Will the Euro become the next "dominating" currency in the global market?

[Young Mage]

Before some naive asshat tells me a single currency is what we should strive for, too many regional issues amongst countries and clashing cultures/ideologies.

The dollar has been the most widely used currency in the world for a while now or rather in the global market. But it’s down the crapper now and having a single country support a global economy isn’t very wise. Additionally, an autistic-clown can get a million dollar loan or he could have because there were no restrictions and the laisser-faire attitude the banks (Feds, and government) adopted only added to their woes.

On the other hand, the Euro is supported by twenty-some odd nations who collectively decide as to what they should keep the Euro strong or how they should keep it strong. However, there is strong backlash from the American continent because many of those countries heavily invested in the dollar and people don’t like change.

I think that since the Euro has an adamant infrastructure, it should replace the dollar eventually because one man, no matter how strong cannot do the work of twenty.

[ar81]

Two articles to make you think.
* How long can the U.S. dollar defy gravity?
* Fears aside, U.S. dollar best in a bad neighborhood

[CitizenCain]

I think that since the Euro has an adamant infrastructure, it should replace the dollar eventually because one man, no matter how strong cannot do the work of twenty.

By the same token, 20 men can't do the work of 50. So the dollar is superior to the Euro.

Of course, 300 million people can't do the work of 1.3 billion... so the Yuan is superior to both!

[agamemnus]

Hard to imagine, but many parts of Europe are in even worse shape than the US.

Invest in the yen.

[Young Mage]

[QUOTE=ar81;18775]

snip QUOTE]

I'll read them later.

By the same token, 20 men can't do the work of 50. So the dollar is superior to the Euro.

Of course, 300 million people can't do the work of 1.3 billion... so the Yuan is superior to both!

Twisting my words, Yen is not a choice and i have no idea as to why you even believe that the population = economic stability when America clearly doing so well with a 300 million population. And my men anology clearly went over your head, men meant country. So either way, that whole reply was just...unessesarry. We're you high when you replied? Or maybe drunk? because you're a lot better than that.

Hard to imagine, but many parts of Europe are in even worse shape than the US.

Invest in the yen.

Yes, but the euro is still stable because everyone is abiding by a set number of rules. Not doing whatever like the America banks/government did. Why don't we talk about France? England? Germany? You're probably talking about the Western bloc.

p.s. screw spelling.

[CitizenCain]

Twisting my words, Yen is not a choice and i have no idea as to why you even believe that the population = economic stability when America clearly doing so well with a 300 million population. And my men anology clearly went over your head, men meant country.

Actually, it pretty clearly went over *your* head, so let me restate it explictly.

States in the EU: 20
States in the USA: 50

Therefore, the USA is better than the EU, since the USA has 2.5 times more states.

Oh, or even better yet, if every country in Africa untied and created a single currency, that would be the best in the world, since there are 53 countries in Africa!

Do you see the massive hole in your argument yet, or do you need me to draw you a picture?

Yes, but the euro is still stable because everyone is abiding by a set number of rules. Not doing whatever like the America banks/government did. Why don't we talk about France? England? Germany? You're probably talking about the Western bloc.

p.s. screw spelling.

Um...

http://www.google.com/search?q=greece+bankruptcy
http://www.google.com/search?q=iceland+bankruptcy

Yeah, maybe Europe's not in the amazing economic shape you think it is. And, just to help educate you a little further... France, Germany and England are having the same kind of economic and government debt problems that the US is. The UK "bailed out" half if its big banks in 2008, just like we did... unemployment in Europe is generally a little higher than it is in US... Europe can't afford to pay for all its social programs either... etc, etc.

[Flixy]

Iceland's not EU, but IIRC Portugal and Italy aren't doing great either, and the UK could be doing better too.

[Khendraja'aro]

States in the EU: 20

Actually, there are quite a bit more states in the EU.

45 (England) + 22 (Wales) + 30 (Scotland) + 1 (France) + 1 (Spain) + 16 (Germany) + 9 (Austria) + 3 (Belgium) + 1 (Bulgaria) + 1 (Cyprus) + 1 (Czech Republic) + 1 (Denmark) + 1 (Estonia) + 1 (Finland) + 1 (Greece) + 1 (Hungary) + 26 (Republic of Ireland) + 1 (Italy) + 1 (Latvia) + 1 (Lithuania) + 1 (Luxembourg) + 1 (Malta) + 1 (Netherlands) + 379 (Poland) + 1 (Portugal) + 1 (Romania) + 1 (Slovakia) + 1 (Slovenia) = 550

Since we're having so much fun mixing up states and countries, I thought I'd go through the motions. Thus the EU is eleven times ahead of the US.

