The Circle Bastiat

In this June 2012 file photo, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. Republicans and Democrats railed about the US Olympic Committee's decision to dress the team in Chinese manufactured berets, blazers and pants while the American textile industry struggles economically. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

For shame: Who is really to blame in USOC uniforms spat?

By Joseph Salerno, Guest blogger / 07.17.12

So Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, thinks that the privately-funded United States Olympic Committee “should be ashamed” for providing its teams with uniforms made in China and that the uniforms should be “burned.”  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Steve Israel, both Democrats from New York, quickly  weighed in on the controversy with a joint letter to the USOC expressing their displeasure.  After courageously defending its initial decision and in the teeth of a growing controversy,  the USOC blinked and announced that henceforth it will require team uniforms to be domestically manufactured.

But why should the USOC be ashamed of its initial decision?  Ashamed–for using its donors’ and sponsors’ dollars wisely and economically by outfitting the U.S. Olympic teams with  attractive and high quality uniforms that can be produced less expensively in China than in the U.S.?  Ashamed–for doing what millions of ordinary Americans do every day when they make the most economical use of their scarce dollars by buying Chinese-made products at Walmart, or when they use an Acer notebook, watch a Sony television or vacation on a Norwegian cruise line?  I think not.

Indeed, it is Senators Reid and Gillibrand and Representative Israel and their ilk in Congress who should be ashamed and burned in effigy.  For they and their cronies are responsible for the profoundly anti-consumer trade barriers that keep the inefficient, zombie U.S. clothing  industry alive.  Despite  the enormous protection afforded apparel companies and their union against competition from more efficient foreign manufacturers, in the last ten years employment in apparel manufacturing has fallen from 350,000   to 147,300.   Last year,  it was estimated, 98 percent of all apparel and 99 percent of all footwear sold in the U.S. was manufactured abroad.  There is nothing regrettable or shameful about this result.  It was brought about by the voluntary choices of American households looking for quality and value in spending their hard-earned incomes.

What is shameful and scandalous  is the robbery of  American consumers  by  corporate welfare policies that prevent them from buying in the lowest cost markets.  In 1994, when the last comprehensive study of the costs of protectionism in the U.S was published, it was estimated that the annual cost to consumers of clothing (apparel)  protection was $21.158 billion.  Of this amount, apparel  firms and their workers reaped an extra $9.901 billion of ill-gotten gains, while the rest was lost to the economy through “dead-weight”  inefficiencies or went to the U.S. government in the form of  tariff revenues and quota rents.   There were an estimated  152,583  jobs “saved” in this industry at an average  annual cost of  $138,666 per job, far more than the average worker earned.  It would have been far, far cheaper to permit the workers to be laid off and simply pay them their regular wages and retraining costs out of general government revenues until they found new jobs.  This transparent policy would have saved consumers billions, permitted them to engage in free trade with whomever they wished, and prevented inefficient production from continuing to distort the U.S. economy.  But of course this would have cut off corporate welfare to clothing firms and caused a powerful union to shrink and lose dues revenues, both of which contribute heavily to Congressional elections.  And it is unlikely that the heavily-burdened U.S.  taxpayer would have approved of such special treatment of a small group of workers.    

In any case, you can be sure that Reebok, Levi’s, and Champion, the previous U.S. manufacturers of Olympic and Team USA uniforms,  as well as the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE) are very grateful to Senator Reid et al. and come election time will somehow find a way to generously show their gratitude.

A structure showing the Euro currency sign is seen in front of the European Central Bank (ECB) headquarters in Frankfurt on July 11, 2012. A very thoughtful review of Ralph Raico’s outstanding recent book, "Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School" prompted a response from our blogger, David Gordon. (Alex Domanski/Reuters)

Sorens on Raico: Great minds think (mostly) alike

By David Gordon, Guest blogger / 07.13.12

Jason Sorens has posted a very thoughtful review of Ralph Raico’s outstanding recent book, Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. 

