8 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

He is not a leader, he is only a Minister under Macron who is the French Leader, or in your world is everybody in any government who is arrogant enough to sprout their own version of what the EC needs to do "a Leader".  If so that explains why the EU is where it is today,  a bunch of headless chickens all running around thinking they are a leader. More like a flock of sheep.

On your opinion, is Theresa May EU leader or do you only qualify Queen Elizabeth as one?

56 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Predict away all you like. Right now, the majority of Greeks and Italians not only want to stay in the EU but they want to keep the Euro as well.

I notice that there was some scepticism about my claim that the majority of greeks and italians want to keep the Euro

Polls show most Italians want to stay in euro

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-euro-poll/polls-show-most-italians-want-to-stay-in-euro-idUSKCN1IW0MT

 

Overwhelming majority of Greeks want to keep euro, poll shows

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-greece-europoll/overwhelming-majority-of-greeks-want-to-keep-euro-poll-shows-idUKKCN0PK1WF20150710

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

On your opinion, is Theresa May EU leader or do you only qualify Queen Elizabeth as one?

Just to correct you it is spelt, Teresa May,  and Queen Elizabeth the second is not part of this topics' subject matter.

2 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

Just to correct you it is spelt, Teresa May,  and Queen Elizabeth the second is not part of this topics' subject matter.

Two people. So, are they EU leaders in your opinion?

6 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Two people. So, are they EU leaders in your opinion?

I shall not be commenting on a member of any Royal family on this forum and nor should you consider it a topic for discussion.  As for Teresa May , then she is Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party.

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

It's really not a matter of the EU being obliged to compromise. The UK chose to leave. It wants to be outside the EU. So the most it should reasonably expect is the best deal that the EU has offered to other nations outside the EU. So not Canada++++ but just Canada. Or whatever other deals the EU has offered nations outside the borders of the EU.

I agree we shouldn't expect anything more than a Canada trade deal. I think the '+' bit relates to the arrangements for the Irish border, which are in everyone's interests. A trade deal plus an agreed NI solution should be sufficient.

1 hour ago, Brunolem said:

Yes...

Referendum are unlikely in a EU which is looking more and more like the former Soviet Union, with its politburo sitting in Brussels and country leaders who think the populations are stupid, can't be trusted, and need to blindly follow luminaries such as Merkel and Macron.

 

Well, Merkel is dying a slow political death and Macron will soon remain the only dinosaur in the room, notwithstanding the politburo of course.

 

The British will probably be better off being outside before the whole house of cards crumbles...they may have jumped in the last rescue boat before the EU Titanic hit the iceberg...

 

The EU has so many fish to fry, or rather holes to plug that it has become impossible to count them, starting with the walking dead euro and its cohort of walking dead banks which are still moving only thanks to the manipulations of the ECB in Francfort.

 

The UK won't be on the hook when the time will come to finance the culling of this rotten herd.

 

Instead, the UK will be able to focus all its energy on its crown jewel...not at Buckingham Palace, but in the City, the world capital of financial crime and only real breadwinner of a country which has known better times...

 

 

The UK was never on the hook for the problems of the Eurozone. Which was fortunate considering the disasters its own banks and financial institutions stumbled into.

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The UK was never on the hook for the problems of the Eurozone. Which was fortunate considering the disasters its own banks and financial institutions stumbled into.

Furthermore Euro has never been a problem for any EU country.

 

Some EU countries has managed their finances less well and they have been in troubles because of that. Euro has never been the reason for those problems. Euro has actually been a stabilising force for these countries in trouble. 

 

Devaluing Euro is not an option. Devaluing currency is just bogus way of making one country suddenly 10% poorer comparing to its neighbours. That's a tool for countries, which have not been managed well. 

Troll post reported and removed. 

14 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Furthermore Euro has never been a problem for any EU country.

 

Some EU countries has managed their finances less well and they have been in troubles because of that. Euro has never been the reason for those problems. Euro has actually been a stabilising force for these countries in trouble. 

