Do you think the collapse
theboz11
Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭
Of the EU will provide collecting opportunities if the Euro falls and gets replaced by individual countries currencies again.
0
Comments
<< <i>Of the EU will provide collecting opportunities if the Euro falls and gets replaced by individual countries currencies again. >>
Well i don't think the EU is going anywhere just yet. I think there will be many other similar problems that will plague the EU for many years to come, whether it survives them or gets dissolved is not for me to guess.
But a thought or two on the EU situation here from me;
Why do Empires collapse? There are many reasons why Empires come and go, sometimes like the British Empire they are dismantled due to popular pressure in the colonies. Other Empires collapse because they over stretch themselves.
Think of a supernova. A star in it's dying days expands dramatically, the burning of fuel combats gravity and keeps the outer parts of the star from collapsing in. However when the flame goes out in the centre it all falls in.
Some Empire overstretch themselves and leave themselves a bit thin, they are more bothered about spreading as far as possible (Europe is doing this bit now) and in doing so ignore the problems more close at home in the centre hoping they'll go away (which is seemingly happening). Prone to attack from the inside... by the time they do try and sort out the hitches it's usually too late.
Empires need strong foundations.
Whilst the EU is a union of countries rather than an empire i do often wonder if in this instance there's much of a difference? The leaders are concerned with making the EU work... as the recent votes have shown the majority of members in two countries of the EU are not that interested in it. But the politicians go on with it anyway public opinion against them or not.
The politicians are now trying to think of ways around this public opinion. If they have to trick them or ignore them. How is this democratic?
What worries me is that if the EU ever does become a single unit power base with one government, there's going to be alot of trouble. It only takes a Mussolini, a Franco, a Stalin or a Hitler type to take control and the whole of Europe is in their hands.
On a currency note, as i'm a fairly eurosceptical UK member who is eager to keep the Pound, i'm afraid i'd have to admit my dream would be to see the EU's currency union fail and everyone give it up as a bad job and go back to their own currencies.
I couldn't agree with you more on that.
Shep
I'm with Syl ... I'd like to see Great Britain retain the pound.
My OmniCoin Collection
My BankNoteBank Collection
Tom, formerly in Albuquerque, NM.
<< <i>On a currency note, as i'm a fairly eurosceptical UK member who is eager to keep the Pound, i'm afraid i'd have to admit my dream would be to see the EU's currency union fail and everyone give it up as a bad job and go back to their own currencies.
I couldn't agree with you more on that. >>
Why? What difference does it make to you, collecting aside?
As for Syl, I believe he's too young and fails to understand two things:
1) the EU is not (and never was) an empire to collapse
and 2) it has been proven that the world population, minus the one of the United States, welcomes the presence of one more strong currency instead of the dollar alone. The pound, due to the size of G.Britain, can never be a real rival to the dollar and the euro has already proved its possibilities, beyond (or against) most analysts' expectations.It's just a difficult phase, and when it's over, Britain will again face the dilemma of joining ,or remaining isolated and facing the consequences that such a decision will imply.So far, it's been playing the US cards, to the extent of gaining the "US satellite" nickname.
myEbay
DPOTD 3
And what advantage does the UK have that their currency is so overpriced and everything's so expensive there?
<< <i>
2) it has been proven that the world population, minus the one of the United States, welcomes the presence of one more strong currency instead of the dollar alone. The pound, due to the size of G.Britain, can never be a real rival to the dollar and the euro has already proved its possibilities, beyond (or against) most analysts' expectations.It's just a difficult phase, and when it's over, Britain will again face the dilemma of joining ,or remaining isolated and facing the consequences that such a decision will imply.So far, it's been playing the US cards, to the extent of gaining the "US satellite" nickname. >>
It's difficult for Americans/Canadians etc. sometimes to see why i feel the way i do. Perhaps i can explain it better, here's an idea how would you feel if;
All of the countries of the American continent (North, South and Central) were to join a currency unit, lets call it the ACU (American Currency Unit). You are to become constitutionally part of the Americas Union (AU). The capital of the union is Rio de Jeniro (sp?)