[Hazir]

The EU is not really in any position at the moment to overtake the USA and become the dominant power. With the EU not even having managed to have a single currency for all its member states I don't see the euro becoming the international reserve currency the dollar is at the moment. The euro did however create a new category of currency.

[Being]

Actually, there are quite a bit more states in the EU.

45 (England) + 22 (Wales) + 30 (Scotland) + 1 (France) + 1 (Spain) + 16 (Germany) + 9 (Austria) + 3 (Belgium) + 1 (Bulgaria) + 1 (Cyprus) + 1 (Czech Republic) + 1 (Denmark) + 1 (Estonia) + 1 (Finland) + 1 (Greece) + 1 (Hungary) + 26 (Republic of Ireland) + 1 (Italy) + 1 (Latvia) + 1 (Lithuania) + 1 (Luxembourg) + 1 (Malta) + 1 (Netherlands) + 379 (Poland) + 1 (Portugal) + 1 (Romania) + 1 (Slovakia) + 1 (Slovenia) = 550

Since we're having so much fun mixing up states and countries, I thought I'd go through the motions. Thus the EU is eleven times ahead of the US.

Maybe we should look at districts; that's where the dogs bark.

[Flixy]

Actually, there are quite a bit more states in the EU.

45 (England) + 22 (Wales) + 30 (Scotland) + 1 (France) + 1 (Spain) + 16 (Germany) + 9 (Austria) + 3 (Belgium) + 1 (Bulgaria) + 1 (Cyprus) + 1 (Czech Republic) + 1 (Denmark) + 1 (Estonia) + 1 (Finland) + 1 (Greece) + 1 (Hungary) + 26 (Republic of Ireland) + 1 (Italy) + 1 (Latvia) + 1 (Lithuania) + 1 (Luxembourg) + 1 (Malta) + 1 (Netherlands) + 379 (Poland) + 1 (Portugal) + 1 (Romania) + 1 (Slovakia) + 1 (Slovenia) = 550

Since we're having so much fun mixing up states and countries, I thought I'd go through the motions. Thus the EU is eleven times ahead of the US.

Now you're drawing arbitrary distinctions between provinces, districts and states. I'm pretty sure all states in the US sense have way more autonomy though (but less than countries in the EU).

[Khendraja'aro]

Now you're drawing arbitrary distinctions between provinces, districts and states. I'm pretty sure all states in the US sense have way more autonomy though (but less than countries in the EU).

No, I simply counted the amount of counties / states inside a given country

And the German states have quite a bit of autonomy. That's why it's called the Federal Republic of Germany. Austria is a federal republic as well. And I did Spain an injustice by counting it just once. It has a multitude of autonomous regions.

[Flixy]

Netherlands has 12 provinces, France has 50ish départements Belgium depends on how you count it, but they have 6/7 different governments!

And I know they do, but still less than the USA right?

[CitizenCain]

Since we're having so much fun mixing up states and countries, I thought I'd go through the motions. Thus the EU is eleven times ahead of the US.

Jah, but yous guys don't call them "states" (do you?)... America does, because (in theory, once upon a time, 150 years ago), the USA was a confederacy of sovereign "states," and not, like most countries in Europe, a single nation-state divided into administrative districts. Of course, that's not the reality in America anymore (at least since the American civil war settled the question of whether American states were sovereign or subservient to the federal government), but mere reality doesn't stop anyone from pretending that American states actually have any power above and beyond what the federal government allows them.

It's all academic anyway, since I was just trying to make the point that more countries doesn't necessarily mean better (or Africa would be dominating the globe), and thus our young mage was making an incredibly fallacious argument.

I'm pretty sure all states in the US sense have way more autonomy though (but less than countries in the EU).

Historically, that's certainly true, and on paper/in theory, the federal government is little more than the composition of the states... though in practice, the federal government can and does dictate pretty much whatever it wants to the various states, and there's nothing the states can do about it.

[LittleFuzzy]

Yen is not a choice

Why not?

[Young Mage]

Actually, it pretty clearly went over *your* head, so let me restate it explictly.

States in the EU: 20
States in the USA: 50

Therefore, the USA is better than the EU, since the USA has 2.5 times more states.

Oh, or even better yet, if every country in Africa untied and created a single currency, that would be the best in the world, since there are 53 countries in Africa!

Do you see the massive hole in your argument yet, or do you need me to draw you a picture?

