A Nobel Alternative to the Current Euro System … A new book by Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz suggests that the best way forward for the euro area is a “flexible euro,” a system of different currencies under the same name fluctuating within certain limits. It’s a new, ingenious riff on an idea that keeps popping up in discussions of the currency bloc’s future …-Bloomberg
Economist Joseph Stiglitz wants to save the euro by making it flexible. This is an interesting approach, in part because it shows us clearly how elite dominant themes interact with each other in complex ways
The imposition of the euro itself was the proximate cause of Europe’s difficulties, but the EU’s problems are being exacerbated by powerful banking interests behind its initial founding.
Stiglitz’s arguments regarding the euro seem sensible enough, but at this point, the problems run a good deal deeper than the currency.
We wrote about Stiglitz recently in an article HERE on a universal basic income. But in this new book, HERE, he makes euro proposals.
Stiglitz wants to preserve the EU and the euro by moving toward a “flexible euro” that would allow countries essentially to have the ability to customize the currency via rates and volume. “The value of the different euros would fluctuate, but within bounds that the policies of the euro zone itself would affect.”
The UK Express comments on Stiglitz’s proposal, HERE:
The euro needs to change, according to a top economist Joseph Stiglitz … He said leaders dreamed up the idea without a proper understanding of what a monetary union meant. In an explosive new book, How To Save The Euro, the economist provides a scathing review of the bloc’s current set-up.
Europe was not designed to deal with the differing economies of members, while its bureaucracy holds back growth, employment and stability, according to Stiglitz.
Stiglitz makes it sound as if the euro were merely a misapplication of a good idea. But we know this isn’t true. As we wrote HERE, the top leaders of the EU understood very well that the euro would cripple certain EU countries. They wanted that to happen because a crisis would give them the justification to impose a deeper political union.
In a 2014 Daily Bell article entitled “EU Shock Report: Elites Plot a Europe ‘Forged’ by Crisis,” we quoted top EU politico Romano Prodi, former president of the European Commission, as follows.
“Well, the difficult moments were predictable. When we created the euro, my objection, as an economist (and I talked about it with Kohl and with all the heads of government) was: how can we have a common currency without shared financial, economical and political pillars?
“The wise answer was: for the moment we’ve made this leap forward. The rest will follow … Then instead came the Europe of fear: fear of China, fear of immigrants, fear of globalisation. So it was clear that this crisis would arrive.”
You can see quite, above, that Prodi asks Kohl how a euro would work in a system “without shared financial, economical and political pillars?”
And Kohl answers “the rest will follow.” Prodi says, “It was clear this crisis would arrive … The difficult moments were predictable.”
They both know. Prodi carries the point further: “Historically we had this possibility, because the economical side has developed more quickly. That’s why, in that precise moment, we pushed with all our strength (to reach the target) because if the economy isn’t unified and we don’t have a common currency we can’t face the future.”
It couldn’t be more obvious than this. They wanted the crisis that has come about. Stiglitz’s perception that EU leaders supported the euro without a proper understanding of the ramifications is wrong.
It’s part of a larger misleading dialogue about the benevolent, misguided intentions or Euro-leaders: In reality, the EU was imposed on Europe by World War II’s victors, the US and London’s City, primarily via the CIA and other covert bodies. The same banking interests that funded inter-European wars were behind the implementation and evolution of the European Union.
Additionally, British politicians lied to their countrymen about the initial European idea. It was never conceived of as a trade union. It was always supposed to be a “United States of Europe.”
Today, the euro and even the EU are so despised now in parts of Europe that there are ongoing secession movements and increasingly a split between North and South Europe. France, Italy, Greece and other countries are meeting in September to formulate joint opposition to Brussels’ austerity policies.
But it is not, increasingly, only North versus South. Even within Southern countries especially, there is a good deal of agitation just to be done with the whole thing.
One would think these are positive developments but we are not so sure. We continue to harbor doubts about Brexit itself. We have difficulty perceiving that it would have come to a vote had powerful interests not allowed it to occur.
An argument can be made that Brexit was intended to release additional chaos on Europe just as planned. Now there are continental divides and also regional and national confrontations. The deterioration of Europe continues apace. If we are correct, the difficulties in Europe are not going to be resolved any time soon and may well simply grow worse for the foreseeable future.
Just as the bankers’ man Soros funds radical and even violent dissension in the US, so he is funding dissension in Europe. Stiglitz and Soros – good friends – are both seemingly behind the rise of Italy’s largest, new party, the Five Star Movement. See HERE.
It is also well known that the man behind Brexit and UKIP – Nigel Farage – has met privately with Rupert Murdoch, HERE. Additionally, Farage is a City stockbroker, which has led some to question the true alignment of both his sympathies and intentions.
Conclusion: The turmoil in Europe will not stop any time soon, regardless of suggestions on how to alleviate it. This is because European turmoil is surely meant to continue and grow. Those counting on a reunified Europe, or even a dialogue leading to a sensible resolution of various ills may need to revise their fundamental analysis of what’s going on.