Now with the interpretation of the euro-crisis two contrary positions are clearly identified. One is that an unit currency like the euro does not work and we would eliminate it again. The others say that the euro without common financial policy does not work and demand “more Europe“ way. A brief view in the history shows: Historically we had installed a unit currency, namely the precious metals. How did one country handled at that time with economic instability? Quite simply: One has required duty fees again. Now the maybe “indecent” proposal: Why do we not save the euro, while we permit the reintroduction of duties fees to the weak states?More Information
The basis elements of financial-assistance are described in the EFSF fund and later in the ESM fund. But these rules offend against the “No-Bailout” clause of the contract. The Federal Government of Germany has tried since 2010 to limit his results by protection mechanisms. So they focused all their interest in the formula of “Ultima Ratio”: The crisis funds should be used only if it is guarenteed that the support be only granted for reform editions. However, the contract shows many open details for a financial aid. The conditions of support are hardly specified.More Information
The debt brake pull or instal other currencies in Europe, promise no exit from the eurocrisis: Therfore some basis ideas of finance-experts and analyts are collected and shown in the following passage: The euro is basically no pure conversion currency for example to DM. It is more. It strengthens the economic competence of the state. This is created by the so-called “euro-space” or euro.zone. For example: Worldwide Germany is too small. Therefore, for example, no strategical adjustment would occur in WTO. Thus it can be said roughly, the euro strengthens the competitiveness but no strong coherence between growth and export are seen. However, it makes itself perceptible: No stability is given more in the national structure. Why? There is not enough trust in the currency.