I admire the post and learned from it, but I’d like to differ with Sorens on two points. He suggests that methodological individualism is vulnerable to criticism. “We can know that firms try to maximize profit even if we do not have a good explanation for why each individual firm tries to maximize profit, or why individuals have chosen so to organize themselves. ” He appeals here to what Bob Nozick called a “filtering device.” The explanation, I take it, is roughly this: to the extent that firms engage in profit maximization, they will tend to supplant firms that don’t.

But this explanation is entirely consistent with methodological individualism. This doctrine does not require that social outcomes be reducible to the motives of individuals. To the contrary, appeals to “the results of human action but not of human design” are quite common among Austrian methodological individualists.  In thinking that use of “filtering devices” in Nozick’s sense, irreducible to the psychological motives of individuals, conflicts with methodological individualism, Sorens has I think wrongly taken over Nozick’s unduly restrictive account of that doctrine, in his essay “On Austrian Methodology”

Sorens also remarks:  “However, what I have heard from contemporary Austrian economists such as Peter Leeson is that Mises himself was not opposed to hypothesis testing, even using statistical methods. He was merely opposed to Popper-style falsificationism (i.e., that every element of a theory must be falsifiable), which has in any case been superseded in mainstream philosophy of science. ”

Certainly, Mises did not oppose hypothesis testing in applying economics to historical issues; but in economic theory itself he was very much an apriorist. Mises himself is a much better guide to his views on method than “contemporary Austrian economists”; and if one consults Mises, whether he was an apriorist is not a difficult question to answer.

In this February 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, speaks during a campaign stop at Bethel University in Arden Hills, Minn. Paul recently hosted a debate between two financial experts on the subject of fractional reserve banking. (Charles Rex Arbogast/AP)

Debate on reserve fractional banking devolves into public squabble

By Daniel J. Sanchez, Guest blogger / 07.11.12

Ron Paul recently showed  how he is very open to debate, by having both Professor Joseph Salerno (a 100% reserves advocate) and Professor Larry White (a “free banker”) testify before his sub-committee on the subject of fractional reserve banking. 

However, as he made clear in this post in his Congressional web site, Ron Paul is very much on Salerno’s side of the debate.

George Selgin is none too happy about this, and Ron Paul’s post has elicited from him a quite vituperative comment.  Selgin goes so far as to accuse 100% reserves advocates as being a “moronic cult.”

Selgin, in a post commenting on his own comment, says:

Although the first priority of every believer in monetary freedom must be to combat bogus arguments for monetary central planning, we cannot do this effectively unless we are just as relentless in exposing the 100-percent reserve movement for the moronic cult that it is, to keep its clownish convictions from giving the entire movement for monetary freedom, if not free market economics more generally, a bad name.

Selgin is obviously endorsing two approaches to advancing fractional-reserve-friendly free banking.  There is the “argumentation” approach he leads off with.  And then there is the “expose the cult” approach he insists must not be neglected.  But what exactly does he mean by that?

Nowhere in Selgin’s original post does he make any kind of pscyho-sociological case for the anti-fractional reserves set qualifying as a cult, much less a moronic one.  He asserts that they’re in error (and vaguely references economic refutations against them made elsewhere, without giving a hint as to their content).  But it is doubtful that he means that refuting them is how he means to expose them as a cult, because then it wouldn’t really be a separate approach from the first approach he brings up.

When a commenter on his blog called him to task for his incivility, Selgin gave tell as to what he might mean by “exposing” his intellectual opponents.

Rest assured, Pedro, I am no more interested in being “nice” to 100-percenters than I am interested in being so to central bankers. Nor am I intent on persuading them about anything–I’ve tried that, as have others, to no avail. Ridicule is no more than their just deserts.

So perhaps, what Selgin means is to “expose” his opponents by ridiculing them.  Perhaps his aim is to prevent his opponents from achieving what he thinks of as undue influence and notoriety by simply calling them names.  In other words, he aims to “expose” his opponents as a moronic cult by the mere act of calling them a moronic cult.  It’s not like this approach never works.  If, in middle school, one student calls another “an idiot” enough times, that will often cause other students (especially the first student’s followers) to write the second student off as one.  What is ironic is this kind of social strategy is itself more typical of cults than anything.  Not that I would ever accuse Selgin of being a cultist.  I’m not even an academic, and even I know that would be unbecoming of one.

