Huh? I am referring to the American Civil War, 1861-1865. Moreover, I wasn't aware of interpreting anything, let alone history. Finally, I ain't part of any clique; I like to think for myself.
Within a country there were deep divisions which essentially played out from 1820 - 1860 a 40 year period (not a hundred) and resulted in a horrific civil war of less than five years. Yet, except for the actual war years, the US had the currency advantages that a real political union afford. Europe and the euro have nothing that even remotely resembles our structure.
Apart from many other things, modern day USA is a currency union. It took more than a century and a lot of armed conflict (incl the Civil War) to get this ccy union to function as well as it does today. It's also clear that the fallout from the crisis has created (or maybe just exposed) tensions even within the relatively well-functioning system the USA has. Well, Monsieur Swan, I confess to being skeptical about the prospects for the EuroZone myself, but everyone's gotta start somewhere. We'll have to wait and see. The periph debt crisis has caused the current generation of European elite to rethink the founding principles of the EuroZone. They are working on a much tighter framework at the moment, apparently, that would insure economic and fiscal integration on a much grander scale. Who knows, maybe they come up with a genuine solution.
I agree that no one knows how it will turn out but, being speculators, we can speculate. My belief is that political union in the measure it would require to butress the currency will be very difficult to achieve. As for it taking nearly a century and an armed conflict to get our currency union "to function as well as it does today" may be a technically accurate statement but it is misleading. From nearly the start the currency union aspects of of our republic has worked very well and by most any standard it worked at 90% of today's level for a 50 year period before the Civil War. I think you know better than to compare the stresses of their currency union -- enormously stressful for Southern Europe -- to the working out of the minor kinks we had early on. I suspect they are at the early stages of the struggle that will eventually lead to a doomed experiment in a joint currency and the reason will be that they did not emulate our structure. Let's remember that in some sense we were where they are under our Articles of Confederation ... and we scrapped that for a constitutional republic. I don't think any astute observer believes they will be able to achieve that type of unity. No matter what tune Merkle hums the Germans are solid in their opposition to it and without Germany the deal never clears. I have read enough of your frequently thoughtful posts over the years to realize that you like to provoke debate. I suspect your views of the odds are not so divergent form mine. And it is always about the probabilities.
Generally, I have agreed with you in my earlier post. I don't think the odds of something viable coming out of the Europeans are great and I, for one, am rather skeptical. However, I also don't want to exclude the possibility of a real positive development, 'cause I am aware of the Euro's sunk costs. So I am with you, but maybe slightly less pessimistic. As to provoking debate, that is, in fact, part of my purpose here. Remember, if you will, that my starting point was to try to refute the assertion that things should be as "simple" for Ireland as they were for Iceland. Not only were they far from simple for Iceland, but conditions are very different for Ireland.
LOL ... no ... I think clearly that none of us (except possibly you) agree with that. I think we all agree that it is possible for it to fail and I think probable. Clearly Martin's assertion that none of it is simple is correct. I think that it is fair to say that even if it fails there are a variety of scenarios that could play out as Europe tries to extricate itself from the debacle.
that none of it is not simple is not necessarily a clarion call for non- action. on the other hand perhaps it is best to let muddy waters clear as government action have a tendency to exacerbate crises. market solutions usually work best but trying telling that to politicians and their screaming constituents.