There are a lot of micro-currency in Western Europe. Personally I believe it's a step back because it reeks of protectionism but it's all the rage among my leftist friends (am a leftist too, but not pro micro-currency).
Not just protectionism, but a sort of micro-nationalism that Americans haven't seen, because we don't have much history. For example, Spain calls itself a nation, but Catalonia recently tried to secede, and if you visit, you'll hear most people speaking Catalan. The Basques were recently blowing things up (ETA). And Leon resents Castile enough that you will see road signs spray-painted with "solo Leon" (only Leon), because "Castilla y Leon" was made into a single province.
Europe is an old place, for better and worse. I question this stuff, but I won't judge it.
While the Basque conflict was mostly about identity, and the Catalonian one is half about identity and half about economics, the Leon conflict is sheer economics.
The region took an economic hit during the 80s as the country transitioned to a tertiary-sector-heavy economy, which lumped together with the lack of investments from the new regional government and their inability to perform any sort of industrial restructuring quickly turned Leon from one of the most prosperous regions in the country to one of the least.
Basically the same issues and politics you see in coal country in the States.
While that is factually correct, the reference in the name of the autonomous community isn't to the city or the province, but to the Leon region [0], which expands to the south of the province, following old demarcations, and older language areas and finally the borders of the Kingdom of Leon [1].
I don't know if you're from Castile or from Leon, but I clearly screwed up by calling it a province instead of an autonomous community (or "nation," "mini-nation," or "sub-nation"?). As I wrote above, we (mostly) depopulated and repopulated a continent only a few centuries ago, so our history weighs much less than yours.
It is, but in Spain's case it is sometimes nationalism too, as the Spanish Crown rules over several different old independent kingdoms which have cultural differences and languages that stem directly from Latin (ex. Euskera).
I don't know where academics put the bar, but in my mind any area that has its own non-dialect language or was once an independent entity for a good while can claim to be a nation. Though not sure what the claim would mean in practice.
That said, I'd rather see all these things die down and have a strong EU of federated states of whichever size helps democratic and economic progress. Tall order, I know.
Interesting, I'd have thought it would be a more conservative thing. Keeping money local, protecting local businesses. Maybe that's why they're moderately popular? They cross the political divide.
Looking forward to a sustainable economy requires some protectionism against globalism. That's how the left became protectionist in many European countries.
Here I am hoping anyone still cares about federated, democratized powers and people having the right to control their own money supply.
The Fed can print 4 trillion dollars for Wall St and people don't care. That's getting pretty close to half of GDP for one year (at the time). Hundreds of millions of people's work product...
If they're going to print money like that at least inject it into the economy by buying stuff like free healthcare or education.
Can you tell me when people have been able to control their own money supply at any point in history and have it be worth anything? It has always been in the hands of a mint of some sort of shackled to the base metal if done by weight.
There are plenty of examples of leftists not being protectionist. The Girondins of revolutionary France were very pro free market, something that lost them a lot of support among the starving sans culottes. The more radical Mountain factions appear to have mostly supported protectionist measures, namely maximum prices, largely out of the need to stop the mobs of Paris from literally storming the legislative halls. The moment the parisians believed that the maximum didn’t work, they were dropped.
Internationalist yes, but not pro-free-trade. And in practice it was always almost always the opposite of that.
In Europe all the hard-left parties were anti-EU precisely because they were opposed to free trade and wanted to protect the local markets.
Kind of an outlier, though, because the Republicans typically cheer free trade (but then put tarrifs on shoes, cheese, tires, etc, etc, and of course subsidize big agribusineess, Wall St., etc).
1. The Democrats are not leftists. Liberals are not leftists.
2. Ideologically speaking both US Republicans and US Democrats are Liberals and pro-free trade, Trump is an exception.
Language changes, and in American English at least, the definition of liberal has changed. If you use the word liberal to describe what we might refer to as "classical liberal", you will needlessly confuse people.
It is 'cozy' and 'underdog' in a way that fits the memetic zeitgeist essentially - not something sensible in itself. Like 'buy local', food miles, and other fallacies that disregard production efficiency entirely.
Currencies are a simple market based solution to the problem of trade imbalances. The appreciation/depreciation mechanism automatically makes it cheaper to import from countries that import a lot more than they export and expensive to import from countries that export a lot more than they import. This allows poorer countries to grow faster than richer countries because it is cheaper to invest there.
If you have a single currency over a single large economy then you have to do correct these imbalances manually via transfer payments that manually redistribute the wealth from the wealthiest regions to the poorest. There are a lot of things that can go wrong here. The size of the transfer payments may not be large enough to have any effect and it is not politically acceptable to increase it. (One of many small reasons for Brexit) Of course they are right because it is their wealth but this kind of solidarity is necessary to reduce inequality between countries that share the same currency. Then you need to make the decision which countries receive the transfer payments and which countries pay them. Again this is a problem that could be easily avoided by having multiple currencies.
