Re: Y2K all over again
"It was another instance where politics and economics were at odds."
Ok so we are seeming to agree on a key EU problem, that they make terrible decisions for no good reason.
"Its failure was eminently economical, but how long a bad government is able to stand is hard to tell. Simple economic unification may not last too."
This is where economic history kicks in. The best chance of survival is by doing things that work, and doing things known to be very damaging is reckless and dangerous. That again is where the EU is choosing reckless and dangerous. Sharing a currency over such a large area doesnt work without transfers, which the EU doesnt really have. Probably due to rich members not wanting to pay for poor members (aka Germany doesnt want to pay for Greek pensions). The approach taken with Greece is the opposite of economic knowledge, again doing the worst thing. Your suggestion that the EU is willingly taking on members that poorly fit into the EU and increase risk again backs this up. When something looks about to blow up it makes sense that people would move away from it- UK voted brexit and member countries are voting parties offering to oppose the EU/Eurozone.
"Economics is a fairly recent "science", and nothing from hundred of years ago is comparable to the challenges of today."
Really? Cuba offered to pay off some of its debt in rum (if I remember correctly) which is barter, a method way back before currency. Currencies being more than a hundred or hundreds of years ago (quick google search the GBP is the oldest currency still in use at 1200 years old). Comparisons of empires that rise and fall, trade and currency still apply today.
"Anyway it would have told that the behaviours - like subprime loans and derivatives - that lead to the 2008 crisis in US were far more dangerous"
Why? Because new problem untested in the world had a result that was unexpected? On that note the rating system did work as the reliable loans were fine, it was the lower graded ones that fell due to a fall in house prices across the whole US which had never happened before (I think I got that right?). Thought to be safer as it sliced the debt across packaged securities the theoretically safe hit an unexpected problem when tested for the first time due to an unforeseeable situation. The Euro is just failing for obvious known reasons.
"You of course don't live in the Eurozone, or you would have appreciated the simplification it brought, and what a stable currency means for business. Sure, some don't like a currency that can compete with the dollar"
Sorry but that is total nonsense and extremely worrying that someone believes it. The EU- still behind the recovery, poor economic situation, trashed member countries. The US- bounced out of recession, booming. If you think the EU is better then you are in a rich member country with blinkers on. There is no competition, the US won hands down.
"No, UK is growing less than the Eurozone but Italy, look at the data. And Brexit didn't happened yet."
That is good news. When an advanced economy is growing it is held around 2-3% (trump aiming for more. Dunno how that will pan out). When a knackered advanced economy which suffers heavily with high unemployment and almost hits the rocks then starts to recover, growth should be huge as those people get re-employed and business kicks up again. Saying the EU is growing faster than the UK while economically in our current situations you are actually saying the UK is doing better.
"But stimulating it is up to the single states, not EU. Draghi did what it could."
That is wrong. It is up to the ECB as it holds the purse strings. That is why it is pushing QE still, because fiscal controls are removed from the struggling countries leaving only monetary. And its a single currency which of course averages out over the area (e.g. undervalued for Germany, overvalued for Greece). Germany is sucking up the money so it could throw some of it at the other countries, but that wouldnt be popular for the already struggling Merkel.
"Politics, good one, is the art of governing for the people"
Good luck selling that here but yes it is supposed to be. Now lets look at N.Korea, USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China, and so on. Good government is supposed to be there to govern for the people. Does that ring true with data slurping and some of the disturbing anti terror approaches against their own citizens?
"Economy without good government is not for the people"
Kinda true. The economy is the transactions in peoples lives and good regulation helps with that. This is where there was acceptable debate as to how good the EU government is.
Totally wrong. Enjoy- https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0911/the-history-of-greek-sovereign-debt-defaults.aspx
"Where I ever said that?"
In your comment- "A default would destroy the North economy" "How many financial institutions and companies may go bankrupt as well?" "How many tax-payers funded bail-outs would become necessary?". What you dont seem to realise is that this is the Greek situation and the EU tax payer has bailed out the rich members banks and that private debt is now an EU tax payer loss. When you suggest they cant be allowed to default (aka they cannot pay back because they do not have the money to pay back full stop) it is hiding the problem until it crashes worse later.
"Thinking that the debt can magically disappear without ugly consequences it's exactly covering up the problem."
Exactly I agree. The EU made them feel that they can magically take on debt with no consequences. The consequences typically being default and having to fix the problems. That is why countries try not to default!
"You look more and more like a Russian troll."
Of course I do. You seem wedded to your 'interesting' perspectives and I am not shocked that when confronted with a different perspective you see me as heretic, witch, eurosceptic, russian troll. Instead of trying to justify your lack of valid answers by trying to discredit who I am in your mind, maybe try getting some answers.
"And keep on believing that it was EU to create a migration crisis"
Actually it was Germany who turned it into a crisis (Merkel) and passed the buck to the EU. It was very well covered by the news. In the UK at least.
"You've shown over and over very little knowledge of European history, and EU itself"
Throughout your comment you keep suggesting this, while demonstrating an amazing lack of knowledge. Is this another defence mechanism like the russian troll thing to make yourself feel better? I am happy to discuss facts and opinions but if you find that threatening to your strongly held beliefs feel free to just end the discussion.
"Leaving the Euro is not possible - there is no provision in the treaties to do so. You would probably need to leave EU also, until changes are made to allow it."
There is no provision, until provision is needed. The EU has found itself very flexible when it needs to be.
"I was the first to point out that Italy didn't have the full requirements to join the Euro"
Well done (that is sincere). But again the self inflicted problems of the EU are part of why I voted out.
"Anyway, even voting Leave is a victory of politics (probably a bad one) over economy."
There are plenty good reasons to vote out from politics to economic and trade. Read my post history I stumped a few remainers insisting it must be racism to vote leave.
"Otherwise why UK would be begging to be still in the custom union, and have the EU market still open?"
Why would a remainer PM in a public system desperate to remain and refusing to let brexiters coordinate brexit want to remain? I will let you figure that one out. If you cant then look at my very first post on this article.