Did the Euro change Europe for the better?
I don't really like the question unless the one who answers has lived in Europe. Fortunately, I have (lived in England for two years and France for three years) and therefore, can give an experienced view. I was working with some barristers and solicitors (my field would be the latter if they had this in America - contracts lawyer) in London. We must know that England does not consider themselves as part of Europe. They call it "the continent", but the question is "If England is not part of Europe, what continent is it a part of. The problem remains in geography itself and the foolish continent categorisation (I use Oxford spelling as of my expertise in English law). Just look at the map. Where do you see the seven continents separate? True. Africa seems to be nearly separate except for its northeast area. Of course, Australia's out there all by itself. But the other five continents have problems in their distinctiveness. What about America? What is the continent there? North America includes Canada and America. But South America includes Central America? It can be very confusing and only cartographers (map-makers) attempt to answer.Furthermore, the question involves what is a monies influence upon a continent? Yet it is the European Union (EU - the old common market an organization of European nations, originally, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, for advancing economic integration and political cooperation: established by the merger in 1967 of the European Coal and Steel Community [created in 1951], the EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY, and the European Atomic Energy Community [created in 1957] - bad initials EU with both UPPER CASE letters - a legal code violation). which has the problem like the United States as they are governments and not a country. The phrase United States is a misnomer. Now, I will wade in here because I could explain the dilemma about continents further, but with respect to the question, I will steer back dealing with the Euro and the European Union I just wanted to be clearer on where we were talking about the money. In other words, your question involves Europe and not the European Union insofar as aforesaid, the latter is a government. Whereby, Europe is the geopolitical continent because physiologically it isn't there regarding the denotation vs. the connotation. In other words, the landmass is just named Europe and the Union has nothing to do with the physiognomy factor. To clarify, Europe is the continent that the question is asking whether it has been changed by the Euro for the better. But the Euro was created by the European Union for use in Europe. Since the European Union is the abstract government (the same as the uSA) not the country, an effect would be abstract too. So, we will obviously determine that the money is affecting the continent of Europe. The meaning is probably attempting to apodosis that a country or continent of people have been changed by the Euro? Europe the continent has changed for the better because the countries of Europe were paid handsomely for joining the EU (billions of Euros). England has been holding out not changing to the Euro still using the Pound Sterling. I don't think England will cave-in to this for awhile. It would be a big surprise since Chatham house rules the LLB (Lower Level Banks - approx. 329,900 banks, yet two/thirds of the world is starving - over 4 billion people - we need a million banks getting the famish rate down to maybe 5%).Some get concerned about the Euro being the next world currency and with its positive influence in Europe now, people become nervous in the world competition thing, But if you would read my comment on the one world currency bit, I stated that the Euro is just as insolvent as any other country currency including the Federal Reserve Note (FRN - America's money - by the way Ed Grablenowski's information on the gold standard is accurate about it being gone in 1971. However, Ed left out a lot of information regarding the fact that the rest of the world was off the gold standard officially at the United Nations' first meeting on Bretton Woods, New Jersey in 1945. But the proclamation was given at the Geneva Convention fifteen years before in 1930. That was the official bankruptcy of the entire world community (now 214 countries not including Vatican City. Taiwan, Tamagi, and Togo). In the interest of slow communications, fifteen years wasn't too bad. The bureaucracy in this country along with the telephone companies are just as bad. Try changing your DSL and see what happens? Most know that it's at least a two hour conversation chiefly with drops and electronic voices. When you get to a real voice, the proverbial millennium buzzword "phone drop" occurs - since the last few sentences were parenthetical, I can properly steer from the