Talk:Euro

EUR - proposed move

I've proposed that EUR, Rome be moved to EUR, you can comment on the proposed move here. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

section on potential break-up?

I guess the article should cover this eventuality and the potential repercussions. Thoughts? Malick78 (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

If reliable and quality sources discuss a possible breakup, it can of course be mentioned in the article, though imo a whole section devoted to this scenario would give undue weight to it. A breakup is only one of the many potential outcomes that are currently being considered or discussed by politicians or in the media. Morgengave (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it is reasonable to mention that a break-up of the euro is being discussed and that it is a possible outcome of the current situation. If reliable sources can be cited, then it would also be reasonable to discuss (some of) the possible results of such an eventuality. However, I'd say that it should be emphasised that no one really knows what the results would be; otherwise, the article risks becoming an opinion piece, and possibly a scare-mongering one at that. Ondewelle (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Graph in the section entitled "European sovereign debt crisis"

I'm not sure why the legend to the graph in the section entitled "European sovereign debt crisis" is "Budget deficit of the euro area compared to USA and total OECD." The graph seems to show the euro area compared with the USA and the UK. Am I missing something, or should the legend be altered? Ondewelle (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

there is places in norway that accepts the euro

that really should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.59.120 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

added some lines on the cost of to much macroeconomic stability

I added some lines on the cost, especially for endebted countries, resulting from high macroeconomic stability. I think its generally accepted economic reasoning, it was missing, making the argument one-sided, and I hope everyone accepts.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Trade to economies outside the Euro?

Under the section 'trade', only the trade inside the eurozone is mentioned. Shall we also explain how the Euro has impacted on export from the Euro zone?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong usage of 'seigniorage'

Under Macroeconomic stability, the second sentence claims that 'high level of inflation acts as a tax (seigniorage) ...

Following from its definition, it can only be called seigniorage if the government itself 'prints' this money, AND adds it to its own coffers. However, if inflation (high or low) is allowed to happen by allowing the amount of money in the general economy to increase, then this is not seigniorage, as long as the government does not pocket the extra money.

Nobody these days argues for governments, selfprinting their income. But allowing some inflation as a way to press down a too strong currency is a standard IMF prescription for stalling economies. The second option deserves objective attention, and not to be discarded as seigniorage.

Shall we throw out the word?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Graphs on exchange rate might give wrong impression?

First a general compliment: The Euro-article is really good quality!

Regarding the three graphs in the section Exchange Rate: The choice of coins (Dollar, Yen and Swiss Franc) and the starting point obscure the enormous growth of the price of the euro since it replaced national coins.

The euro started to be the euro as defined in the first sentence of this article (..and is the official currency of ...) in early 2002. Before that, some of the main benefits of the euro (such as less transaction costs and absolute certainty of Euro-wide value of any coins) had not yet materialized. Should not the graphs then also start in 2002? Or should at least the three preceding years be in dots?

Second point is that the three chosen coins suggest something very different from the text next to it. The graphs suggest some gains here,(to the dollar) some losses there (to the Swiss Franc). But the text (in slightly unclear terms) confirms that the Euro, as seen from most of our main trading partners, became much more expensive since its introduction in 2002. Japan is the only significant exception, and Switzerland is not a main trading partner. Their extremely strong currency is an odd exception, caused by the particularities of their economy (and, some would argue, tax and risk evasion in the rest of the world). So both of the currently used graphs (Yen and SWF) are highly unrepresentative for the price, our main trading partners have to pay for a Euro. UK is a much bigger trading partner, and its coin has done completely the opposite. Shall we instead put the graphs of Europe's three biggest trading partners? Or is there a graph of the value of the Euro, expressed as a weighted averige of the coin of our main trading partners? (The text suggests it exists, and that would neatly illustrate the text)Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

interesting image of 1 cent coin in New Scientist

worth linking to? http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/12/euro-cent-money-shot.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandisk26 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited number of Euro's in circulation is expressed in terms of "billion". Long or short scale?

"As of September 2012, with more than €915 billion in circulation, the euro has the highest combined value of banknotes and coins in circulation in the world, having surpassed the US dollar."

is billion here 10^9 or 10^12 ? the cited source (ECB publication) also uses the word "billion", without more specification at: https://stats.ecb.europa.eu/stats/download/bkn_notes_val/bkn_notes_val/bkn_notes_val.pdf

Can the explicit number (without verb ambiguity) be found somewhere on the ECB website?