Quite a few times, although I have not been there for 4 months now.

The problem has almost nothing to do with some weird kind of patriotic allegiance. If this were truly the case Germany would not manifest similar levels of social inequality as can be found in just about every Western nation. I'm not saying Germans (or other nationals) aren't capable of favouring their own - but in the grand scheme of evils it's way down the list.

I mean, do people really think that if, say, France were the dominant economic force in Europe instead of Germany it wouldn't be pushing for the very same measures?

The problem here is a systemic and lethal flaw within capitalism. The mistake is thinking it can be corrected simply by better legislation. Time and time again this has been shown not to be the case as capitalism itself encourages people to circumvent the law, denude/obliterate it entirely or open up new avenues for exploitation so that the net effect on society is even worse.

Pretending capitalism can be fixed is like pretending Mussolini could be a nicer guy. We need to look for a better way that at the very least isn't predisposed to exploit those at the bottom of the pile whilst twisting the minds of those at the top to the extent that they are blind to exploitation or think it's a good idea.

Nice speech, but rather off topic methinks. Are the Germans being too rigid and ultimately counter-productive?

Germany has more immigrants than the UK, it has a much higher proportion of foreign born residents than the European average, they take all sorts, Turks, Russians, Poles etc.

I wonder with the waves of immigration going into Germany whether they will be on the verge of a civil war?

The Germans are being too rigid. But to frame the problem within the boundaries of a nation state is to miss the wider socio-economic context which [icompels[/i Germany's leaders to act in the way they are.

It's like arguing WWI was caused solely by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serb separatists.

But there are other options. The best one, in my opinion, would have been to have organised an orderly dismantling of the Euro. All other options appear, as things stand, catastrophic for Europe and its peoples.

That's an option. But if we consider human nature - alone - it is not a very realistic one. When you think of all the trouble it took to get the Euro in place - all the promises of "better future", all the guarantees about a "more stable" economic foundation for Europe, all the cajoling, the inducements, the propaganda - it's simply unrealistic to think those who staked their political, academic and economic reputations on not just the feasibility of the Euro - but its "manifest benefits" are likely to perform a faultless backflip, hold their hands up and concede defeat.

I should add that you see this kind of thing all the time in science. There is the dominant scientific theory on something or other and out of the blue comes a competitor which, by pure reason, can be determined a "better fit". The former is surrounded by people who have made their careers (and in some cases - fortune) out of discovering and/or defending it. Do they accept the better theory? Well, some do. But many others resort to all manner of mental gymnastics and obfuscation (some of which borders upon comedic) shoring up the old one. I suspect that many of these people know deep down they are in the wrong but they simply have too much of their life invested in the past and fear an uncertain future giving it up. If the luxury liner of an existence they built is holed below the waterline they'd much rather go down with the ship than be rescued and sail the seas tomorrow in some tramp freighter.

You mean the man who claimed organic entities have rights over and above individuals?

Are any of those founding fathers of the Euro still in serious office? But in any event, is that my point - they are not seeing the bigger picture and are stuck in yesterday's thought process?

Actually this happens very rarely in science.

I think you'll find it happens far more often than you believe - especially when there are political drivers at work.

There's an excellent book on this very subject by Chris Mooney called Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming which provides a fascinating insight into the face-off between the meteorological "old guard" and the climate modelers in America set against the backdrop of Hurrican Katrina. The lengths some of the former go to in order to deny the findings of climate modelling (egged on by lobbyists for the petrochemical and motor industries) are truly spectacular.

Oh I did – although I'm not particularly a python fan – but I thought that I'd mention a few things anyway, for the educational improvement of Dally, at least. Although that was probably deeply misguided.

The stubborn desire to prevent a Greek default is not just down to stubborn adherence to a failed (in some peoples eyes) idea of monetary union. It is also down to self interest. If Greece, Portugal and even Spain dropped out of the Euro the Euro would overnight become a very strong currency as its value would reflect the economic strength of Germany, Holland and the other remaining Eurozone countries. That would instantly harm German competitiveness which benefits from the Euro being kept lower in value due to the fact countries like Greece are still in it.

The increasing value of the Euro if the likes of Greece did exit would possibly force other countries not as strong as Germany to exit as well as they simply could not cope with a higher valued Euro as they would become even more uncompetitive than they already are with the Euro at is current value.

So I do not think German stubbornness or pro-Euro stubbornness from officials and politicians is what is driving the desire to shore it up. I think the main factor is a Euro only used by a small number of economically competent countries would make those countries far less competitive than they are.

Would this be a good thing? I think so. Germany has benefited from a currency that is artificially weak relative to its economic strength ever since it the Euro came into existence.

