[quarantaseih]

I read somewhere that europeans agreed to an open market and common currency that included Germany only if German's export surplus were contained. I dont know if they are part of the treaties of not.

The idea being, why would Italy, France and Greece agree to open their market and give up their currencies (ie ability to devalue) in the face of the German juggernaut? A joint market would destroy French and Italian industry and in-debt Greece - as happened.

<rant> The Euro zone was a mistake. Its premise was solid - the europeans no longer had the ability to have colonies to steal resources from, so they sought to create a large enough market to be relevant and muscle themselves into decent prices.

It failed because the US quickly made sure the euro never seriously challenged the USD. Also, a continent that makes < 1.5 children/woman is not a going concern so no one has ever taken them seriously. Finally, the rise of China and India sealed the EU's fate. </rant>

[Mlller]

“europeans agreed to an open market and common currency that included Germany only if [Germany makes a certain concession]”

It was rather the other way round: Germany was made to agree to the euro project as a concession for reunification.[1]

All in all, this seems to have been beneficial for a majority of normal people in the countries getting a stronger currency and for a minority of people in Germany, who export: Consequently, Germany’s wealth distibution tends to be the most unequal in the euro zone,[2] and its median wealth is slightly below that of Slovenia and significantly below that of France, Italy and Spain.[3]

[1] https://voxeurop.eu/en/you-get-unification-we-get-the-euro/

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-wealth-idUSBREA1P...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe...

[quarantaseih]

"It was rather the other way round: Germany was made to agree to the euro project as a concession for reunification."

So the Germans accept the Euro in exchange for re-unification (France's biggest mistake IMO) Thats one negotiating point.

Second negotiating point: who's in charge of the Euro? Who's industrial interests are represented by the ECB? Germany needs cheap imports (strong currency) or its industry screeches to a halt.

[ben_w]

> Also, a continent that makes < 1.5 children/woman is not a going concern so no one has ever taken them seriously.

So much wrong with that sentence.

The birth rate went that low (and lower!) but has been going up recently[0]. But even if total population was halving every generation, that’s only a concern if it’s sustained for many generations, and population forecasting (especially this simplistic) has never been particularly accurate over such periods.

Then there’s the second half. Europe has been vastly important worldwide from roughly the age of exploration to the end of WW2, and even then only stopped being temporarily because of active efforts by both of the two superpowers — who, despite arms reduction treaties, still have enough nukes each to destroy all settlements worldwide with populations over 150,000 [1] — and yet despite that the EU (less than the whole of Europe) has close to the same GDP (18 T) [2] as China (20 T) [3] and the USA (25 T) [3].

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/eur/europe/fertility-r...

[1] https://www.reference.com/geography/many-cities-world-c25cce... and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...

[nawitus]

Fertility rate in EU seems to have peaked in 2016 (it declined every year from 2016 to 2020).

I think the data you linked is prediction from year 2020 onwards, and there is no observed increase from 2013.

[quarantaseih]

"The birth rate went that low (and lower!) but has been going up recently[0]. But even if total population was halving every generation, that’s only a concern if it’s sustained for many generations, and population forecasting (especially this simplistic) has never been particularly accurate over such periods."

Who cares what the halving period is? You still have an inverted population pyramid. Have fun paying pensions. Even if you started popping 3 kids per woman today you still have 30 years before they become productive (debauchery during an Erasmus is not a productive use of time). How's Europe going to pay bills until then?

Btw, 3 kids / woman in Europe is a laugh - 70 years of technocratic rule have resulted in city infrastructure that are unlivable for "large" families. Sure, it's possible to have three kids in a two room 80 sq m apt, and I know people who have done so. But why would you if you have the qualifications to move abroad?

"Then there’s the second half. Europe has been vastly important worldwide from roughly the age of exploration to the end of WW2, and even then only stopped being temporarily because of active efforts by both of the two superpowers — who, despite arms reduction treaties, still have enough nukes each to destroy all settlements worldwide with populations over 150,000 [1] — and yet despite that the EU (less than the whole of Europe) has close to the same GDP (18 T) [2] as China (20 T) [3] and the USA (25 T) [3]."

I really dont understand how your point about nuclear weapons is germane to this discussion. Ill have to ask the French and Brits? Naw, Ill just ask the Germans who financed their welfare programs by gutting their defense budget safe under said nuclear umbrella.

As to Europe's post war relevance - Europe has no resources and the Asians have caught up, and surpassed, technologically. Where's Europe's competitive advantage?

Europe's GDP is not impressive. Actually, its trend is very bad. Look at Europe's share of world GDP as a function of time from the sage if Discovery. On top of that Europe's GDP is highly dependent on the tertiary sector, dumb things like "tourism" which has low margins and dulls the minds of the people involved.

Europe is not a going concern. Heck Im expecting a new debt crisis in the EU this year

[mmarq]

> The idea being, why would Italy, France and Greece agree to open their market and give up their currencies (ie ability to devalue) in the face of the German juggernaut?

Because they couldn’t manage their currencies and always dreamt of low inflation, in a few words: they wanted the Mark. Calling it Mark would have upset the nationalists, so they made the Euro.

> The Euro zone was a mistake.

Outside of the eurozone, Italy would have gone bankrupt in the mid 2000s, Greece a few years later.

[quarantaseih]

"they couldn’t manage their currencies "

Typical Northern Protestant bigotry. As if Italians and Greeks don't have economics courses in college.

Italians, Greeks, etc would purposely devalue their currencies to effectively lower wages (which are sticky) wrt to international markets, making their exports competitive while manufactured imports more expensive. The French created the CFA (under the bayonet) to have a larger economic mass to play with (the most egregious post WW2 colonial abuse by Europe).

of course this policy results in (very well managed) inflation which results in the middle class saving through real estate, hence these countries' high rates of home ownership (Greece in particular).

So the single market (ie no protective tariffs) and a single currency are poison to Southern Europe's industry so why should the agree to it? They agreed under the condition that Germany's industrial appetites wouldn't be rapacious. Which was a great plan, after all when has Germany ever tried to swallow its neighbors? /sarcasm

[thriftwy]

Or maybe they would devalue their currencies and reindustrialize?

[imtringued]

Poland is doing far better precisely because it isn't in the Eurozone.