 

Devaluing Euro is not an option. Devaluing currency is just bogus way of making one country suddenly 10% poorer comparing to its neighbours. That's a tool for countries, which have not been managed well. 

Now that's just nonsense. The EU has just barely recovered from the recession, way behind other industrialized nations that control their own currency. Floating exchange rates are the fastest way for a country in economic straits to get out of a depression.

 

Germany industry is subsidized by a currency that is undervalued in relation to the strength of the German economy thanks to the fact that economically distressed nations share the same currency.  If the distressed members of the EU had their own currency it would have been devalued making them much more competitive against Germany industry. That's how floating exchange rates work. As it is, instead of devaluation, the poorer nations of the EU have to enduring the grindingly slow process of deflation. Which is a brutal and cruel way to recover from a depression.

 

Keep in mind that the governments of Ireland and Spain were not responsible for the losses that the EU banks endured. The money in question was not lent to those 2 governments. It was foolish lending to unsound private projects in those nations that nearly sunk those banks. Yet the EU demanded that the citizens of those nations be held responsible for those bankers' irresponsibility.

 

And even in the case of Greece and Portugal, 2 very small members of the EU, the banks clearly didn't do due diligence before they lent money to those countries' governments. 95% of the so called rescue money for Greece, actually went to the banks that had lent Greece money. The EU bailout was not a bailout of Greece at all, but rather of the banks that lent it money.

Edited September 26, 20187 yr by bristolboy

7 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Furthermore Euro has never been a problem for any EU country.

 

Some EU countries has managed their finances less well and they have been in troubles because of that. Euro has never been the reason for those problems. Euro has actually been a stabilising force for these countries in trouble. 

 

Devaluing Euro is not an option. Devaluing currency is just bogus way of making one country suddenly 10% poorer comparing to its neighbours. That's a tool for countries, which have not been managed well. 

The euro has never been a problem for any country?

Just ask the so-called Club Med members, or so-called PIIGS!

The euro is a major problem for countries like Italy or Spain, not to mention Greece or Portugal, whose exports are not helped by a currency too strong for them, while it is too weak for Germany.

 

Before the euro, all other European currencies were devaluing strongly and regularly against the DM.

In my time I have known the DM going from 1.5 to 3 against the French Franc, and I won't mention the lira or the drachma.

 

The introduction of a new, common, currency didn't change the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of each concerned economies...the Greek didn't get a share of the German heavy industry for their trouble.

 

So, while the rebalancing between very different economies used to be done with currency devaluations, this couldn't be done anymore and the weakest economies had to resort to internal devaluations, that is by lowering costs (salaries) and implement austerity policies.

 

As a matter of fact, if the euro was not a problem, the ECB would not be stuck in a corner with a zero interest rate and the purchase of truckloads of bonds from countries like Italy, whose economy would collapse without these artificial and unsustainable policies. 

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Germany industry is subsidized by a currency that is undervalued in relation to the strength of the German economy thanks to the fact that economically distressed nations share the same currency.  

This is not true. Salaries in Germany are already much higher than salaries in many other EU countries and countries around the world. 

 

If you think that Euro is undervalued by German standards of working, you actually say that Germans should have way higher salaries than they currently have. Are German people really worth double than the rest of people in Europe?

 

Yes, Germans are productive, but how much more productive they are compared to the rest of EU? 

2 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

The euro has never been a problem for any country?

Just ask the so-called Club Med members, or so-called PIIGS!

The euro is a major problem for countries like Italy or Spain, not to mention Greece or Portugal, whose exports are not helped by a currency too strong for them, while it is too weak for Germany.

 

Before the euro, all other European currencies were devaluing strongly and regularly against the DM.

In my time I have known the DM going from 1.5 to 3 against the French Franc, and I won't mention the lira or the drachma.

 

The introduction of a new, common, currency didn't change the fundamental strengths and weaknesses of each concerned economies...the Greek didn't get a share of the German heavy industry for their trouble.

