I explain how the stronger states in the Eurozone benefit at the expense of the weaker states due to the monetary union and its affect on trade. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/eurozone-is-polarised-economic-model.html
This was last year's news, ie Krugman - Origins of the Euro Crisis International Finance classes are probably using this crisis as a real time example of the failures that can arise in a currency union.
Yes but you could argue that the explanation I gave provided a reason for why the situation will deteriorate further and become more polarised. Plus I backed up the argument with data.
I had a look at that article but I didn't see it claiming the aggregated currency value caused the trade deficit. This is something I strongly argue and then conclude that the trade deficit was as a result of this. The article you posted is the other way round and I don't think it addresses the impact of the aggregate currency value as a polarising factor that will deteriorate over time. In short it states there is a trade deficit but doesn't fully explain why it happened or why it will get worse, which I believe my article does.
What you're calling the trade deficit has a more specific term, current account deficit. Spain: <IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CUAEEFESQ052N_Max_630_378.png> They may have realized the problem and things are self correcting. For Italy: <IMG SRC=http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CUAEEFITQ052N_Max_630_378.png> Ain't a damn thing changed and is problematic. Greece is out this morning projecting a worse 2012 GDP forecast but a better currenct account deficit for the year. Things could get worse but no one knows. At least the CA's are improving for some of the problem countries.
I would argue that is only because of the investment from the rest of the Eurozone. The point I am making is the reason behind the deficit and how it is likely to deteriorate. The strong will become stronger and the weak will become weaker.