Should the Euro Go? Is this just indentured servitude?

[GiacomoDB]

Because Italy switched to the Euro has nothing to do with the increase of prices for product , product price or value has increased all over the world since 1999 , Italy was not alone ....If they stayed on the lira do you think the rise in cost would have stayed less ....currency and product cost is propositional , proportional to the world Forex and value system ......the lira was not a exception to the system ...get it system ....system dictates that working blue collar remains as modern slaves ...If the working class accumulated to much wealth then who would do the work ...starting from around the 1990 to 2005 the working class was on a roll , pensions , 401k , stock market rolls ..it could not go on Governments knew it....remember control , yes you do not believe that , who do you think runs and controls the system ......wealth in the working class has been chocked.... corporations put a stop to pensions in the name of power to keep the slaves under control....But you know what....!!!! there is always opportunity if you are a wise investor in the future ...

This is a little statistic made by Eurispes in 2003.

http://www.confconsumatori.com/news.asp?id=109

It hasn't been confirmed by ISTAT because ISTAT has a big "basket" of items to describe inflation. It takes count only of the food inflation. It generated strong discussions in 2003.

It has been a psychological effect. 2000L = 1€, in many cases they made 1000L = 1€. It generated a strong speculation operation.

Corporation aren't gaining so much now, seeing their stock market performances in the last years. This is Italian MIB.

http://it.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?...rce=undefined;

The real trouble of all that is happening is that in the last 15 years it has been a strong deindustrialization process finalized to move factories in east countries (China, etc.) Now we are seeing, after several years, the social/occupational wave that take the whole economical system, from public debt, people, companies, etc.

In 1991, Italy was risking default. They decided to reduce the Lira ratio, in this way the production costs of Italian goods has reduced by these financial operations and this generated the growth. Now we cannot change none.

If you are a wise investor nowadays you would make investments in far east.

[Frederick 7]

Complementi Mr. F. ma non riesco a credere alle mie orecchie o per meglio
detto non riesco a credere ai miei occhi. Tu mi sorprende davvero. Questo
sembra così progressista. Così liberale. Credevo che fossi piu conservatore.
Ma sono felice di sentire questo da te.

MRV ..... solo la mia opinione .... vedo siete d accordo ... ce una certa verita ad esso ....

[Mariangela]

Euro was valued 1936.27 Lire, this has been a bad change because 1000 Lire became 1€ and the inflation grew up so quickly. Anyway this has been the smallest trouble.

1) Biggest part of German exportation of goods and service is inside EU. Italy export very much outside Euro. Germany through Euro has been able to eliminate every custom cost - tax.

2) Lira was a weak currency. In the past when we passed crisis moments like this we used to decrease the ratio with other currencies (Dollar or Marc), in this way we became again to be competitive, decreasing the real cost of the productions. Now this isn't still possible.

3) Italian public debt now is 45% possessed by foreign investors. The only one advantage of Italy is that our private debt is really low because here there has always been a safe-money based mind. Private + public debt, if considered would be lower than many other countries.

http://intermarketandmore.finanza.co...sivo-paesi.png

From this point of view we are still a safe country but I don't think we will be able to survive forever in this situation. I don't exclude that Italy could be end like Greece or something like that.

I'm so glad you've contributed to the thread. I couldn't agree more with everything that you wrote.

From my point of view, only a very small group of countries really benefit from the Euro, and Germany most of all. In addition to all the things you mentioned, all those loans to southern European countries provided the credit for the purchase of Germany's industrial output. Countries pursue policies like this out of self-interest, not humanitarianism. And out of self-interest, unless the German leadership has started to believe their own propaganda, they should commit to maintaining the system.

I don't agree with all the positions taken in this article, but I found it interesting. http://www.iie.com/publications/pape...d=1778&doc=pub

Another issue that doesn't get enough coverage is the one of currency manipulation. Deutsche Bank is notorious in this regard, at least in financial circles. I personally know two people who took their stock and got out, because too many shady deals were going on, and frankly, they were frightened. This was about a year before the scandal broke.

