Credit Loan Civilization Finale - Insights Regarding European Union Developments

Question nr.1 answers given by my fellow citizens are divided, and this summer polemic between the Euro MP Theodor Stolojan and Daniel Daianu (member of the Romanian National Bank Board of Directors) in the financial newspaper BURSA has shaped up the idea we could adopt Euro anytime (given the condition of maintaining the macroeconomic balances), an idea opposed to the one claiming Euro adoption should wait till the convergence criteria would be fulfilled.

Sure enough, there's also the thought Euro mustn't be adopted by Romania regardless, and the "soft' Leu should be retained, periodically devalued in order to regain the macro indicators' harmony, avoiding the Greek mistake repeat; for some Euro adoption means "More Europe' and "More Europe' means "More Dignity', and consequently they ignore all the economic arguments; and there's also a faction considering the Leu retention as the ultimate sovereignty item, and dignity, implicitly.

A)To mediate Stolojan and Daianu positions I have figured out a geometric pattern. (fig. 1)

Pattern wise the currency stands at the centre of the 'Pentagon's Macro Economic Stability Indicators' (GDP real growth, unemployment, inflation, budgetary deficit and external debt) as value expression, and aslo as a systemic synthesis.

Graphilly, the Romanian adoption of the Euro currency leads to the Euro Zone Pentagon overlapping, let's say (b), the Romanian Economy Pentagon, let's say (c), hence the tensions generated by angular demension and orientation differences by the two overlapped Economy Pentagons' sides (d) should be decided in favor of the force behind the indicators.

Apparently, the graph pattern suggests Euro Zone Pentagon and Romanian Pentagon should be similarily shaped at the time of Romania adopting Euro as national currency.

B)The macro economic stability hinges on the currency market for itself. Adopted as a solution for the overindebted Euro Zone States, the euro issuance is nothing else than a suplimentary debt undermining the currency; the overindebtness is not a Romanian problem, but on the adoption day the Romanian economy will be directly affected by the improper quantitative easing.

In other words, Euro Zone dosen't fulfill certain demands in order to succeed substituting Leu with Euro.

The next three questions have already gotten answers from the Nobel Prize winners for Economics, answers presented as readily available EU solutions for the overindebtness crisis: they recommend an European budget and an European fiscal authority (Edmund S.Phelps, Christopher A. Pissarides), and even explicitly press for an European Finance Ministry (Dale Mortensen) and Europe's federalization (Joseph Stiglitz and other prestigious economists), the American way. Naturally, Europe's federalization would justify an EU budget, a Finance Ministry, even an EU government, and the Euro Zone extention for all member states, thus EU states syncronization would be accomplished by the classical methods of unicentrist, pyramidal organization.

But Europe is not a federal state and the Nobel Prize winners' recommendation in favor of a federal state is not exactly an economic recommendation but a political one; moreover, "quantitative easing' is not a theoretical solution but a pragmatic speculation of the dollar as an international currency, requiring the reorganization of the interest loan civilization basis.

The three questions have in common the political interrogation regarding the idea of integrated and centralized decisions in EU.

Eastern Europe will be haunted for a long time by a worrisome sensitivity when it comes to unicentrism idea in the aftermath of the "democratic centralism' traumatic practices ("jointing the centralism with democracy, the centralized leadership with the collectivity members participation') programmatically exercised by the communist regimes, the main cause of the communism demise.

However, "the democratic centralism' is just another name for the "subsidiarity principle' recommended by the Vatican six years ago in favor of a World Government:

"According to the logic of subsidiarity, the higher Authority offers its subsidium, that is, its aid, only when individual, social or financial actors are intrinsically deficient in capacity, or cannot manage by themselves to do what is required of them.'

In communism the subsidium was forcibly given against the individual actors' will under the pretense of general welfare.

The "subsidiarity principle' (also mentioned in the PPE Political Manifesto, elaborated at the 2012 Bucharest Congress) and/or the "democratic centralism principle' reappear in every human society pyramidal establishments aiming to preserve the appearance of democracy, and this phrase represents the answer for nr.2 and nr.3 questions, since both a European Union Finance Ministry and a European Union Budget constitute decisive steps for the pyramidal construction through European Union federalization and centralized construction of an "European Government", the explicit wish expressed seventy years ago in "Charter of Hertenstein", recurring ciclically in the contemporary leaders' allocutions.

The Eastern European experience regarding the pyramidal constructions and "democratic centralism' cannot be ignored without the risk of repeating it at continental scale, accompanied by a deeper integration than the one performed by the defunct Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), that didn't have a budget or a Finance Ministry.

Question nr.4 seems to include the implicit answer, that is how could two sovereign entities syncronize other than by relinquishing some sovereignity to a superimposed coordinator as the result of federalization?

Since syncronization/coordination are necessary in millitary operations (when the democratic organization is suspended), this is not allowed for a civilian management functioning in democratic administrations, whether in the social, economic or/and financial sphere, its main role meant to referee in favor of a continued development.

The pyramidal unicentrism is opposed by the polycentrism.

The economic decisions' polycentrim is emphasized in Elinor Ostrom's research studies, the 2009 Nobel Prize winner for Economics, who cautions us against a global level government inability of solving the problems of collective actions coordination, as in the case of enviromental damages, for instance.

On the one hand the inability arises from the problems complexity, and on the other hand from the diversity of the elements involved in such actions.

Elinor Ostrom suggests a polycentric approach, when management decisions are made as close as possible to the scene of events by the actors involved in it.

"What we have ignored is what the citizens can do by themselves and the importance of the people actually involved as opposed to just having someone in Washington issue a rule', has pleaded American Elinor Ostrom.

Starting from this perspective I suggest we treat the banking system, the capital market system and the financial/budgetary system as an ecosystem composite.

Are the banking-financial systems poorer, when it comes to articulation, stratification and super-structuring, than the ecosystems? I imagine not.

Well then, if the African pastures management can only be done efficiently by locals and not by "someone issuing a rule in Washington', according to Ostrom (or in Brussels, I might add), then I don't think the financial-banking and fiscal/budgetary ecosystem's efficient management would be possible otherwise than based on polycentric principles.

In my book, published in 2015, entitled "Crisis Solution/Terminus a Quo', I have stated that the crisis solution is not of financial nature but consists firstly in accepting accepting the fact the interest loan system has exhausted its functionality, making necessary the imagining of a desirable world.