I have been asked to prepare a short question for the european summit in October. I have prepared three. They are broad and purposely rethorical to quench my impatience.
I.
To date the Eurozone is the most highly civilized arrangement between former warring states to provide public goods of primary importance: peace and prosperity. By constructing the Union, Europeans, want to maintain their status of paragon among other regions of the planet.
Can you describe what would be the consequences for the international order of a failure of the European project?
II.
Do you think that the current institutional framework is able to provide for consistent macroeconomic policies in periods of calm and rapid and responsible decisions during period of crisis, or is it prone to free-riding behavior and naive "fallacy of composition" analysis by individual members?
III.
The current narrative ascribes the incapacity of European leaders to agree to the war between two world views. It is again the old dispute between the short run and the long run. (Strangely enough we had been taught that the dispute had been settled by the Samuelsonian neoclassical synthesis.) When do you think European leaders will present and offer a shared analytical framework on the economic functioning of the Eurozone?