Oh, and another thing that always enters into conversations like this is how it's all the debtor nations' fault, and only the overspending in Italy on social programs is to blame. Not that there hasn't been a lot of that in my opinion, and draconian union regulations, particularly with regard to hiring and firing, and nepotism, and corruption and all the rest.

Very rarely, however, do I read about how extraordinarily difficult it is for Italy to compete and provide a decent life for it's citizens when it has virtually no natural resources. The vast majority of exported items require the importation of raw materials at extraordinary costs. No nice oil wells in the north sea, or coal deposits like in the Ruhr, or oil deposits, or nice flat farming land. Even the wool and cotton and silk and leather for the fashion industry have to be imported, as well as all the metal for it's car manufacturing, and the energy costs involved are incredible. For how long has Italy also been a net importer of food? Centuries? The only way it has survived is because it has depended on the intelligence and creativity of it's people to put "added value" atop the cost of the imported raw materials.

Can you really compare this situation to Germany? Or even England? Or to the nice little Scandinavian countries with their small homogenous populations to worry about? You can't even build nuclear power plants in Italy to reduce energy costs, because the whole country lies atop a network of geological faults. It's like building on top of a big, crumpled, cracked glass plate.

The whole euro system, in my opinion, is set up to benefit certain countries, and not others. These nations have operated out of their self-interest. Italy should do the same, and withdraw from it if it can be done without a system wide collapse.

[rfirma1]

I'm so glad you've contributed to the thread. I couldn't agree more with everything that you wrote.

From my point of view, only a very small group of countries really benefit from the Euro, and Germany most of all. In addition to all the things you mentioned, all those loans to southern European countries provided the credit for the purchase of Germany's industrial output. Countries pursue policies like this out of self-interest, not humanitarianism. And out of self-interest, unless the German leadership has started to believe their own propaganda, they should commit to maintaining the system.

I don't agree with all the positions taken in this article, but I found it interesting. http://www.iie.com/publications/pape...d=1778&doc=pub

Another issue that doesn't get enough coverage is the one of currency manipulation. Deutsche Bank is notorious in this regard, at least in financial circles. I personally know two people who took their stock and got out, because too many shady deals were going on, and frankly, they were frightened. This was about a year before the scandal broke.

Oh, and another thing that always enters into conversations like this is how it's all the debtor nations' fault, and only the overspending in Italy on social programs is to blame. Not that there hasn't been a lot of that in my opinion, and draconian union regulations, particularly with regard to hiring and firing, and nepotism, and corruption and all the rest.

Very rarely, however, do I read about how extraordinarily difficult it is for Italy to compete and provide a decent life for it's citizens when it has virtually no natural resources. The vast majority of exported items require the importation of raw materials at extraordinary costs. No nice oil wells in the north sea, or coal deposits like in the Ruhr, or oil deposits, or nice flat farming land. Even the wool and cotton and silk and leather for the fashion industry have to be imported, as well as all the metal for it's car manufacturing, and the energy costs involved are incredible. For how long has Italy also been a net importer of food? Centuries? The only way it has survived is because it has depended on the intelligence and creativity of it's people to put "added value" atop the cost of the imported raw materials.

Can you really compare this situation to Germany? Or even England? Or to the nice little Scandinavian countries with their small homogenous populations to worry about? You can't even build nuclear power plants in Italy to reduce energy costs, because the whole country lies atop a network of geological faults. It's like building on top of a big, crumpled, cracked glass plate.

The whole euro system, in my opinion, is set up to benefit certain countries, and not others. These nations have operated out of their self-interest. Italy should do the same, and withdraw from it if it can be done without a system wide collapse.

yet....i do not understand why...with all the geothermal advantages italy has that they, italian industry, hasn't worked to use it to generate energy or develop the infrastructure to use it.

even before the euro became the currency de rigeur of europe....it was easy to see who was going to benefit from it.......germany is the powerhouse behind the euro with france taking second place...or as i think...riding on the german coattails. i think the rest of europe decided to go along with it because they saw that the value of the euro as a hedge against the u.s. dollar.
personally......i think the euro is being artificially propped up in value...........