The two parties of the US governmental system are divided as follows. The Republicans have taken a stance of wanting to be integrated into the AU but are trying to woo over sceptical voters thus they haven't told you what they think of joining the new currency yet, but you expect they'll approve a joining because it'll benefit them with their luxury estates in Brazil, won't have to change currency. The Democratic party is all for it and wants to join and sign up for everything thinking a currency union is in the country's best interests.
Currently Mexico and all the countries of South America have this new coinage and on the obverse it features a map of the Americas which by AU constiutional law must remain on the obverse. The reverse can be left to the issuing country's preference.
The US and Canada are politically involved but have not yet joined the currency. Then suddenly Bolivia and Peru throw out an ammendment.
How would you feel as an American or a Canadian about this new union, the currency and a possible conflation of governments into one supreme government of the continent. Bearing in mind all your main parties are for the move...
How would you feel? Would you want to join or would you want it to fail? Would you think of it simply in economic terms and think, yep this is a good move?
<< <i>And what advantage does the UK have that their currency is so overpriced and everything's so expensive there? >>
We've already been forced to go metric, why should we be forced to follow in the foot steps of Europe again, always having to play second fiddle. There are such things as national pride you know. We know our history, our coinage is part of it. Going decimal was bad enough as nearly 1000 years of coinage history swept under the carpet in 6 months. It was the destruction of the UK's culture.
I don't want to be seen as a European, i'm British and that's an end to it, and i'll keep voting for the UK Independence party to try and keep what bit of our heritage remains.
I can tell you this much if we do ever get pushed onto the euro, whatever party it is that is responsible, be it Liberal, Labour or the Conservatives i will never vote for them again as long as i live.
2) it has been proven that the world population, minus the one of the United States, welcomes the presence of one more strong currency instead of the dollar alone. The pound, due to the size of G.Britain, can never be a real rival to the dollar and the euro has already proved its possibilities, beyond (or against) most analysts' expectations.It's just a difficult phase, and when it's over, Britain will again face the dilemma of joining ,or remaining isolated and facing the consequences that such a decision will imply.So far, it's been playing the US cards, to the extent of gaining the "US satellite" nickname. >>
It's difficult for Americans/Canadians etc. sometimes to see why i feel the way i do. Perhaps i can explain it better, here's an idea how would you feel if;
Syl,
just in case you don't know it yet, I'm not an American, nor a Canadian.
edited to add:
I don't want to be seen as a European, i'm British and that's an end to it, and i'll keep voting for the UK Independence party to try and keep what bit of our heritage remains.
Using a common currency isn't going to take any heritage away, there has been many discussions over that. From that point of view, the channel tunnel is more threatening to British traditions.
myEbay
DPOTD 3
<< <i>
It's difficult for Americans/Canadians etc. sometimes to see why i feel the way i do. Perhaps i can explain it better, here's an idea how would you feel if;
Syl,
just in case you don't know it yet, I'm not an American, nor a Canadian.
That whole argument wasn't a realistic one you know, it was written out of context of reality for one purpose only... to illustrate the point of nationalism and national feeling.
I never did think it would be taken seriously, no one would ever expect the US to get involved in such a thing.
I'm just a conservative at heart and what matters to me more than anything is keeping our heritage. If keeping the pound was going to cause economic ruin and disaster for Britain i'd still vote to keep it. I don't care if Britain or it's pound is a world leader or not. That main thing is that pound is ours and we should keep it!
<< <i>edited to add:
I don't want to be seen as a European, i'm British and that's an end to it, and i'll keep voting for the UK Independence party to try and keep what bit of our heritage remains.
Using a common currency isn't going to take any heritage away, there has been many discussions over that. From that point of view, the channel tunnel is more threatening to British traditions.
That another thing i was against. I remember reading about that in the early 90's i was only about 8 or so and i was stunned "Noooo! They can't do that!".
It should be bombed and filled in as far as i'm concerned. I bet there's been more rabied animals come running through that tunnel since it's been opened (No kidding the fear of rabies spreading to Britain was mentionned at the time, for those not in the know the UK practices strict quarantining proceedures for animals coming in, animals found with it are quickly shot.)