A sunflower stands in front of the Euro sculpture in Frankfurt, Germany, Thursday, July 5, 2012. The European Central Bank has cut its key interest rate by a quarter percentage point to a record low of 0.75 percent to boost a eurozone economy weighed down by the continent's crisis over too much government debt. rate cut. (Michael Probst/AP)

European interest rates cut. Too little, too late?

By Mark Thornton, Guest blogger / 07.06.12

The ECB has once again come to the rescue by cutting interest rates in order to forestall a collapse of the European economy. Also, in a “surprise” move, the Chinese central bank cut interest rates in response to a continuing slow down in economic activity.

When the Skyscraper Index issued a European crisis signal last summer the European stocks markets were riding a wave of optimism and the Euro was worth about a $1.50. Most European stock markets have lost considerable ground along with the value of the Euro. However, we can best visualize the economic trouble from where the skyscraper crisis signal was issued: in the London real estate market. The Shard Skyscraper (which issued the crisis signal by becoming the tallest skyscraper in Western Europe) opened its doors to a badly slumping real estate market. Its owners made the bad mistake of buying out one of its primary lessee at 70 pounds per square foot. Leases are now going for 55 pounds per foot and probably heading lower.

In addition to Europe, there has been a regional crisis signal in China and possible world crisis signals coming from both China and the Middle East.

In this April 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas speaks at the University of California at Berkeley, Calif. The long shot presidential hopeful is nonetheless the preferred candidate for The Circle Bastiat's John P. Cochran, who believes he is continuing in the tradition of President Taft, "Mr. Republican." (Ben Margot/AP)

Liberty for all: Will the real 'Mr. Republican' please stand up?

By The Circle Bastiat, Guest blogger / 07.02.12

I was in Washington on what was an historic day, June 28, 2012 to testify at Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee on Financial Services, US House of Representatives, chaired by Congressman Ron Paul. While it would be nice to think the day was historic because Dr. Paul was continuing his informational hearings focusing on a return to sound money, other events were perhaps more important to most Americans.

In the morning I had time to wander around the Capitol area. While searching for a shady place to sit and rest, I wandered up to Robert A. Taft Memorial  and was struck by the quotation of Taft on one side of the memorial. It is ironic as I was reading these words my wife called to inform me of the Supreme Court decision on the monstrous health care reform bill. The quote, “Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.  If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials there is no limit to the future of the American people.”

How true these words are and it struck me how unfortunate we are as a people that Congressman Paul, who I was to meet later that day, is one of probably no more than a handful of men in public office who truly believe in liberty in all its essentials.

The memorial also includes this inscription, “This Memorial to Robert A. Taft, presented by the people to the Congress of the United States, stands as a tribute to the honesty, indomitable courage, and high principles of free government symbolized by his life.” The website for the memorial, reminds us that “He (Taft) was affectionately dubbed “Mr. Republican.”

As Lew Rockwell not too long ago argued, (http://mises.org/daily/2822/), based on the principles that made Taft” Mr. Republican”,  in a previous era, Ron Paul, with his honesty, courage, and high principles  should be Mr. Republican today. How much brighter our future would be if the prospects were better that this “Mr. Republican” would become next leader of the United States.

In this June 2012, file photo, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Federal Reserve met today, at a time of high alert over the slumping US economy. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File)

The Federal Reserve's new and improved transparency

By The Circle Bastiat, Guest blogger / 06.20.12

According to Bloomberg’s survey of economists, 58 percent believe that the FOMC will announce an extension of Operation Twist at the end of its meeting at 12:30 pm today.  The majority expect the Fed to extend the maturity of its securities portfolio by substituting the purchase of long-term securities, possibly even more mortgage-backed securities, as its short-term securities mature in order to further depress long-term, especially mortgage, interest rates.  This alternative would not expand the money supply, but merely further distort credit markets. With the US inflation rate near its 2-percent “anti-deflationary” target and the break up of the euro at least momentarily averted by the results of the Greek election, 60 percent of the survey’s respondents do not foresee the implementation of the more radical stimulus of a third round of quantitative easing, which involves the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet and the money supply through the net purchase of additional securities.

