Talk:Euro/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Does Martinique use the euro

I think it does, if so the Martinique page should be edited (it still says they use french francs)

Yes it does. I haven't made any changes though, because I can't see where it says they use the Franc.

Useless info

The discussion is overlength and contains some very dated stuff. What is the procedure for archiving (or even deleting) it?

such as this: the change has been made

Article should focus Eurozone and not outter countries. This info:

Banks (European System of Central Banks (ESCB) - non eurozone)

Cyprus: Kentrike Trapeza tis Kyprou

Czech Republic: Ceska Narodni Banka

Denmark: Danmarks Nationalbank

Estonia: Eesti Pank

Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank

Latvia: Latvijas Banka

Lithuania: Lietuvos Bankas

Malta: Central Bank of Malta

Poland: Narodowy Bank Polski

Slovakia: Národná banka Slovenska

Slovenia: Banka Slovenije

Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank

United Kingdom: Bank of England

this is useless to an article name "Euro", a currency of 12 countries.The non-eurozone (at least those that are not in the EMU should be removed and a link to the European System of Central Banks kept. -Pedro 19:37, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keyboarding and the euro sign

All keyboards are not created alike. It is inappropriate to say only that "The Euro symbol [recte euro sign, cf. dollar sign] can be typed with Alt-0128", because this assumes several things. One is that everyone uses Windows. Another is that everyone uses a US keyboard. Indeed, Alt+0128 suggests to me a very old 8-bit character set.

On Mac OS X, the euro sign is typed (on British and US keyboards) with Shift-Option-2; on Danish and Finnish keyboards with Shift+4; on Russian keyboards with Shift-Option-4; on Norwegian keyboards with Option+4. CEN/TC304, a European Technical Committee of which I was a member, recommended that Alt-e be used for the euro sign, but because Alt-e is often a dead-key for the acute accent in Ireland and the UK, it was recommended to place it on Alt-4 (the same key as the dollar sign for mnemonics). The Mac OS deviation has to do with the placement of the ¤ currency sign U+00A4 which was replaced with the euro sign in MacRoman.

Personally I am sure that the £ pound sign on Shift-3 will be used for the euro sign if the UK ever joins the EMU. On British keyboards, anyway. (Note that keyboard layouts differ from physical keyboards, too, and users can easily switch between virtual keyboards.)

Another reason I object to tacking this phrase onto the section on encoding is that input has nothing to do with coding. Input doesn't even have to be manual; voice-to-text software could render "five euros" as €5.

I have no objection to a section on inputting methods for the euro sign, in principle, but it should not be Anglo- or Americano-centric, should not be tacked on to coding, and should take into account what has been said here. Evertype 21:09, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

Hi Evertype - thanks for the clarification. I'm using a UK keyboard, not American; trying the options you cite above on my keyboard, Alt-4 does nothing; Alt-e acts as a tab key in HTML (i.e., here, shifts the active frame to the 'save page' button). Shift-Option-2 (is that the same as shift+F2?) also does nothing. So far, only Alt+0128 actually produces the € symbol, at least on my machine.

"Indeed, Alt-0128 suggests to me a very old 8-bit character set" - I think it should be borne in mind that a very large number of people are not using the latest computer hardware or software. You shouldn't assume that everyone upgrades the instant that new technology comes out, but might wait several years to be able to get cheaper systems. And ditto for knowledge; the Alt+xxxx system is old-established, and therefore well known; new methods take time to filter down to everyone.

I would certainly agree that a paragraph of "how to type the Euro symbol" should be included. - MPF 08:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You don't say what system you are using, but it does sound old. I suspect Alt+xxxx doesn't work on newer Windows software because the character set is Unicode, not ISO/IEC 8859-1. You may have to use AltGr with some PC operating systems, too. Evertype 21:20, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

Here in Ireland, one generally expects Alt-Gr + 4 to work on a reasonably new PC keyboard with Windows. The reason Alt-Gr + E is not used in Ireland, is that here we use Alt-Gr + AEIOUaeiou to produce the Irish accented characters ÁÉÍÓÚáéíóú. All new keyboards have a € symbol to the right of the 4. I would have thought some of this is true for UK keyboard layouts also, but I don't know. Zoney 21:40, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, British PC keyboards are the same in both respects. -- Smjg 10:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Alt Gr + 4 works on my UK keyboard . . . so why is this keystroke so poorly advertised? (Alt Gr + e gives é for me too, which I did know, though Alt Gr + i doesn't give i-acute) - MPF 11:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So we should explain the above situation (UK + Irl), and situation for other EU members. Probably the US situation should be explained also. This could form a separate article, Keyboards and the euro sign, with a summary line (Euro symbol can often be produced by using a modifier key with another keypress) and link to article (or including charset info in an article Computers and the euro sign). Zoney 11:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please, fellow Wikipedians. The word euro does not get capitalized except at the beginning of sentences any more than Dollar or Pound do. And the name of the € "symbol" is the euro sign, cf. dollar sign, pound sign etc. Evertype 12:28, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