I appreciate that. That's why it is hideous that Germany refuse to take the hit. It's morally regugnant. Look at the UK - policy is aimed at supporting mortgage holders / debtors and therefore banks at the expense of those with savings or capital. So, the prudent and those who did well in good times are paying and the others benefitting, largely because the debtors and poor can't pay directly (although will by virtue of a reduction in State support). The Germans are rigidly sticking to making the debtors suffer - in one sense morally sound - which ultimately must fauil as they will never have the means to prop up the Eurozone.

Well there is another side to this which could be used as moral justification to defend the Eurozone by doing everything to keep Greece in it and that is what happens to the Greek peoples personal wealth if they exit and end up with a New Drachma?

For a transition period the only practical proposition is 1 Eruo = 1 New Drachma but it would take about five minutes for devaluation to occur so Greek "Euros" would be say worth half a real one pretty quick. So if you were Greek you would be mad to keep your personal wealth in Greece in a Greek bank because at some point it would would probably be converted to a currency worth half what it was before. So you move it abroad and a run in the Greek banks results. Does the Greek government close the border and introduce currency control to prevent Greek's moving Euros into German banks? That is probably illegal in the EU.

What is more if Greece withdraws then if you are Portuguese and see this happen then you to would also be mad to keep your Euros in a Portuguese bank because you would (probably correctly) assume Portugal was next for the same treatment. So we get a run on the Portuguese banks. And so on.

In short chaos results and so while it would be a good thing if the Euro found its right value because the weaker countries exited from it, the price for a Greek default would be chaotic and a disaster for lots of ordinary people in many countries.

This is all discussed in a very good article here: [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16981897[/url

If the Euro had been set up and limited to just a few northern European counties with similar economies I reckon it would have been a great success. If joining the club required strict entry rules and so the likes of Greece had never been made a member I reckon successive British governments would have wanted to work towards joining. The trouble is as we all know it wasn't just economics that dictated who joined but politics and as such we now see the mess we do.

I agree.
And I believe that the Euro will not only survive, it will (eventually) thrive if the right limits and sanctions are applied ... which will, of course, mean ever-closer fiscal union across the Eurozone.

Fiscal union virtually prohibits the UK (with its prevalent island mentality) from joining ... it's ok to moan about petrol taxes being lower on the continent but not ok to harmonise any taxes.

It may be morally repugnant but it's also perfectly rational within the capitalist model (see Friedman and his band of acolytes). The issue here is [ique bono[/i (who benefits)? Who [ibenefits [/ifrom Greece collapsing under the weight of debt? Well, it certainly won't be the people occupying the 99% below top of the wage scale. But there's a ton of gold to be had for banks and corporations seeking to buy up Greek state assets on the cheap (as was the case in Russia under Yeltsin's Great Giveaway), which can then be quickly re-tooled to make massive profits.

As I've said for a while. Capitalism might not work out to well for you and me - but the capitalists are making plenty.

And I think you'll find that it happens significantly less often than 'all the time'.

I'm sorry that you find it impossible to differentiate between an imprecise colloquial term and the very precise and unambiguous word for perpetual continuance - "always".

And I'm sorry that you fail to understand the commonly understood meaning of the aforementioned colloquial phrase, i.e. with great frequency or regularity.

I understand it perfectly. I also stand by it. I think there's plenty of evidence to say such happens with "great frequency" or "regularity". I can give you examples such as, say Fred Hoyle's "steady state universe" acolytes, or the host of meteorologists hanging upon the every word of the once pre-eminent - but now hopelessly out of touch - authority on climate, William Gray.

But since neither of us is likely to agree on precise boundaries for the term "great frequency" further discussion is a waste of my time.

Maybe you should read the book?

String theory is currently in the same boat, as a dominant theory which its adherents fight tooth and nail to protect. According to Lee Smolin (sp?) in 'The Trouble with Physics', any physicist who wants to work in any field of competing theory has great difficulty getting funding and institutional backing, as funding is largely controlled by string theorists.

The problem with this analysis that you keep bringing up is that you're assuming the poor are those that are most indebted. The people that have gained most direct benefit out of the low interest rates are the middle classes that were climbing up the property ladder and mortgaged themselves to the limit just before 2009 and so have enjoyed lower repayments than would have otherwise been expected.

I know people talk about the 'poor' having debts from buying on catalogues etc but those sort of debts are usually very high interest rates that have not been brought down by the Bank of England rate being low, the beneficiaries are mainly mortgage holders. Most of the 'poor' are not home owners and do not have the debts that the middle class homeowning types do.

The main benefit of the lower interest rates is that it has prevented the economy from going back into recession and hence more people losing their jobs (recessions tend to hit the poor proportionally harder in terms of unemployment outcomes)

That's why I said the debtors [uand[/u poor. In fact, one could argue that big mortgage holders are poor. They do not own their own house like they think and are encouraged to believe. What the "own" is a large debt with the right to occupy whilst they service that debt. In many cases the value of that debt exceeds or is close to the value of the property (and the latter will probably decrease in value as the UK prospectively loses its AAA rating and unemployment increases, whilst the former will only decrease if repaid).