But how will the new kinder, gentler and more transparent Fed communicate to the public this momentous decision?  Will it do so frankly and in plain language?  Right! According to a senior economist at Bank of America Corp. in New York, “The FOMC in its post-meeting statement could voice more willingness to buy [long-term] bonds if necessary, saying that it ‘stands ready’ to adjust its balance sheet rather than that it ‘is prepared’ . . . .”

In this April 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul gestures while speaking at the University of California at Berkeley, Calif. From Austrian economics to the gold standard and free market money, a new book outlines and defends Paul's plans. (Ben Margot/AP/File)

He's a fan: One man's defense of Ron Paul

By John P. Cochrane, Guest blogger / 06.11.12

Walter Block is well known for his book Defending the Undefendable. In this new work, Walter presents a series of essays to “make the case for his [Ron Paul’s] occupancy of the White House. Each and every last one of these chapters is an attempt on my [Walter’s] part to expand and expound upon his [Congressman Paul’s] views, to publicize them, to promote his candidacy, to defend it against attacks from within and without the libertarian movement” (p. 13).

While the book is written to defend and support Dr. Paul’s run for the highest elected office in this country, the book is important in a broader context. In these essays Professor Block does what he does best, defend the defendable; libertarian principles and Austrian economics.  Readers of this book, even those who consider themselves well versed in either or both of the above, will find their understanding clarified, enhanced, or reinforced by Walter’s biting commentary on Paul’s “distinctive views on  three issues; foreign policy, personal liberties, and economics” (p. 16). In fact, as I first began reading, I was reminded of a most enlightening dinner at an Austrian Scholars Conference  in the late 1990s where I was fortunate enough to be sitting between Walter and Stephan Kinsella as they engaged in a vigorous discussion of various fine points and controversies in libertarian philosophy; extensions and applications of the non-aggression axiom.

As the self appointed Jewish Mother of the libertarian movement, Walter, while promoting Ron Paul, does not shy away from ‘nudging’, not only his readers, but also Ron Paul. One of my favorites:

Gold. Strictly speaking, you [Congressman Paul], do NOT favor a gold standard. Rather you favor free market money: any monetary medium chosen by market participants. The reason you mention gold at all is that whenever people were “free to choose” (title of a book written by an opponent of the gold standard, Milton Friedman), as a historical fact they chose gold (and sometimes, silver). But, if in the future, under the sort of free enterprise system you will promote as president of the United States, if the market settled on copper or platinum, or indeed anything else, you would have no quarrel with that outcome (p. 172). [For an in depth discussion see Jeffrey M. Herbener recent excellent testimony to the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee of Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives, “ Production of Money on the Market”)

If I could nit: the book does suffer slightly from repetition, sloppy editing, and sources mentioned in the text but not listed in the references at the end. An index might have been useful as well.

However, Walter effectively explains the importance of Paul’s candidacy for increasing awareness of and acceptance of libertarianism philosophy to a broader public (something I experienced this spring as I returned to the classroom after nearly 7 years in administration). In my view, Block effectively responds to Paul’s critics both from within and outside the libertarian movement. Readers, like me, who have not been as active as supporters as we should have been, will hopefully, stand correctly chastised and nudged to greater efforts in the future. Would that we could all do as much and as effectively for liberty as Dr. Paul (and Professor Block).

Pedestrians walk through New York's Times Square under a glowing Bank of America marquee in this November 2008 file photo. Two months later, shares of major US banks plunged. Many states have laws on the books to try to prevent rumor or malicious speech from causing runs on the banking system. (Craig Ruttle/AP)

Can you yell 'run' in a crowded bank?

By Douglas French, Guest blogger / 06.06.12

Many states have laws on the books prohibiting anyone from making disparaging comments about a particular bank’s financial condition.  This sort of talk is thought to be outside free speech because just the slightest rumor can trigger a bank run.  Of course, not much of a line needs to develop at the teller window for bankers to get nervous, because they don’t keep much cash around to satisfy withdrawals.  Depositor money is lent out or invested, or in the case of J.P. Morgan, used for speculating in London.

