AHC/WI : Latin Monetary Union

The Latin Monetary Union was a failed temptative to standardize european currencies, and at term, to create a single unified currency for all its members.

How LMU could have suceed at least to maintain a lasting monetary standardization, and possibly a common currency?
What economical changes would have been necessary?

And, admitting an at least partial success, what would have been the consequences?
 

Deleted member 67076

The Latin Monetary Union was a failed temptative to standardize european currencies, and at term, to create a single unified currency for all its members.

How LMU could have suceed at least to maintain a lasting monetary standardization, and possibly a common currency?
What economical changes would have been necessary?

And, admitting an at least partial success, what would have been the consequences?
I think fiat currency might be necessary for this to work.

But first things first, what were the differences in wages between Spain, Italy, Portugal and France at the time the LMU would have approved a common currency?

Personally I think this would be a huge boon- for France. Ties much of the economies to the French sphere and gives French banks more room to act internationally. The other countries might benefit as the French would probably force the administrations to act better, but on the other hand, it'll be harder to pay off debt with an overvalued currency, and forced austerity and what not.

If its a success, I think this speeds up Western European integration under a French dominated bloc. Also more migration to and from France, so the French population might be larger.
 

Deleted member 67076

Also, I think this might be better served if France was able to support Italian unification under the Savoyards earlier, given Wiki tells me the Papal states did a lot of metal debasement which infuriated the rest of the Italians. Thus, earlier unification under more thorough economic integration would better serve everyone in the Union. Same thing with the Greeks.

Really, the constant debasement and lack of actual economic integration (common market, reduction of trade barriers, mutual investment and increasing the ease of migration) was what it looks that doomed the union. Need to fix that somehow.
 
I can't really see this happen in its intended form and last. The creation of a single currency will be seen as some sort of loss of sovereignty by the nations that are not France. What I can see is, as the currencies become fiat currencies, the Latin Monetary Union becomes some sort of basket of currencies a la European Currency unit. That way, the non-French nations feel that they have independent currencies when in reality that's only partially true.
 
The Latin Monetary Union was a failed temptative to standardize european currencies, and at term, to create a single unified currency for all its members.

How LMU could have suceed at least to maintain a lasting monetary standardization, and possibly a common currency?
What economical changes would have been necessary?

And, admitting an at least partial success, what would have been the consequences?

It was doomed from the start. You can't lastingly have a monetary union without a common treasury to compensate in favour of countries that run structural current account deficits.

So the monetary union fails when a strong economic shock occurs. Unless the countries that are structural losers in the union accept to lose again and again and again, until they are completely peeled off.
 

Deleted member 97083

Perhaps an earlier, stronger Zollverein could encourage a surviving Latin Monetary Union?
 
You can't have a long term monetary union without having a single fiscal union as well. See what is happening to the Euro, a monetary union without a fiscal one that allows members to overspend themselves to bankruptcy.
 
Top