Apparently so, but for some reason I am used to capitalising currency names. Then again, the under-capitalisation of section headings on Wikipedia is also something I find goes against the grain. As regards symbol vs sign - well, again, force of habit. "Euro symbol" seems to have caught on. Perhaps because they originally intended for it to be an unalterable symbol (not stylised in fonts).

A further note - a quick look at ECB's site. They use "euro", but the main page even has a slip up - "Security features of the Euro banknotes". Zoney 15:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Currency names are not conventionally capitalized in running text in the English language. And you would never say "dollar symbol" or "pound sign" so there is no reason to "get used to" saying "euro symbol". Evertype 17:14, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

The reason why people (including myself) refer to the euro symbol as a symbol is because thats what the European Central Bank itself refers to it as. I much prefer the phrase symbol and don't understand why people have to be so picky. --Neal ricketts 08:08, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When the ECB devised it they thought, mistakenly, that it was some sort of unchangeable logo. That would be a symbol. But the term should be assimilated naturally alongside other currencies. Nobody says "dollar symbol" or "pound symbol" or "yen symbol". They are all called signs. It is reasonable, and good style, to do the same with the euro symbol. Evertype 11:06, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

Whilst on Wikipedia people might standardise on "euro sign", I reserve the right to talk about the "euro symbol" thank you very much. At least I don't call # a pound sign! Zoney 18:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"At least I don't call # a pound sign!" I call that making a hash of it . . . <groan> MPF 19:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plural of euros and cents

Plural of euros and cents: original policy discussion

Widipedian consensus was that the natural plurals "euros" and "cents" should be used throughout the English-language Wikipedia. Specific discussion of the topic in the euro article was moved to Linguistic_issues_concerning_the_euro. I have accordingly moved the Talk discussions to Talk:Linguistic_issues_concerning_the_euro Evertype 20:04, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

The recent "global conversion to cent" is vandalism and I will revert it very soon, though I am jetlagged today after flying from Singapore to London. NOTA BENE: Wikipedian consensus was that the natural plurals "euros" and "cents" should be used throughout the English-language Wikipedia. Evertype 21:33, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

Well, although not being involved in the recent amendments - I disagree with arguing that there is consensus. I am firmly convinced that "cent" and "euro" are the more common usage in Ireland now, for better or for worse. As regards official definitions, yes it's slightly more complicated once one gets into detail, but essentially one can claim the singular plural form as official also. Thus I see no reason why Wikipedians should standardise on the "natural plurals" just to be nice to the English language! zoney ♣ talk 12:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apparently the plural edit wars are back. This is an encyclopaedia. It is aimed at the general public. It should follow the recommendations of the EU's own translation section, which recommends that in all material aimed at the general public, the natural plurals euros and cents should be used. Previous Wikipedia discussion agreed with this point, and it is ridiculous that we have to keep coming back to fix this because some of my countryment feel proud in some way that they sport a plural mistakenly adopted by Charlie McCreevy's ministry and taken up by the Irish media as "what they were supposed to do". The plurals euros and cents are not incorrect, despite what 83.141.68.120 claims. The facts are on the side of the one who did the research, and in this case, that is me. Evertype 23:45, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Plural of euros and cents: discussion revisited

Moved to Talk:Linguistic_issues_concerning_the_euro

Plural of euros and cents: original discussion about Irish

Moved to Talk:Linguistic_issues_concerning_the_euro

Plural of euros and cents: discussion about Italian

Moved to Talk:Linguistic_issues_concerning_the_euro

Plural of euros and cents: discussion about Greek

Moved to Talk:Linguistic_issues_concerning_the_euro

Anti-euro attitude in the UK

There seems to be a very strong resistance to euroisation in the UK. Those against the euro claim the euro makes the economies using it weak. But is there another reason?

The British once ruled a vast empire and their currency, the pound, and customs were exported world-wide. The countries that make up the eurozone, especially France and Germany were British rivals for power in the past. Now the British see themselves being controlled by their former rivals and this irritates them.

