While it was an experiment to bring them together, nothing has divided Europe as much as the euro.
Interpretation
The euro, although intended to unify Europe, has instead caused significant divisions among its member countries.
Joseph Stiglitz highlights the paradox of the euro as a currency meant to foster unity within Europe but has ultimately led to conflicts and disparities. The quote suggests that economic policies and shared currencies can create unintended consequences, exacerbating divisions rather than promoting cooperation among nations.
In practice
This quote could be used in a discussion about the economic challenges faced by the European Union.
Free migration within Europe means that countries that have done a better job at reducing unemployment will predictably end up with more than their fair share of refugees. Workers in these countries bear the cost in depressed wages and higher unemployment, while employers benefit from cheaper labor.
I don't think we can have democracies that work where most of the people are not benefiting economically, where most of the people are worried about their job security.
Let me put it very forcefully: No large economy has ever recovered from an economic downturn through austerity. It's not going to happen in the United States, and it's not going to happen in Europe.
What separates developing countries from developed countries is as much a gap in knowledge as a gap in resources.
One of the arguments I make for the failure of the euro is that, at the time it was being constructed, there was a 'neo-liberal' ideology which said that all we need to do to make this thing work is to get deficits low, keep inflation low, and take down barriers, and then everything would be fine.
Trump sees the world in terms of a zero-sum game. In reality, globalisation, if well managed, is a positive-sum force: America gains if its friends and allies - whether Australia, the E.U., or Mexico - are stronger. But Trump's approach threatens to turn it into a negative-sum game: America will lose, too.
We need to keep in mind the well-established fact that the full effects of monetary policy are felt only after long lags. This means that policy makers cannot wait until they have achieved their objectives to begin adjusting policy.
In a world with weak aggregate demand, countries are engaging in a futile competition for a greater share of it. In the process, they are creating financial-sector and cross-border risks that will become increasingly apparent as countries exit their unconventional policies.
The present tax codes inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions.
Zoning laws making housing more expensive? That's less of a problem with a universal basic income and more of a reason to put money directly into people's hands.
I think there's a lot of merit in an international economy and global markets, but they're not sufficient because markets don't look after social needs.
The consumer, so it is said, is the king each is a voter who uses his money as votes to get the things done that he wants done.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.