[Markymark]

.................Can you really compare this situation to Germany? Or even England? Or to the nice little Scandinavian countries with their small homogenous populations to worry about? You can't even build nuclear power plants in Italy to reduce energy costs, because the whole country lies atop a network of geological faults. It's like building on top of a big, crumpled, cracked glass plate..........

I beg to differ. Italy can, and indeed did have, nuclear power stations (presumably in low seismic risk areas). They were decommisioned as a result of a public referendum, and the recent proposals to start a new nuclear energy program were also stopped following a further referendum. Italy has no nuclear power because the electorate don't want it, not because of seismic risks.

[Mariangela]

I beg to differ. Italy can, and indeed did have, nuclear power stations (presumably in low seismic risk areas). They were decommisioned as a result of a public referendum, and the recent proposals to start a new nuclear energy program were also stopped following a further referendum. Italy has no nuclear power because the electorate don't want it, not because of seismic risks.

I'm sorry, I'm not following your logic here. Maybe it's just been too difficult a day, and my brain is fried.

Nuclear power plants aren't being built anywhere in the world the way one might have imagined they would be (with the possible exception of France and Japan-and we know what happened in the latter country); at least not in the democracies, and it's precisely because people are aware of the risks, and therefore public opinion is against it. Of course, there are those countries, and we all know which ones they are, that couldn't give a darn about public opinion, and that is a whole different discussion, don't you think?

The general risk is well known, and applies everywhere. Human beings make errors. For all the excoriating of trial lawyers by medical lobbies here in the U.S., if people knew how many errors occur in hospitals, and how many deaths actually result, I think they'd all be a little less sanguine about going in for surgery, for example. And this is in a country where, if you have private health insurance, you get some of the best health care in the world. A mistake in a nuclear power plant would kill not one person but, potentially, millions.

Then there is the problem of evacuation. I live on Long Island, outside of New York City. Our local power authority sank millions into a nuclear power plant, but was forced to abandon it. All that wasted money has made our power extremely expensive by American standards, and yet it was the right decision, imho. Millions upon millions of people live on this island. It is connected to the mainland by only a few tunnels and bridges. You can't get off the island on a Friday night! As my brother, who actually makes nuclear engines for a living told me, if they ever build it, and something major happens, drive TOWARD the damn thing; it's your best option. I realize the humor is rather ghoulish, but we're not known, in my family, for pulling our punches.

As for building one over fault lines, I can't imagine someone voting for that after seeing what happened in Japan. In fact, I think a lot of people, and not just scientists and fellows at think tanks, already knew that.

Heck, we're so skittish about it here in New York, and with far less reason, that the governor demanded a review of the one plant with any proximity to the city, and an in depth analysis to determine if there are any fault lines in the area at all.

In regard to Italy, in particular, there have been enough horrific earthquakes in Italy's history, including it's recent history, to make people more than skittish about it. At the time of the referendum, the earthquake we experienced just a few decades ago in my own area, not to mention the realization of the devastation that the kind of flooding to which we are prone could subject a nuclear plant, was very present in the minds of my friends and relatives.

So, no I don't think nuclear power could ever be a way out of Italy's energy problems.

[Markymark]

I'm sorry, I'm not following your logic here. Maybe it's just been too difficult a day, and my brain is fried.

Nuclear power plants aren't being built anywhere in the world the way one might have imagined they would be (with the possible exception of France and Japan-and we know what happened in the latter country); at least not in the democracies, and it's precisely because people are aware of the risks, and therefore public opinion is against it. Of course, there are those countries, and we all know which ones they are, that couldn't give a darn about public opinion, and that is a whole different discussion, don't you think?