The euro is a threat to the pound. The British feel the pound (and the dollar) as being threatened by the euro so they hate it and say nasty things about it and the EU. The more economies that join the euro make the dollar and pound even less significant. Since the pound is not a hegemonic currency, the British economy has to have high interest rates (4.5 % presently) compared to the EU and even the US, just to attract the same level of investment.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Euric 2004-06-12

Yes. There are two major (but related) influences that I see, certain (mainly right-wing) politicians, and certain press barons (notably, but far from only, Rupert Murdoch). Both of them for the same basic reason, that they have financial interest (directorships, shareholdings, etc) in banking, and are making substantial personal income from bank currency transaction charges. They dress this up in political speeches and with outright lies in the popular press, to delude people into believing that changing to the Euro is a major loss of sovereignty, as a cover-up to conceal their personal gain reasons. A rather supine pro-Euro lobby has not helped either. If it were more widely publicised that by having the Euro, Britons would be able to go abroad, or buy things from abroad, without having a substantial part of their money robbed by the banks, I am sure the position would change rapidly. - MPF 08:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have a question. From what I've seen reported in the media, I believe I'm correct in saying that since replacing their currencies with the euro, France and Germany's unemployment rates have risen drastically {something I've found much of the anti-euro lobby like to peddle out when justifying their viewpoint). As someone whose understanding of economics is limited (read: non-existent), this continues to bemuse me. What aspect of changing a country's currency has the effect of increasing unemployment by any major degree? A layman's-terms response would be much appreciated. - Fruity Gonzalez 22:06, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt there's any relationship. Can Zoney & Evertype confirm that the Irish economy has grown substantially in the same period? (as far as I know it has, though I'm not 100% certain) - MPF 13:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comparing the UK economy to that of France and Germany would be a more realistic comparason than doing so with Ireland. 's-Gravenhage 13:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One thing that would be interesting is to see if the UK would go for a common currency with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All are under heavy pressure to join their currency with a giant: the UK to the euro, Canada and Australia to the USD, and New Zealand to the Australian dollar. Joining up would prevent such a fate; having a national side on both the notes and coins would help assuage fears as well. The UK government could sell it at home as a Third Way between hunkering down and ignoring global commerce on one hand, and being swallowed by a nearby giant on the other. In fact they could paint is as more global than the euro, as it would be based on 3 continents rather than one. Thus appealing both to anti-euro rejectionism and the desire to be seen as progressive and joining and winning, expanding team. The other three would have to be convinced this isn't an effort to revive colonialism but is a euro-style currency union among sovereign states, but among fewer and more culturally and economically compatible countries than the euro. LeoO3 07:32, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but why would they still remain a member of the EU then? This would surely only confirm the nature of the UK's membership in the EU. (opportunism: give me money, e.g. agricultural support etc., but nothing else) --81.245.161.183 16:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Of course the UK is a member of the EU soley because its financially advantageous to be a member. Are you seriously suggesting that France and Germany are members only as part of some philanthropic gesture? --Pearcej 22:29, 25 May 2005 (PDT)

Back to the original question, my assumption is that the British see this as a critical issue of national sovereignty, as well as one of economic importance. Having their own national currency allows their national bank to make critical decisions on the money supply that can affect the economy. The United States' Federal Reserve, for example, reduced interest rates significantly earlier this decade and has allowed

no, it is more accurate to say that "this had the effect that". The Fed (and US Gov) don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

the dollar to depreciate in 2001. The former made it cheaper to borrow money; the latter made American exports cheaper abroad (while making imports more expensive), and is thought to have had a beneficial effect on the American economy. When a country has its own currency, it can do these things. If Britain signs on to the euro, it will be at the whim of the European Central Bank when it comes to currency decisions. If a euro nation wants to devalue or revalue its currency but the ECB disagrees, that country is screwed.

If California wants to a cheaper dollar, it is in exactly the same position. Remember, Califonia is about the same size as the UK, slightly fewer people, substantially larger GDP.

(In fact, I've been told that the Italian government has recently lobbied the ECB devalue the euro because it has made Italian exports expensive, but the ECB said no dice.) Funnyhat 06:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not correct. Italy wanted lower interest rates because it is overdrawn on its credit cards. The vast majority of Italy's exports are to the rest of the EU, so the world price of the euro would make minimal difference. And if Roberto Maroni (the Italian welfare minister and a member of the Northern League [think UKIP only more so - these guys want to leave Italy!] succeeded in his call the return of the lira, Italy would have a massive repayment bill on its euro-denominated loans.

