If you feel the need to take down capitalism then Tonight We Riot is out now

The individual countries can't print money, devalue their currencies to encourage exports

As I see it there is two main economics schools, Keynes and Hayek... I think both of them agree that destroying the value of the currency is bad.

The major policy implication of Keynesian economics is that the ability for governments to stimulate the economy during recessions is crucially important. The Euro combined with the EU rules on deficits make it impossible for Eurozone governments to do that. EU "austerity" doctrine is pretty much explicitly anti-Keynesian. And it has created a worse-than-lost decade in much of the EU.

The individual countries can't print money, devalue their currencies to encourage exports

As I see it there is two main economics schools, Keynes and Hayek... I think both of them agree that destroying the value of the currency is bad.

The major policy implication of Keynesian economics is that the ability for governments to stimulate the economy during recessions is crucially important. The Euro combined with the EU rules on deficits make it impossible for Eurozone governments to do that. EU "austerity" doctrine is pretty much explicitly anti-Keynesian. And it has created a worse-than-lost decade in much of the EU.

if you devaluate too much people will simply use another currency that doesn't like here... nobody uses our local currency for things like purchasing a car or buying a house.

I'd wager fewer economies have gotten in trouble from running the printing press too much than have gotten in trouble from owing too much debt in a currency they can't print. In fact, often when the proximate cause of a problem is running the printing press too much, the real problem is actually that other thing. So for instance, Weimar Germany's hyperinflation was caused by desperate attempts to scrape together "reparations" for WW I, which had to be paid in things like gold and British pounds. Their economy was too small to really produce enough stuff to pay the outrageous reparations, so they tried just buying gold with marks, and more marks, and more marks. But what few people know is that after the hyperinflation was over, they tried austerity, and bad though the hyperinflation was, the austerity hurt people even worse.
And that's the problem with the Euro--the member states can't print them. Anyone using the Euro is in effect using a foreign currency for their money, a currency they can't guarantee to pay debts in. If that weren't the case all those worries about Greece or Spain or Italy imploding financially due to a panic would have been irrelevant (and they went away precisely the moment ECB head Mario Draghi said that he'd print as many Euros as it took to make the problem go away--suddenly there was no risk in the loans, the vultures stopped circling and the interest rates went back down).
Japan on the other hand borrows yen like they're going out of style--but they control the yen so it's fine, they can't even get inflation to 2%.

I'd wager fewer economies have gotten in trouble from running the printing press too much than have gotten in trouble from owing too much debt in a currency they can't print.

Running the printing press or creating debt is the same thing done differently; both erode the common citizen's wealth: either through inflation or taxes.

I'd wager fewer economies have gotten in trouble from running the printing press too much than have gotten in trouble from owing too much debt in a currency they can't print.

Running the printing press or creating debt is the same thing done differently; both erode the common citizen's wealth: either through inflation or taxes.

They are not the same thing done differently at all. When you create debt you owe something to someone--and it really matters who. If you owe it to foreigners, particularly foreigners who have more influence over the international financial system than you, most particularly if it's in their currency rather than yours, they have you by the balls. There has been crisis after crisis caused by this. The miserable state of much of the third world has been more influenced by this than by any other single factor; creditors are able to manipulate interest rates and dictate policies to the vast detriment of the place. Internal debt isn't nearly as bad, but it's still distinct from money creation or "borrowing" directly from the central bank. Debt has distributional implications money creation does not--interest is paid mainly to certain wealthy groups.

More generally, though, IMO that drastically misinterprets what "wealth" and "money" actually are and the relationship between the two, not to mention the function of government. The question isn't whether you run the printing press, it's what you do with the money.
I see two levels. At a fundamental level, money is a fiction and wealth is real things. If you've built a bunch of railways and school buildings and hospitals and factories and grain elevators and telecommunications networks, that matters a good deal more than how much some symbols on spreadsheets are apparently "worth". At that level, government spending creates wealth simply because it literally creates wealth. Infrastructure is valuable. It enables a strong economy. Businesses borrow to grow the business all the time; it's the same with the government and the country.

At a less fundamental, accounting level, government spending is spent into the private sector. If governments run a surplus, that means that the private sector is in deficit--money is coming from the private sector into the government. After all, if it's neither printing money nor creating debt, the money has to come from somewhere. Government surpluses retard economic growth because they suck money out of the economy. Government deficits create economic growth by putting money into the economy.

True, if the economy is already running at full employment that's going to cause inflation--but only then. And that means that if government prints money during a deep recession for Keynesian "priming the pump" purposes, that will not create inflation unless and until the spending succeeds in bringing economic recovery.
(Inflation itself isn't as huge a deal as bondholders would have us believe. Inflation doesn't destroy wealth; no real asset goes away. What it does is redistribute claims on wealth--specifically, mostly away from bondholders, since bonds pay out at fixed interest rates. And to some extent towards debtors, because if you owe a fixed amount on, say, your mortgage, but the dollars aren't worth as much, you effectively have a smaller debt. If it's going so fast that people can't adjust it causes dislocation, for sure. But 5%, even 10% don't have a big impact on the economy as such)

(I skipped this thread because I thought it would be going south for sure, finding an interesting discussion when coming back days later. Thumbs up.)