 

So, while the rebalancing between very different economies used to be done with currency devaluations, this couldn't be done anymore and the weakest economies had to resort to internal devaluations, that is by lowering costs (salaries) and implement austerity policies.

 

As a matter of fact, if the euro was not a problem, the ECB would not be stuck in a corner with a zero interest rate and the purchase of truckloads of bonds from countries like Italy, whose economy would collapse without these artificial and unsustainable policies. 

Before Euro our Southern neighbours were dirt cheap countries to travel. We were able to their countries, they didn't have enough money to travel to our countries.

 

That sounded good for us, didn't it. 

 

In this day, the southern countries, Italy, Spain, Greece are rather badly managed internally. They are in economical problems not because of Euro, but because how their countries are managed. 

 

To be honest, I'm not sure whether they are actually smarter than the rest of us, living their lives without feeling that having a lot of money is the answer to all problems. 

Just now, oilinki said:

This is not true. Salaries in Germany are already much higher than salaries in many other EU countries and countries around the world. 

 

If you think that Euro is undervalued by German standards of working, you actually say that Germans should have way higher salaries than they currently have. Are German people really worth double than the rest of people in Europe?

 

Yes, Germans are productive, but how much more productive they are compared to the rest of EU? 

Sure. They're higher than some but not that much higher than many. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

And no, that's not how currencies work. If the Germans had the Deutschmark all alohg, it would have risen in relation to other nations' currencies. thus making german goods and servies less competitive. As German products become less competitive, salaries stop their rise. As other countries grow more competitive their currencies would start to rise. And the cycle eventually would start all over again. It would never have gotten this far in a world of floating exchange rates.

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

This is not true. Salaries in Germany are already much higher than salaries in many other EU countries and countries around the world. 

 

If you think that Euro is undervalued by German standards of working, you actually say that Germans should have way higher salaries than they currently have. Are German people really worth double than the rest of people in Europe?

 

Yes, Germans are productive, but how much more productive they are compared to the rest of EU? 

This has nothing to do with productivity, but with the structure of each economy.

 

When you export heavy machinery or any other high cost products, the price, partly reflected in the currency, is not the main issue.

 

For example, if the Chinese or the Thais want German machines, or trucks, they will pay the price no matter what.

 

Meanwhile, for economies that export products facing a lot of competition, such as clothing or fruits, cheese, wine, you name it, the price is often the decisive factor.

 

Having to sell food and clothing using the same currency as those selling heavy machinery is a major handicap for the concerned countries...which should never have joined the eurozone in the first place.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Sure. They're higher than some but not that much higher than many. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

And no, that's not how currencies work. If the Germans had the Deutschmark all alohg, it would have risen in relation to other nations' currencies. thus making german goods and servies less competitive. As German products become less competitive, salaries stop their rise. As other countries grow more competitive their currencies would start to rise. And the cycle eventually would start all over again. It would never have gotten this far in a world of floating exchange rates.

I have never understood the British reasoning saying that strong Euro is somehow bad for us Europeans. I like strong Euro and wish to see the day when one Euro equals to 2 or 10 pounds. Britain can devaluate it's currency as much it wants. 

 

Money is just number. The value of money becomes reality when we use it to buy what we want to buy. Money, the numbers becomes reality when we travel abroad and buy services.

 

We all know that the value of human work is really low here in Thailand. That's why it's so great for us to spend our stupidly worthy euros or pounds, we have earned, here when Thai baht is so unvalued. 

 

That makes us feel rich, without being one. 

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

Before Euro our Southern neighbours were dirt cheap countries to travel. We were able to their countries, they didn't have enough money to travel to our countries.

 

That sounded good for us, didn't it. 

 

In this day, the southern countries, Italy, Spain, Greece are rather badly managed internally. They are in economical problems not because of Euro, but because how their countries are managed. 

 

To be honest, I'm not sure whether they are actually smarter than the rest of us, living their lives without feeling that having a lot of money is the answer to all problems. 