Well someone already did the State math. The states are all governed by >one< body. Meanwhile the twenty some countries in Europe make sure no one inflates the Euro. That being said, it's also a good system to keep the balance of power in harmony. No one country will ever EVER benefit at the loss of the others because that country will be cock-blocked. So either way, i don't understand how 53> 550 or 1>26 and how you think one central body is better than several ones. Each balancing the other out, i don't see anything of that sort. Hell, i remember the Feds were composed of Wall Street bankers back in the 1930 era. Guess how biased the decision was. Pretty sure there's no hole. :/

Um...

http://www.google.com/search?q=greece+bankruptcy
http://www.google.com/search?q=iceland+bankruptcy

Yeah, maybe Europe's not in the amazing economic shape you think it is. And, just to help educate you a little further... France, Germany and England are having the same kind of economic and government debt problems that the US is. The UK "bailed out" half if its big banks in 2008, just like we did... unemployment in Europe is generally a little higher than it is in US... Europe can't afford to pay for all its social programs either... etc, etc.

Umm....

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...f&oq=&gs_rfai= (second link)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&e...ruptcy&spell=1

America has it much worse, I recall that a country as a whole should suffer. Not separate states, either some "centralized" government fucked up big time or it was decentralized to begin with because "social is bad hur hur".

Uk's dept+France's dept< US's dept last year if i recall correctly and again, Greece/Iceland aren't major players in the EU.

[Dreadnaught]

The EU is not really in any position at the moment to overtake the USA and become the dominant power. With the EU not even having managed to have a single currency for all its member states I don't see the euro becoming the international reserve currency the dollar is at the moment. The euro did however create a new category of currency.

I think this is the most accurate reading. Though I do think the Euro and the Dollar increasingly seem to share a common weakness: both are the currencies used by member states, many of whom have some severe debt problems that could weaken the whole currency.

[Loki]

People seem to be ignoring the role of path dependency. Once most of the world makes a certain decision, inertia prevents much change unless something really drastic happens. The only way any currency will overtake the dollar is the US faces a monumental collapse or some country/group of countries undergo unheard of economic growth. That's not to say that the US dollar will play an ever decreasing role as a reserve currency, but it won't be passed by any single currency for the foreseeable future (we're talking at least half a century).

[Young Mage]

People seem to be ignoring the role of path dependency. Once most of the world makes a certain decision, inertia prevents much change unless something really drastic happens. The only way any currency will overtake the dollar is the US faces a monumental collapse or some country/group of countries undergo unheard of economic growth. That's not to say that the US dollar will play an ever decreasing role as a reserve currency, but it won't be passed by any single currency for the foreseeable future (we're talking at least half a century).

Do Newton's law's apply to ideas...?

And I did say GLOBAL economy. It is unfeasible to expect a unified currency for maybe another century at the least and as for reserve currency, the SDR should do the trick. Maybe even replace it with the Euro?

[earthJoker]

Jah, but yous guys don't call them "states" (do you?)

They are called Länder in Germany and Austria, which translates very well to states.

[agamemnus]

And I did say GLOBAL economy. It is unfeasible to expect a unified currency for maybe another century at the least and as for reserve currency, the SDR should do the trick. Maybe even replace it with the Euro?

It would be very unlikely for one century to be enough for the entire world to adopt the same currency. That would mean everyone would have to agree on how the various governments receive this currency and it would not allow them to institute monetary policy... it would also mean that all regions' incomes and income growth would have converged. (different income and income growth levels being the economic reason to have separate currencies in the first place)

[Hazir]

Why not?

Too small an economy, pending credit crisis. Japan is not the country where you want to put your bets these days if the issue is annointing the next big power in economics.

[Hazir]

People seem to be ignoring the role of path dependency. Once most of the world makes a certain decision, inertia prevents much change unless something really drastic happens. The only way any currency will overtake the dollar is the US faces a monumental collapse or some country/group of countries undergo unheard of economic growth. That's not to say that the US dollar will play an ever decreasing role as a reserve currency, but it won't be passed by any single currency for the foreseeable future (we're talking at least half a century).

On the other hand, once the new kid on the block started throwing its weight around the days of the British Pound were counted quite fast. Other than that I agree with you, inertia is a big part of why the dollar won't easily be replaced; too many people have an interest in it staying what it is. And in this case 'too many people' includes Europeans.