subject then - that is why parenthesis and hyphens were created).Moreover (literarily this is the word you use if you've strayed from the subject as I have), the Euro's positive influence in the EU's countries (about twenty-seven [27] now - Euro is $1.28 [11/15/06, 9:27 EST.] to the dollar meaning it is stronger - Pound Sterling even stronger at $1.67 to the dollar) Albeit the Euro has only simplified the monies [less obfuscation with only one measure] over there, because the Euro is still insolvent. I will attempt to clarify. When the market maker banks sell commercial paper at a discount, the money used for buying the paper is FRN's. So, that means if one has Euro's and wishes to buy discounted commercial paper, i.e., one hundred million dollars for ten, they must convert their Euro's into Dollars. It would cost you approx 9.7 million Euro's for the $10M (Million) dollars ($300,000 profit - that is why people do Forex trading - but don't kid yourself it's difficult - that TV technique sold on the market is expensive and nonsense in my opinion - the foreign exchange currency market is complex whether you sell one a technique that changes with the wind or whether you just do it the old fashioned way of guessing - those stock market techniques are no better at the "rip-off" price of $4,000 a pop.) Cheaper to do bank trading with Euro's. But the conversion means the money starts in currency as FRN's and therefore, starts as promissory notes with the world's currency following suit as debt (my answer is the FRc [Federal Reserve certificate - a non-redeemable {no gold or silver backing - exceedingly important as WWI &II were caused by the gold standard in my opinion} legalised (fiat) credit paper instrument. My slogan is "If you can legalise debt, you can legalise credit". Why not? Seems logical and immediately we are solvent again like before 1930 when the gold and silver certificates existed, but caused world conflagration.An appearance of credit exists in world currency with the LLB calling it that because it is legalised tender, but limited regarding purchasing power without redeemability in specie (some substance acting as collateral behind it - was gold until the Geneva Convention in 1930 - very important to leave gold out of the equation because of the war factor - none since 1945 - only the police actions called military exercise in Britannica under "World Organisations". The Partnerships for Peace Foundation is mentioned). What Mr. Grablenowski left out was that the US gov't stayed on the gold standard until 1971 out of pure economic folly and why no American bank to this day is allowed to trade at the top as a market maker. Also, the Y2K strategy was developed insofar as if the US gov't wouldn't go off the gold standard, at least within fifty-five (55) years, America would crumble under a computer glitch. Sperry Univac originally was responsible for Y2K, but never happened because Nixon took the US gov't off the gold standard as Ed said in 1971. Clinton was right when he stated it took twenty years to fix and was finished in 1992 - frankly to me the sole thing he ever said worthwhile (I don't understand the myth of Clinton? He was nonsense and a wholesale philanderer. To break the marriage contract is illegal regarding adultery, but no one consider this or challenged it)."Inflation steadily grew worse and on March 28, 1970, President Nixon issued Proclamation No.3972, declaring an "emergency" because England was in the process of calling in their gold that was stored at Fort Knox whilst the Postal Employees struck against the de facto government for higher pay, due to inflation of the paper FRN [See: Senate Report No. 93-549. pg, 596]. Nixon placed the U.S. Postal Department under the control of the "Department of Defense." [See: Department Of The Army Field Manual.FM 41-10 (1969 ed.)]. The System had been faltering for a decade, but the bench mark date of the collapse was put at August 15, 1971 as of England calling for her gold. On this date President Nixon reversed U.S. International monetary policy by officially declaring the non-convertibility of the US dollar (FRN] into gold (See: Public Law 94-564 , Legislative History, pg. 5937 & Senate Report No. 93-549, Foreword, pg. 111, Proclamation No. 4074 , pg. 597, 31 USCA 314 & 31 USCA 5112).Whereas gold had become a commodity by the rest of the world since 1945 when the peg changed from the Pound Sterling to the FRN (from credit paper to debt paper) at the Bretton Woods convention (aforestated the first UN meeting - the eminent economist Lord John Maynard, Keynes made the announcement at the convention representing the Polity's world economic policy at the time). Thus, the Euro is just another false promissory note under the facade of the present world currency bankruptcy under the Uniform Commercial code, the UCc. Again, the answer is the Federal Reserve certificate.