Then we get the illegal immingrant problem too, pictures of the immigrants running towards the tunnel trying to get to Britain with officers chasing them were quite common. The National Welfare system is like a magnet...
That an the Channel tunnel is a disater waiting to happen, it a fire trap and one day it'll flood.
On the currency issue alone, ignoring Polish Plumbers, etc, you have the Dutch who feel they got a raw deal on conversion with a low rate (and this line has been pushed beyond its valid point with the recent referendum rhetoric) and the Germans whose economists worry their rate was too high and that their ability to have their own interest rates was hindered (nevermind that the EU rate is better than what they had before) (and it is this that caused the recent German meeting, which legitimated all crisis talk). Then there's the debt issue, worst in Italy and Greece, but afflicting most countries at the moment. Then there's the countries whose prestige won't allow for anything but a sovereign currency, despite the risks and benefits. So, what do we have? A bunch of people who won't let a workable thing work. There are several valid issues, political on top of the economic, but none seem so terrible if representatives do what should be done for their people, not their great-great-grandchildren or their egos.
Look who initiated last week's talk in Germany, euroskeptics who have been calling for a withdrawl since union.
Who called for Italy's review of the common currency: someone who not only wants out of the EU, but out of Italy! (Known as the Veneto Stato movement in the Venice area (you'll see the graffitti), they say that the unproductive south is dragging down Italy as a whole, that the north propping up the south with welfare is unfair. It's actually popular with most of my family there.)
But then we have outright fear-mongering and stupidity--those domestic politicians who should know better than to run their mouths--Latvia's parliament passed the constitution after the French and Dutch said no, and the Brits and Czechs said they wouldn't bother, and then went on to say the process should continue! The current President of the EU, from Luxembourg, further legitimated crisis talk saying at a press conference the euro is overvalued--no ***, but what's his position in that? none at the moment. (he also says he'll resign if in Lux the referendum on the 10th goes No, way to keep stability and calm, eh?)
ugh...
it's just too much crap. Everyone's full of it. Those who aren't are just bumbling fools, anymore. It's really funny though.. because when I was over there during the run-up to Iraq, German students would always ask "where are all your sensible politicians" (as they saw it, the US Democrats should have been white knights to save us all from war and they couldn't understand why nothing of any effect was coming from them)... so now I get to ask the equally simplistic question back at them: Where are all your sensible politicians??
My wantlist & references
If anyone is interested in keeping up on European politics and other things, and you don't have to time to read a dozen papers, this is a good blog for news and commentary: A Fistful of Euros. If you're interested in more, check out some of the links on the left of the page.
My wantlist & references
<< <i>OK, so I rambled.. not sure if any of it came out coherently this time. Oh well.
If anyone is interested in keeping up on European politics and other things, and you don't have to time to read a dozen papers, this is a good blog for news and commentary: A Fistful of Euros. If you're interested in more, check out some of the links on the left of the page. >>
Certainly coherent, nice to know that it's not just us Brits fighting against our government and against Europe.
Anyhow i'd better let this subject lie, Europe is my pet hate and the only subject that really gets me infuriated. I can talk civilly about everything else, but not this.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Adolf Hitler
First the USSR, Then the EU, Then the US
History Matters
by Butler Shaffer
I believe in the virtue of small nations. I believe in the virtue of small numbers. The world will be saved by the few.
~ André Gide
Students of American history know that had the French not arrived in time to support the colonials in their struggle to secede from the British Empire, modern investors might now be concerned with how the American pound was faring against the Euro. While the French were motivated primarily by the opportunity to have another whack at the British, it is nonetheless true that Americans owed the outcome of the so-called "Revolutionary War" to France’s intervention.
There is a more recent indebtedness to France that most Americans lack the decency to acknowledge: the refusal of Chirac’s regime to join forces with George W. Bush’s unprovoked aggression against Iraq, the first step in a neocon-inspired effort to get the world to prostrate itself at the feet of American emperors. By refusing to join with such lap dogs as Tony Blair – eager to roll over in exchange for any morsel of recognition from the grand imperator – the French became a symbol to other nations of the importance of pursuing a course of principled integrity in dealing with others.