The general risk is well known, and applies everywhere. Human beings make errors. For all the excoriating of trial lawyers by medical lobbies here in the U.S., if people knew how many errors occur in hospitals, and how many deaths actually result, I think they'd all be a little less sanguine about going in for surgery, for example. And this is in a country where, if you have private health insurance, you get some of the best health care in the world. A mistake in a nuclear power plant would kill not one person but, potentially, millions.

Then there is the problem of evacuation. I live on Long Island, outside of New York City. Our local power authority sank millions into a nuclear power plant, but was forced to abandon it. All that wasted money has made our power extremely expensive by American standards, and yet it was the right decision, imho. Millions upon millions of people live on this island. It is connected to the mainland by only a few tunnels and bridges. You can't get off the island on a Friday night! As my brother, who actually makes nuclear engines for a living told me, if they ever build it, and something major happens, drive TOWARD the damn thing; it's your best option. I realize the humor is rather ghoulish, but we're not known, in my family, for pulling our punches.

As for building one over fault lines, I can't imagine someone voting for that after seeing what happened in Japan. In fact, I think a lot of people, and not just scientists and fellows at think tanks, already knew that.

Heck, we're so skittish about it here in New York, and with far less reason, that the governor demanded a review of the one plant with any proximity to the city, and an in depth analysis to determine if there are any fault lines in the area at all.

In regard to Italy, in particular, there have been enough horrific earthquakes in Italy's history, including it's recent history, to make people more than skittish about it. At the time of the referendum, the earthquake we experienced just a few decades ago in my own area, not to mention the realization of the devastation that the kind of flooding to which we are prone could subject a nuclear plant, was very present in the minds of my friends and relatives.

So, no I don't think nuclear power could ever be a way out of Italy's energy problems.

My logic was simply a comment on your statement "You can't even build nuclear power plants in Italy to reduce energy costs, because the whole country lies atop a network of geological faults. It's like building on top of a big, crumpled, cracked glass plate.........."
Italy can and has built nuclear power stations. I made no comment on the rights and wrongs of nuclear power, nor the result of the referendum. Incidentally, the results of the referendums, were more likely influenced by nuclear accidents elsewhere rather than earthquakes in Italy (the first was held shortly after Chernobyl, the second after the recent Japanese disaster).

[Frederick 7]

This article is from 1985 as you can see the Lira at that time was linked to 7 different currencies in the European banking system ...The currency was not stable / many fluctuations to the point that a exception was made to allow 6 % fluctuation ......When Italy crossed to the Euro the Lira was worth .08 to one dollar ....or 1935 Lira to one Euro....Would be very hard to compete in the globalization game with a unpredictable currency like the Lira .... after looking at some of the history of the Lira tonight I think the Italian government made the correct move when they converted to the Euro / ( on the link page hold and drag )




http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...,4517050&hl=en

[rfirma1]

I'm sorry, I'm not following your logic here. Maybe it's just been too difficult a day, and my brain is fried.

Nuclear power plants aren't being built anywhere in the world the way one might have imagined they would be (with the possible exception of France and Japan-and we know what happened in the latter country); at least not in the democracies, and it's precisely because people are aware of the risks, and therefore public opinion is against it. Of course, there are those countries, and we all know which ones they are, that couldn't give a darn about public opinion, and that is a whole different discussion, don't you think?

The general risk is well known, and applies everywhere. Human beings make errors. For all the excoriating of trial lawyers by medical lobbies here in the U.S., if people knew how many errors occur in hospitals, and how many deaths actually result, I think they'd all be a little less sanguine about going in for surgery, for example. And this is in a country where, if you have private health insurance, you get some of the best health care in the world. A mistake in a nuclear power plant would kill not one person but, potentially, millions.

Then there is the problem of evacuation. I live on Long Island, outside of New York City. Our local power authority sank millions into a nuclear power plant, but was forced to abandon it. All that wasted money has made our power extremely expensive by American standards, and yet it was the right decision, imho. Millions upon millions of people live on this island. It is connected to the mainland by only a few tunnels and bridges. You can't get off the island on a Friday night! As my brother, who actually makes nuclear engines for a living told me, if they ever build it, and something major happens, drive TOWARD the damn thing; it's your best option. I realize the humor is rather ghoulish, but we're not known, in my family, for pulling our punches.

