

>Have a nice day and God Bless America!

You too. However, while I have no problem with wishing a (actually any) country well, you'll forgive me if I don't invoke a deity I don't believe in. Just doesn't seem right to me somehow.

Finally, 0 if you 're reading, apologies! I'll try to be more direct next time I weigh in on the commentary. I hope I have made up somewhat with this posting.

Regards all around,

Rodders.
 
Re: Euro stuff

Does this help clear up who won the election and why? Sounds above board to me? He may not have been the most popular (certainly not now anyway), but he didn't win ileagaly, did he?
 
Re: Euro stuff

Lecturer in economics ha ha ha… well that explains everything. For someone that doesn’t live or work in the real world you seem to think you know a lot. That’s why it took several postings from you to criticize my points and when you eventually got around to it you made a complete dog’s dinner of the argument. I have heard about macroeconomics, it’s a bit like multi media studies, knitting technology and haggis making, something we all know of but in the real world entirely useless and you comments prove that.

You constantly refer to my arguments as just been opinions or comments yet that is exactly what they are. Doh! Why do you have a problem with that? It’s ok to disagree, but you seem to think that you have the right to prevent me from voicing my point of view that is contrary to yours. Would you like to ban free speech? Given the current mess of debating in colleges I won’t be surprised.

Anyway back to the real issue:

1. Interest rates.
The purpose of the EU is more political than economical, hence, the EU constitution and all the other pseudo –political bodies set up that pretend to be part of an overall EU ‘democratic’ government. To suggest that the EU is solely for economic purposes is delusional. Why bother with elections or the formation of a constitution then? The EU would like to be seen as the USE (E is for Europe just in case you don’t un-der-stand). Each country and in particular their respective populations see politics and government in a different light, so rather than having a cohesive harmonized political EU, we will have countries or sub groups of countries pulling in different directions with very little agreement. Britain suffered dramatically in the EMU fiasco because they gave over control of their interest rates. They paid a heavy price for that.

2. Socialism

I don’t think the people in France and Germany would want your pity. More’s to the point, they need a jolt of reality and they are not better off than we are. There is no centre right political party in Europe today despite what some media outlets might say. Unions are becoming more and more stronger and human rights come with responsibility and duties, something quite in-alien to socialists. People want more for working less and while that seems like a great idea the truth of the matter is that it’ll never work.

I noticed you didn’t argue the point on France and Germany breaking their promise on deficits nor did you dispute the true motives of the French ‘anti-war’ rhetoric. Is it because you actually agree with my points? It looks like it.

Oh and by the way your only ‘glad’ that Sadam is gone (thanks to the Americans and British) are you just ‘glad’ that the bathist party is gone too, along with the torture chambers and mass graves; along with the ethnic cleansing and rape, are you just sooo glad. If it was left up to the UN Iraq would still be under the control of Sadam and you and your cronies in the Uni Cafeteria know that.

America went to war for oil? Yeah right. Why didn’t they just buy it off Iraq? Why would they want to go to war for oil when they could easily have developed their own?

France and Germany were willing to have Ireland ejected if we had refused the Nice treaty a second time and they also warned East European countries because of their support for American. Do you call that democracy? You can be sure that that is just the start: [broken link removed]

Also Social Democrat is an oxymoron. Look at the damage done to countries that toe the socialist agenda. Britain was worst off under ‘old’ labour than Mrs. Thatcher. And when this country adopted a more right wing approach to government we’ve never had it so good. Even though our government is how caving in to the left on a socialist agenda/platform. Bigger fools them.

3. We are not that important

Wrong again, the two countries controlling the show in the EU at the moment are France and Germany.
You know that this presidency is only a fantasy to give the impression that democracy is working when it is quite clear it is not. It’s a bit like window dressing or like students going to boring lecturers – pretending to be interested (And tell me what’s more boring than listen to some old fart clapping on about macroeconomics… oooh what a big word!)

The last part of your comment is a cop out. You know I’m telling the truth but you don’t have any statements to counteract it.

4. Economy

Yes our economy is reliant on the EU and not just the UK and US. (Didn’t I say our economy is similar to the UK’s and the UK is part of the EU.Doh!)? But since you’re the ‘economist’ here surely you can see that we have developed the same cyclic pattern as those of the US and UK? Also I think the EU is a very good idea - economic wise- what I’m arguing is that politically it’s a dead duck. The Euro is one of the range of tools that France and Germany are employing to achieve their socialist agenda.

In relation to some other ‘points’ that you brought up….

A. The US was basically started from scratch the EU did not. They didn’t have to contend with deep-rooted economic, cultural or historical issues. What present day Europe is trying to do is just airbrush these issues away, mould them to suits it’s own needs or if they are too deep rooted forget about them.
B. ‘EU..blah blah blah.. no more wars on our continent’. What about the rapid reaction force or France trying to bid for supers power status?
C. Historical links with EU yes correct, historical links with US are much stronger.
D. ‘Invoke a deity I don’t believe in’. of course you don’t. You are to self-centered to believe in anything outside yourself or the Uni cafeteria for that matter.


By the way macroeconomics is one word and where are your facts?
 
