I think you know on its face that’s not even remotely equivalent to what we’re talking about here. Each country you’re referring to is a part of the EU and as a member still has control of the overall policy. Just because they agree to making it democratic doesn’t somehow mean that private individuals now operate outside the scope of their collective control.
> I think you know on its face that’s not even remotely equivalent to what we’re talking about here
I did not know. The phrase "complete control over monetary policy" has a very specific meaning and I stand by my response as a counterexample to that meaning.
And I don't think this is an unreasonable misunderstanding! People do worry about Bitcoin w.r.t monetary policy, a future of "hyperbitcoinization" where the world runs off a deflationary currency seems undesirable, to say the least.
If that is not what you intended then even given your clarification here I'm still not sure what you meant to say with that phrase.
The European Parliament has regulatory powers over the ECB that are almost exactly the same as the Congress' powers over the Fed, even down to the numbers.
So yeah, Germany does have control over its own monetary policy, they just made a political choice to share that power with France, Italy, Spain, etc.
I think I've lost the thread here, I am aware that each of the member countries have some control.
However, for example, my understanding is that Greece was _forced_ by the ECB and others to undertake some wildly unpopular austerity measures. It doesn't sound like they had a lot of control. If Germany were to go through a similar crisis my understanding is that it could also be forced to take measures Germans do not approve of.
I'm not passing any judgement here! But surely we can both agree that Greece (and Germany) do not have full control over their monetary policies and still exist as independent countries, that's the only point I wanted to make.
> However, for example, my understanding is that Greece was _forced_ by the ECB and others to undertake some wildly unpopular austerity measures. It doesn't sound like they had a lot of control.
They weren't forced per se. Their government was close to bankrupt, facing loan repayments it couldn't pay. The choice was either refinancing or default. The EU offered refinancing loans, but on strict conditions including austerity measures. The Greek government decided that those austerity measures, as painful as they were, were a lesser evil than the immense economic chaos and uncertainty a default would cause. The situation the Greek government faced wasn't hugely different from that repeatedly faced by some other governments such as Argentina. The main difference between Greece and Argentina is that Argentina controlled its own monetary policy, and hence had some control over exchange rates; but, when faced with massive debts you can't repay (denominated in international currencies), control over your own exchange rates is only of modest help.
It was commonly said at the time that if Greece defaulted it would have to leave the Eurozone. I'm not sure how true that actually is – the Eurozone has no formal mechanism to expel a member, and so if a defaulting Greece refused to reintroduce the drachma, I don't think there is anything the ECB could do to actually force them to. However, in such a dire economic crisis, there is a decent chance the Greek government may have decided that leaving the Euro was the best option, and negotiated with the EU for a voluntary departure. Since default was avoided, it never came to that.
This description seems to apply to most European countries, who have explicitly given up some control of their monetary policies.
So, Germany, for example, seems to contradict your thesis that any such country would quickly cease to exist.