As for building one over fault lines, I can't imagine someone voting for that after seeing what happened in Japan. In fact, I think a lot of people, and not just scientists and fellows at think tanks, already knew that.

Heck, we're so skittish about it here in New York, and with far less reason, that the governor demanded a review of the one plant with any proximity to the city, and an in depth analysis to determine if there are any fault lines in the area at all.

In regard to Italy, in particular, there have been enough horrific earthquakes in Italy's history, including it's recent history, to make people more than skittish about it. At the time of the referendum, the earthquake we experienced just a few decades ago in my own area, not to mention the realization of the devastation that the kind of flooding to which we are prone could subject a nuclear plant, was very present in the minds of my friends and relatives.

So, no I don't think nuclear power could ever be a way out of Italy's energy problems.

unfortunately what happened in fukushima, japan was in actuality.....a bad design decision. the containment domes of the plant were intact despite the flooding waves....what doomed that plant was that the emergency power supply (on-site generators) were built on ground level. when the waves hit the emergency generators were flooded and could not be started to supply the electrical power necessary to actuate essential service water system, the emergency core cooling system, the high pressure coolant injection and the control rod system. whoever decided to build the emergency generators on the ground where they could be flooded or washed away by a flood, or in this case, a tsunami should be shot. france has used nuclear power to generate electrical power to much of europe for decades and they have had virtually no accidents. of course, their systems are basically comparable to u.s. designed types that have proven to be dependable and safe over the years.

nuclear power may not be the only way out of energy problems but as any good infrastructure.........building a 3 or 4 legged foundation is not only essential....but wise. coal fired, gas fired, hydro powered, nuclear power, sun and wind power......can all work together to provide the necessary energy for a growing and feasible energy system.

a year ago at lake anna, va. there was a 5.8 earthquake located right at the lake......the lake is man made and built soley to provide the water necessary to cool a nuclear power plant.........despite the earthquake occurring directly under the power plant......the core, the containment system were intact. the plant scrammed their systems inmmediately. no fuss, no muss..............

[Markymark]

unfortunately what happened in fukushima, japan was in actuality.....a bad design decision. the containment domes of the plant were intact despite the flooding waves....what doomed that plant was that the emergency power supply (on-site generators) were built on ground level. when the waves hit the emergency generators were flooded and could not be started to supply the electrical power necessary to actuate essential service water system, the emergency core cooling system, the high pressure coolant injection and the control rod system. whoever decided to build the emergency generators on the ground where they could be flooded or washed away by a flood, or in this case, a tsunami should be shot. france has used nuclear power to generate electrical power to much of europe for decades and they have had virtually no accidents. of course, their systems are basically comparable to u.s. designed types that have proven to be dependable and safe over the years.

nuclear power may not be the only way out of energy problems but as any good infrastructure.........building a 3 or 4 legged foundation is not only essential....but wise. coal fired, gas fired, hydro powered, nuclear power, sun and wind power......can all work together to provide the necessary energy for a growing and feasible energy system.

a year ago at lake anna, va. there was a 5.8 earthquake located right at the lake......the lake is man made and built soley to provide the water necessary to cool a nuclear power plant.........despite the earthquake occurring directly under the power plant......the core, the containment system were intact. the plant scrammed their systems inmmediately. no fuss, no muss..............

Has any research been done on the actual safety of the various options? I would guess that if the deaths of miners, transport workers and site operators were taken into account, the coal-fired stations would be just as dangerous, but not to those living nearby. That said, I wouldn't want to live anywhere one. At least we Brits had a back-up plan - say nothing, change the name from Windscale to Sellafield, open a visitor centre and pretend it never happened - perfect! (just remember to replace the tour guides when they start glowing in the dark!).