The end of the Euro?

[Omni Rex Draconis]

unpalatable British testes

YOMANK! Eating dinner while reading Apolyton is not advised...

[Robert]

It's all BS and emotion.
It doens't matter if the euro was 10% too expensive or 10% too cheap. All wages have been affected in the same way as the prices have been affected.

If I earn 100 guildens and pay 10 guildens for a bread
it doesn't matter if that becomes 50 euro wage and 5 euro for a bread or 60 euro wage and 6 euro for a bread.

The inflation was heigh during the first months of the euro because we just left an economic optimistic period. Good economic times ALWAYS end with huge inflation. That's one of the reasons that a recession comes after an economic good period.
And indeed, much shops / stores / restaurants have raised the prices heigh because of the euro. But they have all fallen back in income because of that, and lowered hte prices already.

In holland in example we had a huge supermarket fight in which the prices lowered huge! In fact people are even paying less for their daily shoppings then they did before the euro.

But people have emotions and blame all things that go wrong to the euro. Oh well, they'd better blame it to the euro then to some racial minority, which has been done in the past.

But in the end it's all just sheer emotion.

England and Sweden have always been 'islands' in europe with different economics. It's BS to claim that they're doing better because they don't have the euro.

I'm so happy we didn't got a referendum about the euro. Why would people who don't know **** about something may decide over it?

[Spiffor]

England and Sweden have always been 'islands' in europe with different economics. It's BS to claim that they're doing better because they don't have the euro.

Monetary policy is something important in the economic well-being of a country.

And Britain (can't say for Sweden) has a pragmatic monetary policy, which is a quality the Eurozone doesn't have. I think their pragmatism did seriously help them.

[Robert]

That may be true indeed.
But that means it's not to blame to the euro but to the non-pragmatic attitude of europe.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
But that means it's not to blame to the euro but to the non-pragmatic attitude of europe.

Definitely. The Euro is a good idea in itself. It's too bad the Eurozone is led by monetarist ayatollahs however, and it's too bad that it's bound to continue, considering that it is enshrined in the constitution (Art. III-185)

[Robert]

btw, ending the euro would be the worst idea like ever!
The problems we faced when going from (guilden / whatever) to euro will be faced again. It's not as if you can change everything back as if nothing happened.

[Colonâ„¢]

Spiff, the function of monetary policy is to manage to business cycles, not to raise structural growth throughout the cycles, since it *cannot* do so. In the long run increasing the money stock does *not* increase real GDP, it simply decreases the value of money.

That said, it's not because there's low growth the central bank is to blame for it, there can be other factors in play. And if you look at the actual monetary conditions in the eurozone you'll find that both M3 (+6.8%) and private loans (+7.3%) are growing at a healthy pace.
Blaming sluggish growth on the ECB is just some BS excuse to avoid structural reforms.

[DeathByTheSword]

Originally posted by CyberShy
It's all BS and emotion.
It doens't matter if the euro was 10% too expensive or 10% too cheap. All wages have been affected in the same way as the prices have been affected.

If I earn 100 guildens and pay 10 guildens for a bread
it doesn't matter if that becomes 50 euro wage and 5 euro for a bread or 60 euro wage and 6 euro for a bread.

The inflation was heigh during the first months of the euro because we just left an economic optimistic period. Good economic times ALWAYS end with huge inflation. That's one of the reasons that a recession comes after an economic good period.
And indeed, much shops / stores / restaurants have raised the prices heigh because of the euro. But they have all fallen back in income because of that, and lowered hte prices already.

In holland in example we had a huge supermarket fight in which the prices lowered huge! In fact people are even paying less for their daily shoppings then they did before the euro.

But people have emotions and blame all things that go wrong to the euro. Oh well, they'd better blame it to the euro then to some racial minority, which has been done in the past.

But in the end it's all just sheer emotion.

England and Sweden have always been 'islands' in europe with different economics. It's BS to claim that they're doing better because they don't have the euro.

I'm so happy we didn't got a referendum about the euro. Why would people who don't know **** about something may decide over it?

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Colon
Spiff, the function of monetary policy is to manage to business cycles, not to raise structural growth throughout the cycles, since it *cannot* do so. In the long run increasing the money stock does *not* increase real GDP, it simply decreases the value of money.

That said, it's not because there's low growth the central bank is to blame for it, there can be other factors in play. And if you look at the actual monetary conditions in the eurozone you'll find that both M3 (+6.8%) and private loans (+7.3%) are growing at a healthy pace.
Blaming sluggish growth on the ECB is just some BS excuse to avoid structural reforms.

Spiffor, you should copy that ten times in order to keep it in mind definitely.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Hueij
I want the Guilder back! It turned out the Dutch Guilder was 20% underrated when we made the change

Shame on me, I know, but when I heard Guilder, my first thought was not the currency, but the nation Prince Humperdink tried to frame.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Colon
Spiff, the function of monetary policy is to manage to business cycles, not to raise structural growth throughout the cycles, since it *cannot* do so.

Yes it can. Or do you want to debate whether lower interest rates lead to higher investment and spending, and whether a weaker currency leads to more exports or not.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Colon
Spiff, the function of monetary policy is to manage to business cycles, not to raise structural growth throughout the cycles, since it *cannot* do so. In the long run increasing the money stock does *not* increase real GDP, it simply decreases the value of money.

That said, it's not because there's low growth the central bank is to blame for it, there can be other factors in play. And if you look at the actual monetary conditions in the eurozone you'll find that both M3 (+6.8%) and private loans (+7.3%) are growing at a healthy pace.
Blaming sluggish growth on the ECB is just some BS excuse to avoid structural reforms.

The ECB is not the only one responsible for the slow growth, far from it. My gripe with the ECB is not necessarily that it follows anti-inflationist policies in time of need. My gripe is that the struggle against inflation is the ultimate goal of the ECB, and a hardwired one (to vhange the aims of the ECB, the European leaders need the agreement of the ECB itself )
It may not look like it, but I'm favourable to economic pragmatism. And you can't have economic pragmatism when you carve economic policies in stone, so that it remains similar for the next 30 to 50 years. Which is what the EU treaties/constitution are doing.

[DanS]

I've got a wife to kill, Guilder to frame for it... I'm swamped!

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Spiffor

The ECB is not the only one responsible for the slow growth, far from it. My gripe with the ECB is not necessarily that it follows anti-inflationist policies in time of need. My gripe is that the struggle against inflation is the ultimate goal of the ECB, and a hardwired one (to vhange the aims of the ECB, the European leaders need the agreement of the ECB itself )
It may not look like it, but I'm favourable to economic pragmatism. And you can't have economic pragmatism when you carve economic policies in stone, so that it remains similar for the next 30 to 50 years. Which is what the EU treaties/constitution are doing.

The ECB's policies are only carved in stone insofar it has to guarantee monetary stability, and in extension economic stability. The principle is that's the best way a CB can contribute to economic growth and that's a very sound principle. Far too often in the past politicians have reacted to economic logjams by letting the spigot run loose or devaluating their currency, as an easy, quick fix, with disastrous consequences.

And I repeat: monetary conditions do not appear to be loose if you look at actual date of money supply and credit growth.

[Colonâ„¢]

And besides, everybody hates the ECB. So it must be doing a good job.