> It seems to me that the article is just listing facts. How so? It starts with 'The euro might be worse for you than bankruptcy.' This sentence is so vague t

> It seems to me that the article is just listing facts. How so? It starts with 'The euro might be worse for you than bankruptcy.' This sentence is so vague that it does not make any sense at all. It 'might'? For 'you'? I live in the Eurozone, in Germany, and I fail to see how it is worse than 'bancruptcy. How is growth related to `bancruptcy` of a tiny island? `the results have still been a catastrophe` - low growth in the Netherlands is a catastrophe? Last I looked the Netherlands were a nice country, far form being a 'catastrophe'. 'Now, the normal way to make up for this would be to cut costs by devaluing your currency, except that Finland doesn't have a currency to devalue anymore.' The 'devaluing' theory. Not again. 'since you have to fire people to convince them to take pay cuts.' More theory. Look at Germany. Workers agreed to keep wages stable. Outcome: record low unemployment. 'Iceland' - Iceland has just 300k population on an island. Comparing it to the Netherlands, Greece or Germany is just wrong. Different size, difference situation, different banking system, ...