Well, you say it yourself, a little. But I might have been wrong - the US dollar no longer seems undervalued, at least not against the euro, though it has been for a long time:
As the link above (google - I feel lucky) shows, people are messing about with actual performance anyway. The point is, and I have made it before, that countries like Italy would be doing badly independently of whether they had a separate currency. And noone has responded to my argument about relative performance of different US states either.
It’s a transition period, but Italy is so horribly messed up as a country politically that it doesn’t make for a proper argument. Italy is a special case - it’s a very corrupt ridden society. But I don’t think they’re going to get away with it now. The defense against outside takeovers isn’t so much government policy as it thrives on individual corruption - as in this case, close friends helping each other out. It happens in other countries too, sure, but less so on the state level; and on the other side of the scale there are the Air France and KLM mergers. It’s not like US States are 100% integrated either - neither New York or California are much like Texas in that respect.
Your cycle theory is fine, understood, old, and valid within the separate currency debate. But it doesn’t say anything about how a big country with many states like the U.S. solves this in terms of different economic regions. But it does exist, in the form of consumer price inflation and wage fluctuation, unemployment and so on. Instead of having a valued currency difference, you deal with local costs of living, wages and taxes. It’s a valid alternative, and works with your cycle theory in the same way as currency valuatoin.
That’s just not true. They’re cycles have run differently. The U.K. has been doing really, really badly for a long, long time, and as such became a cheap place (except London) with a lot of poverty and poor employee protection. Sweden has been doing badly also in a period where other economies were still booming. The Netherlands is in the negative part of its cycle - it was doing extremely well, somewhat overheated its economy when labor markets got so tight that wages shot upwards, and is now paying the price for not having been able to slow down its economy (something unnatural for your version of the cycle theory, but if Dutch companies hadn’t gone insane and simply refused to raise wages too substantially, like for instance IT companies, they’d not have crashed nearly as badly). It also bears pointing out that recessions notwithstanding, a negative growth means less if your standard of living and wealth remains some of the highest in the world and still much higher than before the economic boom.
Don’t you tell me about bicycles, dude. 
There is nothing old-fashioned about them - they are increasingly useful and still developing quickly. There is also nothing old-fashioned about economic cycles, although they are certainly older than bicycles. But currency’s part in economic cycles, now there is something old-fashioned. Surely you remember why and when people just started buying dollars in certain unstable currency regions? Certain regions outside of the U.S. and politically completely unrelated effectively run on the dollar. What if everybody in the whole world did just that?
Utopianists?? Utopianists don’t point to problems. They believe in dream worlds. Like the one where people think that a currency is somehow the key to economic cycles. I believe they are indicators of economic cyclesas much as they are tools to fool economic cycles. But they are not essential to the existence of economic cycles, or even particularly conducive to them.
It’s that simple, huh?
Sounds more like a kind of stagnation. But it’s also false. The Euro is rapidly becoming a backup to the dollar.
None of your arguments make any sense, so far.