Americans are not the only people indebted to a French obstinacy at being stampeded into a destructive herd frenzy. In voting to reject the constitution of the European Union, France may have dealt a crushing blow to the efforts of the political establishment to create another monolithic state system, a result that will doubtless benefit the people of Europe. Dutch opponents of the EU, perhaps taking heart from the French, amassed a nearly 62% "nee" vote. The German parliament – not the voters – had earlier ratified the EU constitution, a reflection, perhaps, of a continuing desire for centralized power that has characterized that nation since at least 1870.
I have long been of the opinion that vertically-structured power systems – such as that implicit in the nation-state – are bound to collapse, taking with them the civilized societies upon which they feed. I have been amazed, however, at how rapidly this disintegrative process has progressed. The demise of the Soviet Union was the first major victim of the arrogance of centrally-directed authority. I also believe – as the subtitle to this continuing E-book suggests – that the United States will likewise succumb to the fatal virus of coercive bigness. I have had the same confidence that the European Union would be unable to sustain itself, but I did not suspect it would be delivered stillborn.
It is interesting to observe how far removed are the political leaders of countries such as France, the Netherlands, and Great Britain from the people they claim to represent. The chief executives of these countries had campaigned on behalf of the EU, even as public opinion in each opposed the constitution. So much for the myth of "representative government." Were I the Prime Minister of Holland, I would resign in disgrace for having supported a system rejected by over three-fifths of the electorate. But the attraction of power over one’s fellows easily seduces even the best-intentioned of men and women.
While it took many decades for the American political system to evolve to the point of micromanaging the daily lives of people, the EU eurocrats were intent on beginning at such a top-down level of organization. British grocers were criminally prosecuted for selling vegetables by the pound rather than by grams; window-washers were prohibited from using ladders in their trade; only straight bananas were allowed to be sold; even the size and content of meatballs were strictly defined by the new EU authorities!
In a world of mixed interests and motivations, it would be foolish to try to explain these voting outcomes in the singular manner by which members of the established media – who have long been challenged by complexity – try to do. Nationalistic sentiments, hostility to immigration, competing economic interests, religious and cultural differences, historical memory, and a fear of extended political power, doubtlessly figured, to one degree or another, into the calculations of how to vote. That Spanish voters had previously ratified the EU constitution should caution any temptation to look for a uniform mindset among Europeans.
My intuitive sense that vertically-structured leviathan systems are fated to collapse does not depend upon any major change in thinking among people. I regard philosophy not so much as a transforming force in the world but as an afterthought; an explanation for processes of change working, in hidden ways, deep within the fabric of society and life itself. This is not to dismiss the significance of ideas, but to recognize them as our mind’s efforts to express qualities that are already within us. Philosophy accompanies us more than it leads us. It was not a major paradigm shift in thinking among the erstwhile Soviet citizenry that brought about the collapse of that repressive regime. It was the inconsistency of a rigidified state system with the demands of life processes that eventually led to the Soviet demise.
The top-down, command-and-control machinery of state power has run head-on into the forces of spontaneity and autonomy that are life’s processes. Vertical systems of centralized power are being replaced by horizontal patterns of interconnectedness. Coercion is giving way to cooperation; the pyramid is collapsing into networks; Ozymandias’ rigid structures are eroding into formless but flexible systems, with names such as "Google," "Yahoo," "WebCrawler" and "Mozilla," that mock the solemnity we once gave to the dying forms.
Efforts to understand the dynamics underlying transformations in our world have produced the studies known as "chaos" and "complexity." Along with earlier theories of quantum mechanics, the mechanistic and reductionist model of society as a "giant clockwork" to be directed by state authorities toward desired and predictable ends, has been dealt a fatal blow. We now have ideas to help us enunciate what we earlier knew intuitively, namely, that a complex world is too unpredictable to become subject to state planning; that social conflict and disorder are the necessary consequences of interfering with spontaneous systems of order.