Rant on, baby

Hi True Blue,

I was going to reply to this in more detail, but given the snide remarks you have made (not so much me - this I can live with) but the point(?) you raised about third level education, well sod it! It seems you poo-poo somebody who might know something about the subject because they study it? You obviously know better because you say so in which case why bother with the original posting as all you had to do was send the entire population a mind message.

By the way I'm not saying you NEED a qualification per se, but if you feel that economics, macro-economics or macroeconomics (thanks for your contribution there by the way!) isn't important, I think it's time to call a halt at this stage because there is no point ok?

In a democracy, you have the right to be ill-informed.
It's a pity you decide to use that right and ignore any other point of view (although I would appeal to you that this is a dangerous course of action on your part)....As I said, there were one or two points that could have done in your initial argument with some further development, but no, we'll have a rant instead and after that we'll be right back after the break...!

So to sign off in terms you can understand, I shall simply say this....

WHATEVER, GIRLFRIEND.

Have a special day now, y'hear?

Rodders.
 
Re: Rant on, baby

Aw poor Rodders.. I didn't meant to upset you but you had it coming. You are the one that posted here with very little substance and launched an attack against my opinions.

By the way do you have a beard and wear cardigans or a tweed coat?


Shalom.
 
Re: Rant on, baby

By the way do you have a beard and wear cardigans or a tweed coat?

Just popped by to see if this topic had gone anywhere but I take it from the above that it's a lost cause... :rolleyes
 
Re: Rant on, baby

'Just popped by to see if this topic had gone anywhere but I take it from the above that it's a lost cause' ...zzzzzzzzzzzZZZ

Please read my other postings and the valid points I made there (whether you agree or disagree with them is an entirely different matter). Also , I would like to point out that it was Rodders that posted very little facts and tried to stiffle the argument.

Blue
 
Memo to the knoweldge boy

Hi again,

>Please read my other postings and the valid points I >made there (whether you agree or disagree with them >is an entirely different matter). Also , I would like >to point out that it was Rodders that posted very >little facts and tried to stiffle the argument.

yeah, yeah whatever :rolleyes

Memo to 0 :- Apologies. I did try but you can't really compete with somebody who compares economics with knitting!

And finally to my fellow poster true blue. One or two small corrections re: myself. Nope don't have a beard or wear that type of jacket you describe. As I previously posted, you can take any shot you like at me (fair enough), but please don't denigrate the subject of economics. May I be so bold as to ask your background? (seeing as I appear to be living in the ivory tower? - A tad inaccurate by the way)

Regards,

Rodders.

PS You might be interested to learn that the European Commission have asked for a judgement from the European Court of Justice as to the legality of ignorng sanctions on France and Germany excessive budget defecits. That well known socialist, Charlie McCreevy was on this morning being quite annoyed about it. Something there about checks and balances perhaps?
 
debate

I would like to move away from all the politics, etc., and just say that surely we must accept that the euro is not a failure as it is being used by 300 million people everyday.

The euro has gains and losses for any member state. One problem is, as mentioned already, the loss of control over interest rates. Howver, overall, Ireland gains from membership of the euro.

So to answer the question: NO, it is not flawed.
 
re-debate

‘I would like to move away from all the politics, etc.,..’


If anything the euro is being used as a tool for greater political integration.

‘accept that the euro is not a failure as it is being used by 300 million people everyday…’

It doesn’t make much of a difference how many people use the Euro. If it becomes more political than it already is than market forces are squeezed out which is the true determinant on how the Euro will succeed.
 
Euro debate

The principal reason for the Euro is for greater ECONOMIC integration between all countries within the Euro zone. In this regard economies of scale matter because what is better than a market of 4 million? A market of 300 million!

If you improve the potential for trade, then further trade will occur. That's one of the principal reasons why the old EEC was founded.

There is of course a political aspect to it as well in that in order for the currency to work the various economies cede some amount of economic soverignity (in terms of adjusting interest rates), but that's the pay-off.

One positive thing is that the ECB are in charge of interest rates, (like the Bank of England in the UK). I believe that if the power to change interest rates is out of the hands of politicians and in the hands of people who have some idea of what's going on, you're more likely to get a decision on what is best for the economy as a whole.

Another reason for the Euro is that given a common currency and increased intra Eurozone trade, it should allow economies to develop at the industry they are best at (the idea of comparative advantage).

There is initially a possibility that an economy that is out of sync (in terms of the business cycle) may have policies applied to it which might not be in their best interests, but as I said earlier, this possibility will reduce as the economies get into closer alignment over time.

Naturally, it would be in Ireland's interest, if the UK joined, which I think it will in the medium to long term (because the cost of staying out will become too large).

To True Blue, could you expand on your last point please? I didn't quite follow what you were saying there.

Thanks,

Rodders.
 
Re: Euro debate

Hi True Blue
Most governments recently elected in the EU are of a centre right disposition..... Ireland, Spain, Italy etc. I suspect not as far to the right as your disposition however.

The EU is overwhelmingly about economics not politics

The unions are getting weaker all the time. I think this trend will accelerate as we get further into the information age.

Gore recieved a higher count of votes than Bush in the last election if you sum up the total count across all states (albeit by a narrow majority)

You do however make some valid comments about interest rates etc. I think you should work on these points rather than labour on plain non truths.