3 ms·

Well, crazygringo, let me issue & control your money for you then. Nobody said that they are forced. UK didn't adopted the Euro. It wouldn't have been so easy w

Well, crazygringo, let me issue & control your money for you then. Nobody said that they are forced. UK didn't adopted the Euro. It wouldn't have been so easy walking off in that case. I'm not so sure about the "free to leave" in the future part, considering the high cost that that would entail. And, in any case, in Croatia's case the advantages could very well outweigh the disadvantages. Curious what do you think of the "West African CFA franc"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_CFA_franc

crazygringo 4y ago
Nothing of what you're saying has any bearing on the term sovereignty, which was your original point. Sovereignty is a legal-political concept, and it has nothing to do with economic tradeoffs or benefits. Adopting the euro obviously has both potential benefits and potential drawbacks, and choosing to adopt it is rationally expecting that the benefits outweight the drawbacks. But that's just purely a matter of pragmatic decision-making. It does not affect Croatia's legal sovereignty.
- sfusato 4y ago
  When a third party controls your currency, they have some very effective levers over you. Let's not even enter the beneficent/maleficent scenario of the said 3rd party. That's what I'm referring to in regards to sovereignty. I'm sure you've heard of these sayings: He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation. Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    > That's what I'm referring to in regards to sovereignty. But that's not what sovereignty means. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Yes there are levers, but that doesn't make Croatia any less sovereign. Sovereignty is a word with an established, defined meaning -- it's completely and totally separate from economic influence, which is what you seem to be referring to.
    - jessaustin 4y ago
      I don't know how to make that any clearer. My suggestion would be to provide a reasonable definition of the word "sovereignty" which logically excludes the benefits or harms that a central bank may impose on users of its currency.

crazygringo 4y ago

Nothing of what you're saying has any bearing on the term sovereignty, which was your original point. Sovereignty is a legal-political concept, and it has nothing to do with economic tradeoffs or benefits. Adopting the euro obviously has both potential benefits and potential drawbacks, and choosing to adopt it is rationally expecting that the benefits outweight the drawbacks. But that's just purely a matter of pragmatic decision-making. It does not affect Croatia's legal sovereignty.

sfusato 4y ago
When a third party controls your currency, they have some very effective levers over you. Let's not even enter the beneficent/maleficent scenario of the said 3rd party. That's what I'm referring to in regards to sovereignty. I'm sure you've heard of these sayings: He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation. Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws.
- crazygringo 4y ago
  > That's what I'm referring to in regards to sovereignty. But that's not what sovereignty means. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Yes there are levers, but that doesn't make Croatia any less sovereign. Sovereignty is a word with an established, defined meaning -- it's completely and totally separate from economic influence, which is what you seem to be referring to.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    I don't know how to make that any clearer. My suggestion would be to provide a reasonable definition of the word "sovereignty" which logically excludes the benefits or harms that a central bank may impose on users of its currency.