Decades before "chaos theory" became a popular buzzword, the late Leopold Kohr had an insight into how the increased size of political systems correlated with the expansion of warfare and repression. In his book, The Breakdown of Nations, Kohr developed what he called the "size theory of social misery." In his view, "wherever something is wrong, something is too big." It is inevitable, he goes on, for large state systems to "sweep up [a] critical quantity of power" where "the mass becomes so spontaneously vile that . . . it begins to produce a quantum of its own." A reading of both Kohr and Randolph Bourne flesh out the dynamics that led the latter to observe that "war is the health of the state."
Our biological history should have informed us of the allometric principle that the appropriate size of any body is relative to the nature of the organism. A fifty-foot tall woman may make for amusing science fiction, but an eight foot, eleven inch Robert Wadlow was unable to live beyond his twenty-second year. Likewise, the massive size of the dinosaurs did not provide them sufficient resiliency to adapt to the environmental changes brought about, presumably, by the earth’s collision with a comet. In Kohr’s words, "[o]nly relatively small bodies . . . have stability. Below a certain size, everything fuses, joins, or accumulates. But beyond a certain size, everything collapses or explodes."
A European Union is a futile effort on the part of the established, institutional order to resist the changes that are dismantling its power structures. In much the same way that the Bush administration’s empire-motivated "war on terror" is a cover for trying to shore up the collapsing foundations of a centrally-managed society, the EU may be the last hurrah of men and women who are driven by unquenched appetites for power over others.
The European power-graspers were as one in mourning the undoing of their dreamed-of perch of authority. One called the French vote "a disaster," having earlier prophesied that such a vote would mean "the end of Europe." Jean-Luc DeHaene – one of the architects of the EU constitution – declared that the French vote brought Europe "to a kind of standstill . . . in a period of uncertainty." Such views are to be expected from men and women who continue to embrace, in F.A. Hayek’s words, a "fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces"; people who still believe that societies must be run from the top, and that they are the ones best suited to run them!
Other political voices reflected a more thoughtful assessment of these results. The president of the Czech Republic observed that the French vote "demonstrated the deep division that exists between the European elite and the citizens of Europe." Roman Prodi, a former president of the European Commission who was disappointed in the outcome, nonetheless found some solace in the rejection of French voters to the EU. "This is still better than a war of secession like the United States once had," he declared.
To most Americans – who still believe that the Civil War was all about ending slavery – Prodi’s analogy will make little sense. Having been isolated from the rest of the world by two oceans, Americans also have a sense of history isolated from the experiences of other nations. Prodi seems to understand the essence of this disastrous period in American history far better than most American historians and students of government apparently do.
The French and the Dutch people – though not their political leaders – may well have saved European societies from having fastened around their necks the kind of vertically-structured, repressive, and violent super-state system now in retreat before the quiet forces of chaos and complexity. Leopold Kohr was right: a Europe of independent but cooperative Luxembourgs, Liechtensteins, Switzerlands, and Hollands will be far more productive and peaceful than would be a Europe organized on the models of hegemony that tyrannized and rampaged that continent in the past.
Europeans, like the rest of the world, will learn to organize themselves along horizontal lines of networked relationships, wherein "tops" and "bottoms" no longer have meaning. The vertical power structures will continue to waste away, the shrill voices of their occupants becoming more and more distant from the lives of ordinary people. Their antiquated forms may remain as tourist attractions in much the same way that monarchies or the palace at Versailles have become museum pieces from a past that no longer commands allegiance.
Europe’s refusal to resist the currents of change now sweeping the world might even offer lessons to us Americans, provided we can divert our attention from news reports of runaway brides, Michael Jackson, and water-skiing squirrels. Perhaps we can learn from our own history something of which Mr. Prodi was aware: that the best way to avoid the destructive and warlike nature of the leviathan state is to never create such mechanisms of "social misery" in the first place. Having already produced such a monster, the next best solution is to stop feeding it!
Butler Shaffer [send him e-mail at, bshaffer@swlaw.edu <bshaffer@swlaw.edu>] teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law.
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Adolf Hitler