Skip Navigation
Europe @feddit.org
CAVOK @lemmy.world

Sweden sees strongest support for joining the Euro in 15 years

More Swedes want to switch currency from the krona to the Euro, with support the highest it's been since 2009, according to a survey by Gothenburg University's SOM Institute.

Paywall? https://archive.is/ZXdUu

World News @lemmit.online
Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online
BOT

Sweden sees strongest support for joining the Euro since 2009
www.thelocal.se /20250310/sweden-sees-strongest-support-for-joining-the-euro-in-15-years
2 0
58 comments

  • Giving up currency sovereignity is a terrible idea! That means the government has to "balance" its budget and can't print money to make up for shortfalls, forcing austerity.

    • The government has to balance the budget anyway, and devaluing your currency is a bit like peeing your pants. It's nice and warm for a bit and then increasingly uncomfortable.

      Inflation goes up, you see capital fights because you're not a reliable currency, you increase your national debt, and you instantly make the entire population poorer than their neighbor countries.

      So while there are some benefits, most economists argue against it.

      I can't say if Sweden going for the Euro is good or bad for Sweden, and there's a paradox in asking people about it, because if the SEK is weak then support goes up, but it's a bad time to join because of the low value, but if the SEK is strong then support goes down, although we'd be in a much position to join.

      • The government has to balance the budget anyway.

        This is neoliberal dogma with bad consequences for the majority. While there are plenty of economists who subscribe to it, there are plenty others who don't. Economics isn't a well proven science and as a result there are giant gaps filled with unproven hypotheses. While the primacy of budget balancing has been promoted by neoliberal economists since the 70s, evidence has been piling up against it for a while.

        Given that new money is created every time a private bank gives out a loan, the only real difference between the government having the ability to create new money or not is the difference between whether the government has to seek private capital (and pay interest on it) or not. Therefore removing the ability to print your own currency is simply shifting public policy power to private capital. Most people don't have enough private capital to participate, therefore it's an increase in the political power of a minority upper class including international actors. One result of this is private capital gaining the power to force austerity by not lending money in need, then profiting from that policy by buying up government services and operating them for profit, typically as monopolies. E.g. healthcare, power, water utilities. The demand for profit means price increases which means inflation.

        Therefore a responsible government should retain the ability to create its own currency, create it and destroy it by targeting metrics such as inflation and employment, not budget balances.

      • Inflation can be controlled. Public spending creates money and taxation destroys it, ensuring the total supply of money doesn't outstrip demand and cause inflaton. Without that sovereignty they can't create or destroy money, they are subject to the whims of the currency bloc.

        It's just another tool in the toolbox. Giving it up is foolish.

    • I agree with you on this, but I guess it should be noted that Sweden has routinely been running at a budget surplus since the 90s, and only recently removed the rule that enforced this, allowing the budget to be exactly balanced.

      At a great expense, as this has contributed to underfunding infrastructure and other forms of underinvestment in government-funded services.

58 comments