[William Tell]

Olog-hai said: What “errors”?

I think there can be circumstances where two or more groups can form an alliance which allows mutual benefit.

The admission of Greece to the Union, given their incredibly poor level of contribution to the group, is one of the "errors" I was pointing out. Italy and Spain are simply less egregious examples.

[Olog-hai]

With all due respect, “contributions” in the EU does mean “redistribution”. And the euro fathers let Greece into both the EU and eurozone knowing full well the state of its economy, even manipulating things on the EU side to get them to come in. And now Greece (and frankly the EU at large) had political chaos ever since 2008, and that financial crisis (which the EU elites actually wanted) was caused by the European Central Bank raising interest rates continuously.

Remember this article from 2008? There were some details about what the founders of the euro currencey were up to.

The European Commission's top economists warned the politicians in the 1990s that the euro might not survive a crisis, at least in its current form. There is no EU treasury or debt union to back it up. The one-size-fits-all regime of interest rates caters badly to the different needs of Club Med and the German bloc.

The euro fathers did not dispute this. But they saw EMU as an instrument to force the pace of political union. They welcomed the idea of a “beneficial crisis”. As ex-Commission chief Romano Prodi remarked, it would allow Brussels to break taboos and accelerate the move to a full-fledged EU economic government. …

So they were encouraging Greece’s accession knowing full well that the ECB’s interest rate scheme was a bad fit for its state of being back then with respect to its economy. The political turmoil that resulted, they were expecting.