Are Sweden going to take the Euro? Its the big day today isnt it?

I bet they won't. It's just like in any other country: Ask the 'people' about it, and they'll decide against their own good.

I'm not sure. However, the Swedish people voted for joining the EU as well, so it's not completely hopeless...

Well, it seems as if it was a rather clear victory for those opposed to the new currency. Another example for the fact that the majority of people in democracies tends to prevent anything new, especially if it's about international integration...

56% (out of more than 80% who voted) I've heard. Now hand over the money

Tapuak: Why such sour face? Sweden has presented some very valid arguments against adopting the Euro.

Those being?

The propagandist argument:


The pragmatic argument:

(Source: ABN-AMRO, discussing why the Swedish currency took off after the news.)

The emotional argument:
One of the main arguments against joining the eurozone was that Germany, the main proponent of the single currency, was flouting EU Rules on maximum budget deficits, showing hypocrisy.
(source)

My argument:
There's a thing called "optimal currency area". This is a geographical area within which is is possible to have a common currency. The EU is too large and too diverse to have a single currency. The reason I'm saying that the EU is too large is that it is quite possible that different economic shocks happen in different parts of the EU. For example, a natural disaster may hit sourthern Europe (such as drought or earthquake), while northern Europe will be just fine. However, in order to offset the natural disaster, the southern countries would request more money, which would increase the overall inflation and hurt the budgets of the northern countries. Those may fight against the additional spending, which in turn will hurt the southern countries. Especially Sweden, which achieved a remarkable level of fiscal discipline despite its socialist policies, has a lot to loose from joining the Eurozone.

Just to be fair, I'd like to point out that the EU is not the only one with such problems. Even the US is too large to me an efficient single-currency area. While the fact that fiscal policy is regulated through regional Federal Reserve banks (the EU has only one central bank, in contrast), you still get various levels of inflation and budget deficits in various areas. As such, there's a continuous stress on the overall budget in the US, which by now is built just like the power grid here: one large disaster can send the whole country down an endless spiral.

And you seriously think that more than 0,1% of the population who voted "no" has considered such arguments? The way that people are making their decisions is much more primitive in fact, and that is what makes me sad. Traditionally, the percentage of people blocking progress (to any direction) is highest where the level of education is lowest.

I guess I'm an incurrable optimist, but I have much higher hopes for mankind than you, Tapuak

Sure, mankind can be saved, it's just the question how to do it.

And that's why I think that a "preventing" attitude is bad in general: If we have had a referendum on every important political question, we wouldn't have the EU at all, for example. The people would have prevented its development right from the start. Once it has been established by force, however, its acceptance drastically increases over the years. People always prefer to keep the "status quo" for some reason, thus making any progress impossible. Take the Euro: In any country there was/is a lot of scepticism against it. Wait some more years, and you will see that it will be fully accepted. And that's the way it would have been in Sweden, too.

It seems as if you have to force the people to get happy sometimes.

Click


Yeah, but then you are running a very fine line. By the same arguing, you could say that people are deliberately trying to kill themselves, so you have to force them to live by outlawing anything that's harmful. Or you can dictate what they eat, watch and listen to, because you know better what they like.

NetDanzr: None of the arguments you brought up apply to 99.999999999% of the people who voted against the Euro. Even if what Tapuak said wasn't true (it isn't), these arguments would be meaningless, because you're talking about the view of some international corporation. Trade surplus? Budget deficits? What is that supposed to matter to anyone? Natural disasters affecting stability? Wouldn't it be just fair of more people/countries/regions to help after those? The 'propaganda' argument? I won't even comment on that, because it is no argument.

Besides, some of these arguments are even false if you consider them basically 'mattering'. Economic growth isn't 'standardized' just by having one currency (as you probably know, the difference there between for example Germany and the Netherlands is huge). There are still 'regional' banks in the EU countries which do set their own interest rates. And so on and so on.

Conclusion: All that fancy-talk can't masquerade the fact that it's all about nationalist and xenophobic reasons.

Mr Creosote: Budget surplus and trade balance are two important determinants of price level and budget spending in a country. If Sweden joined the EU, they would be unable to be able to control their price level, and they'd have very little (if any) control over their social programs. Both are things everybody understands and is concerned about.

As for regional banks, I was not talking about interest rates. I was talking about the ability to issue new money, which only the ECB has.

Price levels are completely different in the EU countries as well. Social systems differ to the extreme. Oh yeah, and Sweden is already a member of the EU.

Sweden is indeed a member of the EU, but for now, it can conduct its own fiscal policy. Those countries that adopted Euro cannot, and despite the fact that the price levels and social spending are different, they are not in control of either anymore.

I have to agree. People can be quite fanatical about imaginary borders.

Ooohhhh, forgot to reply to that part. So anyway: it's kind of strange to hear a person complaining about a country trying to protect its economic interests, if exactly the same kind of nationalism and xenophobia by the EU is responsible for 6600 deaths daily.

I am aware that this says nothing in favor of rejecting the Euro, but it's an adequate responsible for the "nationalism and xenophobia" argument.

Once again, you're falling into the trap of assuming I'm claiming the EU's 'outward' policies are good. All I've said is that unification is good - and I didn't say it should be limited to some elite circle.

I didn't assume that. I just wanted to point out that no self-respecting nation would join an organization that kills so many people.