--

By that logic, Scotland ought to have a separate currency from England, or California should have a different currency from New York. The day of closed national economies is over: the really big, continental scale, economies (USA, EU, China, India, Japan) are what matter now. That is why Brown's covergence test is so important. There are major risks to living on the collision zone of economic tectonic plates.

According to DTI data, over 60% of UK exports are within Europe, only one sixth are to North America (USA, Canada). Exchange dealing adds an avoidable cost.

Italy has a long history of sloppy economic government and deliberate internal inflation. Governments have known that they could evade accountability by letting the Lira slide and too bad for anyone with savings. Now they have to learn to behave responsibly and the adjustment hurts. Britain used to do the same thing: Black Wednesday was when it all came home to roost, because ERM exposed the intellectual sloppiness of the Lawson boom.

By the way, the US did not devalue. The dollar depreciated on the foreign exchange markets because the USA's double deficit policy. The US was sucking in imports and exporting dollar bills. When supply exceeds demand, the price goes down. --Red King 09:16, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You nitpick. The U.S. government did not officially devalue in the same legal sense that say, Mexico has done, but it has pursued a weak-dollar policy and has not made strengthening the dollar a priority.

The US asserts that it continues to have a strong dollar policy. Work it out: the US is the 600 pound gorilla - it is only concerned about its domestic economy and it doesn't care what that does or doesn't do to the rest of the world. The asian economies that it mainly imports from are locked to the USD anyway.

I don't know about the Scotland example, but your California/New York example is flawed. The U.S. states have a far more unified economic policy and fluid labor market than the EU does. It is commonplace for an American to relocate to a different state for a new job.

Turns out that that is a fallacy. High-flying execs and a few people who live near the state line do, but the huge majority of people don't (it's a generational thing)..

It is far less so for, say, a German to move to Spain. Many economists feel that monetary union was undertaken far too soon, before Europe's economies had truly become in synch with each other. The result is that the ECB's policies (not just with regard to currency value, but also interest rates) are virtually guaranteed to have seriously detrimental effects on certain member countries.

I don't disagree with that, but equally you can look at Bank of England policies that have been optimised for the south-east but ruinous for the midlands, north and Scotland. --Red King 10:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is talk in some countries of abandoning the euro. Here's are a couple of articles on the subject:

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,7369,1499159,00.html

 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1640754,00.html

Funnyhat 05:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Few serious analysts believe the eurozone is heading for break-up; ABN Amro put the risk at “5 per cent or less” and RBC saw it as only slightly more likely than Texas seceding from the US. But some argue that the fact it is being discussed may be enough to discourage Asian central banks for parking yet more of their vast reserves in the eurozone. " Financial Times

I recommend the short "Economics 101" booklet A Guide to The Euro by Prof J. H. Levin of Wayne State University in Detroit, home of the collapsing US car industry. (I have no connection). --Red King 10:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if it is time to take this discussion to another article? It is clogging this one. --Red King 10:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the eurozone may not be likely to break up, because the treaties that created it were shrewdly worded so as to offer little legal recourse for doing so. But this discussion was about the reasons why Britons would be opposed to the euro, not a cost-analysis of Italy's economic problems. There is widespread opposition to the currency within Europe; it is disingenous to pretend otherwise. Britons have legitimate reason to be hesitant about the currency. Now, even the German government is mad about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/06/03/cneuro03.xml

P.S. I live in Detroit, so you don't have to tell me about the auto industry. If you think U.S. currency policy is related to the Big Three producing crappy, troubled cars that don't get off the lots without 0% financing, and labor unions that refuse to accept any reduction in their ridiculously-generous benefit packages. I don't know what to tell you. And yes, I'm already familiar with Prof. Levin and his work. In fact, we used to play tennis together a few years ago.

To keep this page from becoming too crowded, I won't post further.