Your statement about Spain is absolutely false. Before the crisis the Spanish national debt was actually declining and it was never unmanageably high to begin with.  Once it was saddled with the responsibilty for private debts, it soared.

https://tradingeconomics.com/spain/government-debt-to-gdp

 

 

And if you look at GDP growth for those southern nations you're not going to see a growth spurt after the Euro was created. Actually the growth spurt came before. There was another starting in about 2002. But as we know now, much of that was based on building way beyond demand and the over lending neciessary to support it. And when the crash came from these investments in the private sector, it was the citizens of those Eurozone countries who were made to pay. Only in Greece and Portugal were the bank's bad loans due to overlending to governments. And those 2 countries have very small economies.

 

And if Italy and Greece and Portugal had their own currencies. their economies would have crashed sharply and then recovered sharply. As was the case with Iceland. Iceland is an interesting case in this regard since the UK demanded that the Icelandic government assume responsibility for all the deposits of UK investors that had dissolved in the crash. Iceland said no and the UK had no way of enforcing its demands. Hence Iceland's rapid recovery.

13 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

This has nothing to do with productivity, but with the structure of each economy.

 

When you export heavy machinery or any other high cost products, the price, partly reflected in the currency, is not the main issue.

 

For example, if the Chinese or the Thais want German machines, or trucks, they will pay the price no matter what.

 

Meanwhile, for economies that export products facing a lot of competition, such as clothing or fruits, cheese, wine, you name it, the price is often the decisive factor.

 

Having to sell food and clothing using the same currency as those selling heavy machinery is a major handicap for the concerned countries...which should never have joined the eurozone in the first place.

When you devaluate country's currency let's say 20%, you devaluate everything what the people in that country owns by that said 20%. 

 

This is what devaluation really means. It's really not a big deal, if you are a person who lives in one city, doesn't travel abroad or buy imported bananas or cucumbers.

 

It's a larger deal if you are a person who wishes to travel abroad. 

Just now, oilinki said:

When you devaluate country's currency let's say 20%, you devaluate everything what the people in that country owns by that said 20%. 

 

This is what devaluation really means. It's really not a big deal, if you are a person who lives in one city, doesn't travel abroad or buy imported bananas or cucumbers.

 

It's a larger deal if you are a person who wishes to travel abroad. 

I somehow think that being unable to travel abroad is less of a tragedy than being unable to eat or to pay rent.

 

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

I somehow think that being unable to travel abroad is less of a tragedy than being unable to eat or to pay rent.

 

Of course it is. To eat is necessity. To be able to see the world is quality of life. 

Just now, oilinki said:

Of course it is. To eat is necessity. To be able to see the world is quality of life. 

And if Greece had never been in the Eurozone and somehow convinced banks to lend it all that money (itself unlikely) it would have crashed spectacularly and recovered a lot more quickly. Remember the ridiculously optimistic predictions of the EU about how quickly Greece would recover despite the crushing loans it had to pay? Even the iMF found those claims impossible to believe.

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Your statement about Spain is absolutely false. Before the crisis the Spanish national debt was actually declining and it was never unmanageably high to begin with.  Once it was saddled with the responsibilty for private debts, it soared.

https://tradingeconomics.com/spain/government-debt-to-gdp

 

 

And if you look at GDP growth for those southern nations you're not going to see a growth spurt after the Euro was created. Actually the growth spurt came before. There was another starting in about 2002. But as we know now, much of that was based on building way beyond demand and the over lending neciessary to support it. And when the crash came from these investments in the private sector, it was the citizens of those Eurozone countries who were made to pay. Only in Greece and Portugal were the bank's bad loans due to overlending to governments. And those 2 countries have very small economies.

 

And if Italy and Greece and Portugal had their own currencies. their economies would have crashed sharply and then recovered sharply. As was the case with Iceland. Iceland is an interesting case in this regard since the UK demanded that the Icelandic government assume responsibility for all the deposits of UK investors that had dissolved in the crash. Iceland said no and the UK had no way of enforcing its demands. Hence Iceland's rapid recovery.