[Young Mage]

It would be very unlikely for one century to be enough for the entire world to adopt the same currency. That would mean everyone would have to agree on how the various governments receive this currency and it would not allow them to institute monetary policy... it would also mean that all regions' incomes and income growth would have converged. (different income and income growth levels being the economic reason to have separate currencies in the first place)

Fine, it could take us thousands of years to be unified or prosperous enough in order to attempt the level of global unification we are talking about. Why would monetary policies not work? The new currency will need a figure such as the Fags…Feds in order to promote and insure economic prosperity.

Too small an economy, pending credit crisis. Japan is not the country where you want to put your bets these days if the issue is anointing the next big power in economics.

China just isn’t capable of handling such a large amount of stress and we’d be back to square one; one nation supporting a global economy. America was a powerhouse, now it’s failing miserably, China is becoming a powerhouse, and history tends to repeat itself.

[Loki]

On the other hand, once the new kid on the block started throwing its weight around the days of the British Pound were counted quite fast. Other than that I agree with you, inertia is a big part of why the dollar won't easily be replaced; too many people have an interest in it staying what it is. And in this case 'too many people' includes Europeans.

The US had 50% of the world's GDP after WWII. Britain probably had maybe 5-10%. If not the Depression and WWII, the pound would probably remain the dominant currency for several more decades.

China just isn’t capable of handling such a large amount of stress and we’d be back to square one; one nation supporting a global economy. America was a powerhouse, now it’s failing miserably, China is becoming a powerhouse, and history tends to repeat itself.

Saying that history tends to repeat itself is a meaningless statement. You'd have to show how the cause of the earlier event is present in the later event and wasn't present in the intervening period.

[Hazir]

What part about the US starting to throw its weight around didn't you understand?

[LittleFuzzy]

Too small an economy, pending credit crisis. Japan is not the country where you want to put your bets these days if the issue is annointing the next big power in economics.

I was giving him a smidge of credit, figuring he meant the yuan.

China just isn’t capable of handling such a large amount of stress and we’d be back to square one; one nation supporting a global economy. America was a powerhouse, now it’s failing miserably, China is becoming a powerhouse, and history tends to repeat itself.

Here's the thing. Currencies are issued by states, but they are supported by the economy of that state. The Euro isn't made magical by the number of states using it, what things come down to is the health *and in this case, size* of the economies supporting the currency. The Euro is in the same ball-park as the dollar, and both *barring paradigm-changing crashes* will eventually be surpassed by China's economy. And you're asking about the next "dominating" currency. Whether having a dominating currency is a good idea or a bad one, there IS going to be one. And since these things do have inertia, taking the yuan off the table demonstrates really shitty thinking.

[Young Mage]

Saying that history tends to repeat itself is a meaningless statement. You'd have to show how the cause of the earlier event is present in the later event and wasn't present in the intervening period.

How is it a meaningless statement? Anyone who's even looked at history knows it's a cycle. Let's look at the rise and fall of empires...oh wait what? is the East is gaining momentum again? or is the Western world just heading towards another Dark Age era?

Here's the thing. Currencies are issued by states, but they are supported by the economy of that state. The Euro isn't made magical by the number of states using it, what things come down to is the health *and in this case, size* of the economies supporting the currency. The Euro is in the same ball-park as the dollar, and both *barring paradigm-changing crashes* will eventually be surpassed by China's economy. And you're asking about the next "dominating" currency. Whether having a dominating currency is a good idea or a bad one, there IS going to be one. And since these things do have inertia, taking the yuan off the table demonstrates really shitty thinking.

you obviously don't understand what i'm saying. Let me break it down: one country < several because that one country will pursue it's goals (which most likely will be different than other nations) and that would seem rather fascist. Great Depression...uh oh, stock market crash, over-speculation of radios, propaganda, world's economy rested on America's economy.

Basing a global economy on a side economy is not wise as several put together can absorb shitstorms better and they balance each other out.

[Hazir]

History is a cycle ? Wow, this really is a blast from the past.

[LittleFuzzy]

How is it a meaningless statement? Anyone who's even looked at history knows it's a cycle. Let's look at the rise and fall of empires...oh wait what? is the East is gaining momentum again? or is the Western world just heading towards another Dark Age era?



you obviously don't understand what i'm saying. Let me break it down: one country < several because that one country will pursue it's goals (which most likely will be different than other nations) and that would seem rather fascist. Great Depression...uh oh, stock market crash, over-speculation of radios, propaganda, world's economy rested on America's economy.

Basing a global economy on a side economy is not wise as several put together can absorb shitstorms better and they balance each other out.

I understand what you're saying, but you don't understand how the major currencies work.