Paul Krugman and Milton Friedman both were against the eurozone. I don’t see how “conservatives” have such a monopoly on the currency itself.
But the story doesn’t stop there. Given that the euro was created, the core governments were fine with bailing out their own banks by having their public institutions take on the debt. Obviously there are plenty of conservatives who hate bank bailouts, but regardless of the ideological spectrum elsewhere, we can see that inside the eurozone that decision was made by people on the more “conservative” side of the spectrum. Would a “liberal” have used public money to bail out banks instead of letting the banks fail and then reorganizing them? People on the European left are certainly complaining about it now, while the establishment conservatives seem to me more quiet on the issue.
The ECB has a mandate for price stability, by international treaty. This mandate is defined as an inflation rate over the medium term of almost, but not quite, 2%. Yet core inflation in the eurozone has been less than 1% since 2014. Headline inflation actually went negative. Since the financial crisis in 2008, the Fed in the US has had three different rounds of QE. The ECB started its first round in January of this year – seven years after the fact – and they still haven’t done enough to meet their own legal mandate and they have no apparent plans to do more. Would “liberals” in charge of the ECB have done more? Yes. Yes, they would have. Milton Friedman would be criticizing the ECB to hell and back if he were still alive, but inside the eurozone it’s the more conservative inflation-haters who are in charge.
Likewise, I could create a long list of problems that the European left hasn’t fully acknowledged. But there are other threads for that and I’d like to take a different approach.
There’s a broader issue here.
Blame is a funny thing. Human beings aren’t very good at it. It’s always the other guy’s fault.
Imagine a series of switches, and a set of workers whose job it is to flip their own switch when they arrive at their station in the morning. Say there’s five switches, and all five need to be flipped, but on a certain day two of the five workers neglected their job. Shit is fucked. So how do we assign blame to the two who failed at their job? Do we split the blame in half? Is each person 50% responsible? Hmm. Maybe such diminished blame is not quite fair. Both tasks were necessary conditions. Each task was not sufficient in itself. So in a sense, both people were 100% responsible.
But if you ask either one, they’ll point out that it didn’t actually matter what they did because the other guy fucked up. The buck stopped somewhere else. There are always ways to spin the story, too. What if one person is a new worker, and the other a veteran? What if one switch takes a lot more effort to flip? What if one worker has a well-earned reputation of irresponsibility? People will always point this stuff out. How much weight does each excuse earn? A 5% shift of the blame? A 15% shift?
Such a discussion would never end.
We could talk about relative blame all day, mitigating circumstances and all that nonsense, and in the end, it doesn’t really matter. Both switches need to be flipped. End of story. Everybody is wagging the finger, and everybody is pretty much right in doing so. People have fucked up all over the place. If we had a coolly rational Mr Spock to assign blame, and he gave 63% to one side and 37% to the other, then I guess that would be fine.
But we don’t have Vulcan dispassion. We have human beings who are eager to blame the outgroup. The only way to stop that buck-passing would be for both sides to acknowledge 100% of the blame. There were switches that weren’t flipped on both sides, and every switch needing flipping. There are all manner of important lessons to be learned, but the anger at the outgroup’s mistakes has become so intense that basically no one is acknowledging their own fuck-ups. The series of Greek governments have been an extended clown show that’s lasted more than a decade, and the ECB’s decisions have arguably been the worst by any central bank since the Great Depression.
There are plenty of legitimate lessons to learn from all over the European ideological spectrum. We genuinely do not have to pick and choose one side or the other.