The euro is not in the headlines. On the 25th anniversary of the first moves to irrevocably fix the exchange rates of the major European economies this lack of notice is good news. For too much of its history Europe’s common currency has lived under the shadow of alarmist speculation about its future.
In the final paragraph I think you hit the crucial point: all of the sturm und drang around "saving" a structure that is inimical to human flourishing for millions of citizens across the nations of Europe is a distraction from the the violence that is imposed upon them -- as much by the architects of the neoliberal dystopia as by those entrusted with sustaining it.
We used to have a name for these people: aristocrats -- and we used to have a solution for them: revolution ...
I witnessed the influence of Jens Weidman and the position he adopted on interest rates and debt in the Eurozone in the late noughties and early 2010s in G20 negotiations when he was Germany's sherpa (and I was his South African counterpart). I witnessed how Europe refused to allow discussion of the debt crises in its South in those meetings when other parts of the world, including the US under Bush and Obama, were far more open. It struck me as unhealthy defensiveness. Thank goodness he did not succeed Draghi.
It's a cogent and concise analysis, but it makes no mention of the quantom leap executed by the EU and its 27 states in establishing viable social democracies. The social partnerships which abide in many of the countries between state, business and labor interests are anchored in democratic process and participation, once removed from the epitath of state capitalism. Despite the ungainly arrangements between federal EU, state interests and the ECB, Europe has managed to concoct a new political economy that could go by the name of social market capitalism. As Tooze points out, whether Europe will adopt more streamlined American fiscal and monetary procedures and policies, or whether it will work out different agreements and treaties, is still an open question.
In the final paragraph I think you hit the crucial point: all of the sturm und drang around "saving" a structure that is inimical to human flourishing for millions of citizens across the nations of Europe is a distraction from the the violence that is imposed upon them -- as much by the architects of the neoliberal dystopia as by those entrusted with sustaining it.
We used to have a name for these people: aristocrats -- and we used to have a solution for them: revolution ...
I witnessed the influence of Jens Weidman and the position he adopted on interest rates and debt in the Eurozone in the late noughties and early 2010s in G20 negotiations when he was Germany's sherpa (and I was his South African counterpart). I witnessed how Europe refused to allow discussion of the debt crises in its South in those meetings when other parts of the world, including the US under Bush and Obama, were far more open. It struck me as unhealthy defensiveness. Thank goodness he did not succeed Draghi.
This is really a very important peace. Thanks!
It's a cogent and concise analysis, but it makes no mention of the quantom leap executed by the EU and its 27 states in establishing viable social democracies. The social partnerships which abide in many of the countries between state, business and labor interests are anchored in democratic process and participation, once removed from the epitath of state capitalism. Despite the ungainly arrangements between federal EU, state interests and the ECB, Europe has managed to concoct a new political economy that could go by the name of social market capitalism. As Tooze points out, whether Europe will adopt more streamlined American fiscal and monetary procedures and policies, or whether it will work out different agreements and treaties, is still an open question.