We'll see how European socialism fares when the United States goes into decline and ceases to be the friendly global hegemon. Y'know, when they'll have to pay for all of their own defense budget.

United States, friendly? OK now I know I really can't take you seriously, whathever you say about countries being socialist or not, this is top notch.
But you're right on one thing for sure, the United States are in decline, and when this day comes up it won't be a bad thing. So many countries are so tied, economically and politically, to the USA that's pretty slavery.

I won't reply on this thread again, at least I shouldn't.

You didn't say anything of substance this time. How are you going to keep that NHS when you also have to pay three times as much for your military as you do now?

We'll see how European socialism fares when the United States goes into decline and ceases to be the friendly global hegemon. Y'know, when they'll have to pay for all of their own defense budget.

United States, friendly? OK now I know I really can't take you seriously, whathever you say about countries being socialist or not, this is top notch.
But you're right on one thing for sure, the United States are in decline, and when this day comes up it won't be a bad thing. So many countries are so tied, economically and politically, to the USA that's pretty slavery.

I won't reply on this thread again, at least I shouldn't.

You didn't say anything of substance this time. How are you going to keep that NHS when you also have to pay three times as much for your military as you do now?

What, for fear the eeevil Russkies will invade? They have neither the motive nor the capability. Europe and Great Britain have no need to be defended against anyone in particular.
Currently, the main thing the US is defending Europe against is the ability to have lucrative trade ties with countries the US disapproves of.

We'll see how European socialism fares when the United States goes into decline and ceases to be the friendly global hegemon. Y'know, when they'll have to pay for all of their own defense budget.

United States, friendly? OK now I know I really can't take you seriously, whathever you say about countries being socialist or not, this is top notch.
But you're right on one thing for sure, the United States are in decline, and when this day comes up it won't be a bad thing. So many countries are so tied, economically and politically, to the USA that's pretty slavery.

I won't reply on this thread again, at least I shouldn't.

You didn't say anything of substance this time. How are you going to keep that NHS when you also have to pay three times as much for your military as you do now?

What, for fear the eeevil Russkies will invade? They have neither the motive nor the capability. Europe and Great Britain have no need to be defended against anyone in particular.
Currently, the main thing the US is defending Europe against is the ability to have lucrative trade ties with countries the US disapproves of.

You honestly think you'll never need to ramp up your military again... That's both cute and sad.

We'll see how European socialism fares when the United States goes into decline and ceases to be the friendly global hegemon. Y'know, when they'll have to pay for all of their own defense budget.

United States, friendly? OK now I know I really can't take you seriously, whathever you say about countries being socialist or not, this is top notch.
But you're right on one thing for sure, the United States are in decline, and when this day comes up it won't be a bad thing. So many countries are so tied, economically and politically, to the USA that's pretty slavery.

I won't reply on this thread again, at least I shouldn't.

You didn't say anything of substance this time. How are you going to keep that NHS when you also have to pay three times as much for your military as you do now?

What, for fear the eeevil Russkies will invade? They have neither the motive nor the capability. Europe and Great Britain have no need to be defended against anyone in particular.
Currently, the main thing the US is defending Europe against is the ability to have lucrative trade ties with countries the US disapproves of.

You honestly think you'll never need to ramp up your military again... That's both cute and sad.

Insisting that everyone should cripple their economies out of vague hypothetical future fear is sad, but not cute.

We'll see how European socialism fares when the United States goes into decline and ceases to be the friendly global hegemon. Y'know, when they'll have to pay for all of their own defense budget.

United States, friendly? OK now I know I really can't take you seriously, whathever you say about countries being socialist or not, this is top notch.
But you're right on one thing for sure, the United States are in decline, and when this day comes up it won't be a bad thing. So many countries are so tied, economically and politically, to the USA that's pretty slavery.

I won't reply on this thread again, at least I shouldn't.

You didn't say anything of substance this time. How are you going to keep that NHS when you also have to pay three times as much for your military as you do now?

What, for fear the eeevil Russkies will invade? They have neither the motive nor the capability. Europe and Great Britain have no need to be defended against anyone in particular.
Currently, the main thing the US is defending Europe against is the ability to have lucrative trade ties with countries the US disapproves of.

You honestly think you'll never need to ramp up your military again... That's both cute and sad.

Insisting that everyone should cripple their economies out of vague hypothetical future fear is sad, but not cute.

Crack open a history book and look into evolutionary psychology. If you think humanity is done with war and violence, I got a bridge running through a swamp to sell you.