In California, there’s been an anti-bank run law on the books since 1917 prohibiting a person from spreading false information about a bank’s condition.  In this age of deposit insurance and the FDIC, the law hasn’t been tested much.  But along comes Robert Rogers, who as an ex-employee of Summit Bank posted a rant and rave on Craigslist, saying, “I would suggest that anyone that banks at Summit Bank leave before they close.”

Rogers, who served as the bank’s chief credit administrator and vice president, also took the opportunity to post what American Banker describes as “vulgar comments about the bank’s chief executive officer and her son.”

The bank sued Mr. Rogers for libel, to which the ex credit administrator countered that his speech was protected by the First Amendment.  So, the lawyers for Summit pulled out a copy of the 1917 law and claimed his statements should not be considered free speech.

But the appeals court in a 30-page opinion said, “We find section 1327 cannot be reconciled with modern constitutional requirements.”   The court went on to say,  “When analyzed under modern constitutional jurisprudence, the broad provisions of Financial Code section 1327, on their face, impermissibly sweep within their proscriptions speech that cannot be criminally punished.”

The justices said the law is too vague and has too broad a reach, “and said the law lacks a requirement — included in other statutory restrictions on speech — that a speaker’s statement be proven to be malicious,” reports AB.

“It is a criminal libel statute without a malice requirement, which is designed to prohibit speech based on its content,” the court said. “It fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is forbidden. It sets no discernible limits on what types of speech can be criminalized, and, allowing such free range, it lends itself to arbitrary enforcement.”

Of course bankers and their attorneys are troubled by the decision.

“While the First Amendment certainly provides broad protection to analyze and comment on banking matters, and even provide sharp and critical commentary, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the First Amendment does not give a person a constitutionally protected right to falsely cry ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theatre,” V. Gerard Comizio, a partner at Paul Hastings said. “The real question here is whether attempting to trigger a bank run arguably has a similar impact.”

“This case has profound implications about the scope of the First Amendment and the use of social media to provide critical commentary on the safety and soundness of particular banks,” said Comizio.

Murray Rothbard explained that there is no such thing as freedom of speech, but instead property rights.  Even in the case of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, Rothbard explains,

For, logically, the shouter is either a patron or the theater owner. If he is the theater owner, he is violating the property rights of the patrons in quiet enjoyment of the performance, for which he took their money in the first place. If he is another patron, then he is violating both the property right of the patrons to watching the performance and the property right of the owner, for he is violating the terms of his being there. For those terms surely include not violating the owner’s property by disrupting the performance he is putting on. In either case, he may be prosecuted as a violator of property rights; therefore, when we concentrate on the property rights involved, we see that the Holmes case implies no need for the law to weaken the absolute nature of rights.

In this case Mr. Rogers doesn’t have “freedom of the press” to post on Craigslist, but instead, as Rothbard writes,

what he does have is the right to write or publish a pamphlet, and to sell that pamphlet to those who are willing to buy it (or to give it away to those who are willing to accept it). Thus, what he has in each of these cases is property rights, including the right of free contract and transfer which form a part of such rights of ownership. There is no extra “right of free speech” or free press beyond the property rights that a person may have in any given case.

Bankers are sensitive, and for good reason as Rothbard makes clear,

But in what sense is a bank “sound” when one whisper of doom, one faltering of public confidence, should quickly bring the bank down? In what other industry does a mere rumor or hint of doubt swiftly bring down a mighty and seemingly solid firm? What is there about banking that public confidence should play such a decisive and overwhelmingly important role?

Flags from right: Greek, National Bank of Greece and the European Union flags fly outside the headquarters of the National Bank of Greece, in Athens,in this May 29 file photo. According to French, the run on Greek and Spanish banks means one thing: citizens are panicked. (Petros Giannakouris/AP/File)

The euro exodus from Greece and Spain

By Douglas French, Guest blogger / 06.04.12

Wary depositors have been hauling billions of Euros out of Greek and Spanish banks over the past few weeks.  Since 2009, Greek depositors have withdrawn $4 million a month from that nation’s banks, while Spanish bank customers pulled 31 billion euros from Spanish banks in April alone.

