Hacker News Reader

Comment by consp | Hacker News Reader

This all reads as symbolic nationalist policies with an added burocracy thus costing more than it should. "We need own coin to control [insert nationalist thing here]" but in practice you won't and never did.

The last time I was in Denmark my bank nicely charged me for the conversion despite the coin being fixed to the euro. It is just a money costing machine which adds no value.

View on HN

If being nationalistic means preferring that currency in your country is controlled by the government you have elected and not by ECB that you have zero control over, then yes.

Ask Greeks how much they enjoyed ECB involvement.

The Danish krone is pegged to the euro, meaning it's already effectively controlled by the ECB.

It is not fully pegged, and though it ties their hands somewhat, this is not "effectively" the same as adopting the euro. Krone still can be un-pegged if Denmark decides to do so.

It can be unpegged at a moments notice. Euro countries have a lot more work to break free.

By adopting euro you get a seat at the ECB and can influence monetary policy of the whole Eurozone.

The same way as having the seat in the UN's Security Council gives you the influence, but in the end France has little to say when compared with US or China.

Germany even without any representation in ECB will have much more to say than other countries. Because in the end it is a real political power that allows anyone to make decisions.

The point is that all of the countries in the EU are well developed countries with similar growth and closely tied economies. I can't imagine a monetary policy that would benefit one state while at the same time damaging the other one so much it would negate all the benefits of joining Eurozone.

As noted, the politicians wanted to switch to the euro; but it's the voters who said no. Twice or thrice, depending on how you count. That isn't a case of "symbolic nationalistic policies", but rather a state apparatus trying to get around the rejection, whilst sticking to the text of the referenda (but perhaps not the spirit of it).

If (when?) there's another Euro crisis, being pegged gives you a lot more room to manoeuvre than being actually in the Euro. If necessary de-pegging would be disruptive but very much possible, if you're fully in the Euro then you are riding the train to its destination whether you like it or not

De-pegging would require selling your euro reserves and buy other currencies. I wouldn’t call it disruptive but a disaster. You’ll end up getting enormous loans that generations after you will have to pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com