Why?

@kowenicki

As much as i agree with you pal, your argument should have been Europe has been a political mess hidden under a falacy of good will and peace. That would have done it, some strange fact and nonsense been thrown around in here.

All in all Europe is still recovering from WWII and drigging itself into another political mess with the Euro and the shortsightedness of the decision to adopt the Euro so vastly across countries that couldn't afford to be supported in times of recession.

Europe should never been considered for a prize such as this, just as an idea it doesn't work at all, as a large political system with so many variences and false relationships it makes no sense.

I'm from the UK and follow many here in saying the EU for us is a bad idea, with the costs of just being in the union nevermind the costs of helping fund projects and movements with the system it's a finacial sink hole we could do without, the only issue comes if/when the current trade routes and deals we have inplace collapse, we could be left out in the dark.

ITT: The Nobel Prize is officially meaningless.

For what it's worth. I think the EU can be done effectively, and likely will.

It's just to do so they need an American like system with more federal government... right now the European Union kind of resembling the "Articles of Confederation" in the United States.

Although arguably a stupider one, because i believe each state had it's own money under the AoC... because the federal money was worthless.


That said, I think that the politicians are somewhat presenting the EU in a dishonest way to the European people for support... knowing that once these more "moderate" webs are attached, a full on EU government is needed eventually.

The EU cannot be done effectively. That requires some level of competance from the politicians.

But... why would you want it done effectively? (I'm not sure if you do, but the implication from this post is that you want it to succeed).

Saying I think it would work is different from wanting it to work.   I think it would be better served so each country could pursue its own ideals and ideas about how things work.  However an EU supercountry could work.

I bet you're American, cause you seem to be forgetting that it was the American's who started the Global economic crisis. It all started with the American 'toxic' housing mortgage crisis, and it swept across the world. You're just shifting blame to the Europeans because the Americans have long forgotten where the problem originated. I've noticed Obama has forgotten this too and has been blaming Europeans for supposedly 'dragging' the rest of the world down with it. I have no problem with Europe getting the peace prize, it's just ignoramus' like you who do.

-moderated Kasz216

Can someone tell me if that is 'Norwegian humor'?

On the ongoing EU topic, it won't work. It wouldn't work before the crisis and most certainly will not now. You need people to support the thought and trust me, not many europeans are in favor of anything related to EU at the moment. Nor do i see a shift in the 'right' direction coming shortly.

1) He's British (though, I'm sure he'll tell you himself, when he comes online).

2) Central banks started the economic crisis. And the Eurozone crisis would have happened with or without the 2008 credit crunch.

Incidentally it's also worth noting that as far as banking regulations and derivatives regulations go... Europe's laws are actually more permissable in general then the US at the time of the GFC.

Most of europe actually had it's own real estate that burst along with the US bubble.  Without the US bubble bursting... the Europeon one would of bursted eventually on it's own.

As for central bank caused housing problems... I imagine you'll find this interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/hong-kong-to-oslo-flirt-with-bubbles-on-cheap-cash-mortgages.html