What exactly is your point? If we see market prices as reasonably efficient, the current Euro price shows that the typical "Stupid Eurocrats idiotic mismanagement of the flawed Euro project will lead to European collapse in 2 weeks" simply doesn't have a base in reality.

Individual (small) countries may fail, the system will be fine, and misinformed doomsayers will - as always - end up making fools of themselves.

> What exactly is your point?

The euro is up 16% because there are more dollars in circulation chasing the same number of euros. Same for the pound.

A deflationary environment in Europe (what are prices doing in Greece? What is the Spanish unemployment rate?) is exactly what you would expect, and the Euro up 16% against the USD and 23.3% against the UK pound is evidence of that.

Or to put it another way: You quote evidence that supports the point you are trying to refute.

(Perhaps you are being confused by the term "up" in currency exchanges? It makes exports more expensive, which makes the deflation worse since fewer employees will be needed.)

You do realize that I quoted numbers for the last 10 years? Since the Eurocrisis started, the Euro has losses of around 6-10% against the other major currencies, so your deflationary argument isn't really sound.

All I wanted to say is that in the long run, foreign exchange rates express some form of judgment about the soundness of a currency. The markets still consider the Euro a very sound and safe currency - at least more so than the USD and the UK pound. A weaker exchange rate might be preferable, but that is not a way Europe wants to go. Instead of printing money, the idea is to restructure the economy. In the short run this will of course be super painful and allow commentators to shout "Look, austerity has failed". Let's talk again in 2025, bond yields for Greece,Italy,Spain are already down...

"You do realize that I quoted numbers for the last 10 years?"

No, you didn't. You compared two isolated data points.

If you look at the actual graph of the last ten years, the Euro has been both considerably higher and considerably lower against the dollar over that period.

The ECB does effectively print money by buying commercial banks' bonds with newly created money.

Draghi said last year that the ECB is prepared to purchase "unlimited amounts", so if there is a bank run, the central bank will fill up the banks' balance sheets as necessary (in theory).

> with newly created money.

No. This is exactly the problem: The echoes of the German hyperinflation of the 1930s are still being heard, so Merkel and crowd have repeatedly stood against printing.

As for the ECB purchases, those were "sterilized" as opposed to "quantitative easing", which is what the Fed does. http://blogs.wsj.com/eurocrisis/2012/09/06/the-ecb-steriliza...

The linked article is about ECB buying government bonds. But the ECB also buys bonds from Eurozone commercial banks, and this is where new money is being created.

It does end up on the central bank's balance sheet, but there's no event that would force the bank to ever write it down. Those hundreds of billions in loans can stay unpaid for hundreds of years if necessary.

All the lending to commercial banks is secured lending, they have to provide collateral to the ECB. The less good quality stuff is lent by individual central banks, so governments underwrite it. There is no unsecured buying of bank debt (banks can use covered bonds as collateral but again that is secured). And the LTRO is only three years. So it is not like you suggest at all.

Thanks and sorry, I was clearly misinformed. I must have taken some "stuff they say on the Internet" at face value.