I don't know how poor your country was before Spain joined Euro, but at least in my country Spain was considered as one of the cheap countries to visit.

 

So were Italy and Greece. 

 

Those southern EU countries could flourish regardless what kind of currency they use. It's not the money. It's the attitude and what people want to do what matters.

 

Like I said earlier, perhaps they are smarter than we are and know how to balance life and work well better than we do. Perhaps. 

 

 

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

I don't know how poor your country was before Spain joined Euro, but at least in my country Spain was considered as one of the cheap countries to visit.

 

So were Italy and Greece. 

 

Those southern EU countries could flourish regardless what kind of currency they use. It's not the money. It's the attitude and what people want to do what matters.

 

Like I said earlier, perhaps they are smarter than we are and know how to balance life and work well better than we do. Perhaps. 

 

 

I guess when the facts don't support you, you have to resort to how Spain was considered. The data are against you. If you choose to ignore them or deny them, there's not much I can do about it. And once again, the Spanish government was made responsible for loans to private industry. This had nothing to do with the loans made to the Spanish government. You seem resolutely determined to ignore that hard fact as well.

53 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And if Greece had never been in the Eurozone and somehow convinced banks to lend it all that money (itself unlikely) it would have crashed spectacularly and recovered a lot more quickly. Remember the ridiculously optimistic predictions of the EU about how quickly Greece would recover despite the crushing loans it had to pay? Even the iMF found those claims impossible to believe.

How using drachma instead of Euro, would have made any difference of a country not well run?

 

Why English people think that what currency we use, somewhat equals how our countries are run?

 

Economies are run well or not so well, depending out policies and how our people want to work and do business. Not based of the type of money we use.

5 minutes ago, oilinki said:

How using drachma instead of Euro, would have made any difference of a country not well run?

 

Why English people think that what currency we use, somewhat equals how our countries are run?

 

Economies are run well or not so well, depending out policies and how our people want to work and do business. Not based of the type of money we use.

Global economics is not your strong suit is it ????

3 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Global economics is not your strong suit is it ????

Logic is my strong suit. Do explain the way you wish. 

There are obviously pro and cons about the Euro. The exchange rate is a real issue. The northern countries could benefit from a more expensive Euro and the southern countries could benefit from a cheaper Euro. The current rate which is somewhere "in the middle" is probably not optimal for any single coutry. However, there are other benefits to have the same currency such as easier intra-europe trade, stable value of assets, international reach, etc....

Do benefits exceed or not drawbacks?

6 minutes ago, candide said:

There are obviously pro and cons about the Euro. The exchange rate is a real issue. The northern countries could benefit from a more expensive Euro and the southern countries could benefit from a cheaper Euro. The current rate which is somewhere "in the middle" is probably not optimal for any single coutry. However, there are other benefits to have the same currency such as easier intra-europe trade, stable value of assets, international reach, etc....

Do benefits exceed or not drawbacks?

Every country and economy can decide their own salaries, regardless of the currency they are using. 

 

When normal salary in Scandinavia is 3-4.000 euros, the same salary can be 1.000 euros in the southern states like in Spain or Greece, if they wish to have so low salaries. 

 

What currencies each country uses, doesn't really matter how much each person is actually rewarded for the job they do. 

 

If Europe would be using Thai baht, the normal salaries would be 120.00 to 160.00 up north and 40.00 down south. Once again, regardless of the currency used in the countries. 

 

Using Euro or any other currency doesn't make a difference how economies work. It's all to the performance of the people who create these economies. 

10 hours ago, oilinki said:

How using drachma instead of Euro, would have made any difference of a country not well run?

 

Well, using the drachma, Greece had managed to go on decently for decades, while using the euro it took only a decade to sink the country and send its population to hell for probably many decades!

9 hours ago, candide said:

 

Do benefits exceed or not drawbacks?

Just ask the ECB!