Funnyhat 20:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not NPOV

There are some very eurosceptic POV in the UK bit of EU-members outside the Eurozone, in particular There is a fear in the UK that the single currency is merely a stepping stone to the formation of a unified European superstate. This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" way of putting it. For the large majority of people, it is far more a fear of change and of the unknown. The contrary view is that, since intra-European exports make up 60% of the UK's total, it eases the Single Market by removing currency risk. This section need to be expressed as something more like "UK eurosceptics believe that the single currency..." and have the contrary argument put. I risk having my fingers chopped off, so I'm posting the intent to do so here first. I'd better add a link to the NOP euro opinion tracker to recognise that the NOs have a 2:1 majority on this. Any disagreement? --Red King 18:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've made the change. --Red King 21:06, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Euro exchange rate

I've heard credible theories that the euro/dollar fall before the introduction of the Euro coins and notes and it's rise following it was partly due to the large volume of cash stored by individuals and criminals in the Euro-zone. To avoid detection of untaxed cash income at the changeover day, such people changed their cash to dollars, and then back again to euros after the change. Anybody know more about this? Seabhcan - 02-04-04

Never heard of it. thought drop was only a result of lack of faith in a currency of which there weren't even notes and coins. After all, a currency is more dependent on trust than criminal changes. --81.245.161.183 16:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not true. It's because the U.S. government chose to devalue the dollar in 2001. The U.S. dollar's value has dropped against all currencies since then, not merely the euro. Funnyhat 07:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Multinationals

Someone should add more info on how this has allowed European countries/companies to become more multi-national within Europe.

Franc

I don't agree with the 'french franc' name. First of all, the 'franc' is the only currency which name has the same origin that its country. The 'franc' is (was) used in France. So it is wrong to precise 'french franc'.

Not at all. "Franc" is one old French word for "free", and the first "Franc" coins were minted when some French king was freed by the British. Of course, it probably helped that the name of the country was close to that of the currency. David.Monniaux 12:40, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now it is true that franc is (was) used in Belgium and in Switzerland and also in Africa. In these case you have to precise 'Belgian Franc'.

Well, the same 'mistake' (in my opinion) is done in France/Economy page, but it seems meaningless: if you translate 'french franc' in french, you get 'franc francais'...

Just call it 'franc'.

"French franc" is the usual English term for the (former) French currency, so it's what we should use in the English Wikipedia. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 4

Of course. It's a retronym, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. --LDC

If I well remember, the name of the "franc" (currency) should directly come from the name of the people of Francs, that initially established in Franconia (latin name in Tacitus). The territory of Francs was between current Holland (Salii Francs) and Köln (Colonia, Ripuarii Francs).

So, to be precise, it's the state of France which name has foreign origins, while the currency should be from those mentioned areas.

I seem to remember that in France the abbreviation was often FF, for "franc francais". It may be the original franc, but it needed to be specified, same way as the "US Dollar".

French people, when talking about foreign currencies, usually talk about "Francs belges" ("Belgian Francs") and "Francs français" ("French Francs"). In usual life, we obviously say "Francs". I guess the abbreviation FF has an international purpose -not to make confusion with other Franc-, so has this encyclopedia.

Lowercase currency names

I converted the names of currencies to lower case. The usage may seem unusual to some, but it is the normal spelling in official documents as well as the recommended style in both the AP Styleguide [US] and the style guide of The Guardian [UK]. I left the currency names with initial capitals in the list of exchange rates; I'm not sure if nouns used in that way should be in lower case.

You are right; Wikipedia style should be to use lower case. ("Can I have a Euro?" is as bad as "Can I have a Dollar?".) Initial position is a different context, and taste should guide. Evertype 20:08, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

External picture

I removed a link to a picture of the euro symbol on an external site which was presumably being used without permission. In any case, I think it is unnecessary as we can display the € symbol OK in Wiki (though not sure this works in all browsers). Also removed the true, but rather irrelevant observation that the euro symbol looks like the logo for the computer game Quake II!

Brilliant prose?

As a newbie, who still finds the idea of making any edit at all to this enyclopedia somewhat scary, it's particulary disconcerting to discover that this page was officially Brilliant prose (at least before I edited it). Maybe I should remove it from the brilliant prose page now :) Roybadami

"# damn -- managed to revert a previous edit by making a subsequent edit in a stale window)" -- AFAIK, you can revert a revert. Your saving of an old version has become the next version in the list. Go one version back. As for brilliant prose and editing, don't worry too much. You'll get used to it :) -- Tarquin

Possible dangers in management

Removed the following:

Some economists are concerned about the possible dangers of having a single currency managed by a variety of different governments...

This is just not accurate. The currency is not managed by a variety of different governments; rather there is a single monetary policy which is set by the ECB.

I also removed part of a sentence which claimed that the purpose of the EU is to prevent a war between France and Germany!

Nate Silva

There is a point touched on there, though; having one monetary policy for several nations, each with (at least slightly) varying fiscal spending and other policies. --Sam

• Nate, the point of the EU was originally to prevent another war between France and Germany! The theory was that by uniting their major industries war would be unthinkable. Grunners 01:22, 20 May 2004 (UTC)