More than any election result, bank runs reflect the mood of the people.  After all, depositors consider bank deposits their property.  The bank is just holding the money for them.  Any bit of nervousness, and it’s run first and ask questions later.  There is no upside to trusting the bank.  If it goes broke, the depositor’s property is gone.  At best, the bank doesn’t fail and the property remains.  There is no compensation for the sleepless nights.

Murray Rothbard explained in Making Economic Sense,

But in what sense is a bank “sound” when one whisper of doom, one faltering of public confidence, should quickly bring the bank down? In what other industry does a mere rumor or hint of doubt swiftly bring down a mighty and seemingly solid firm? What is there about banking that public confidence should play such a decisive and overwhelmingly important role?

Deposit insurance and the Federal Reserve have made banks runs in America a historical relic of the Great Depression.  The result is that bankers can lend increasingly high percentages of deposits with little fear that lines of anxious depositors form at the front door, not matter what the economic environment.   There’s no competitive advantage for a bank to maintain high reserves in the era of deposit insurance.

Systemically important banks are bailed out if their loans don’t work out, while small banks that topple over are seized on Friday evenings, with the deposit liabilities most likely assumed by another bank.  A new sign is put on bank over the weekend and many deposits don’t notice the difference.

Deposit insurance is only as good as the private entity or government that stands behind it.  As Rothbard points out, private and state deposit insurance schemes have not worked because all banks with fractionalized reserves are unsound and susceptible to bank runs, no matter how profitable they may be.  No private system has the monopoly of force required to cover all deposits.

If Greece announced a return to a drachma backed by gold or silver and 100% reserve banking, deposits would come flooding into Greek banks.

Instead, what the bank runs in Europe expose are the unsound nature of those banking systems, the fragility of the euro, and the uncertain viability of the individual fiat currencies that may be forced upon the public.  All of which is a good thing.  These runs provide a natural check on the banks’ ability to inflate.

On the bank run, Rothbard writes,

It is a marvelously effective weapon because (a) it is irresistible, since once it gets going it cannot be stopped, and (b) it serves as a dramatic device for calling everyone’s attention to the inherent unsoundness and insolvency of fractional reserve banking.

According to Wikipedia, deposits are insured in Greece and Spain, but there must be some doubt about the viability of those deposits, the currency, the deposit insurer, and the government itself.

Not wanting to let a good crisis go to waste, European Central Bank President Mario Draghi is urging European leaders to form a “banking union” that would include deposit insurance for depositors and “prevent failed banks from threatening the financial system,” the WSJ reports.  This is code for having the EU bail out systemically important banks,  because individual country finances are not capable of funding these bailouts.

Olli Rehn, the economics head of the European Commission, claims,

We need both a genuine stability culture in the euro zone and its member states, and a much upgraded capacity to contain contagion and reduce borrowing costs for its members. This is the case if we want to avoid a disintegration of the euro zone and instead make the euro survive and succeed.

The money Draghi would like to get his hands on is the European Stability Mechanism, the euro-zone’s permanent rescue funds. Right now these funds can only be used to lend to government, the ECB President would like to use the funds to re-capitalize banks.   In addition to providing euro zone-level deposit insurance, Draghi would also like to centralize banking supervision and regulation.

“The latest EU funding program does not solve the longer term problems of the solvency or funding of the banks, which now remain heavily dependent on the largesse of the central banks. One European economist calls  “a government-sponsored Ponzi scheme where weak banks are supporting weak sovereigns, who in turn are standing behind the banks — a process which can be described as two drowning people clinging to each other for mutual support.”

Bank customers who have decided to take their money and run, are looking out for themselves while leaving the bankers and the bureaucrats to drown.

The euro is a political construct that has the full backing of Europe’s political elite.  If the market was allowed to prevail, the euro and all of Europe’s banks would be history.  Even London bookmaker Ladbrokes has the odds at less than even-money the euro will be gone by the end of 2015.

Allowing the bank runs to continue would bring about a collapse of the banking system throughout Europe, paving the way for sound money. But don’t underestimate government force.  Draghi’s bank union plan can take the fate of euro, temporarily, out of the public’s hands, allowing the inflating to resume and the charade of a united Europe to continue.