German and French senior leadership have been holding a series of coy summits in order bring some resolution to the
sovereign debt crisis across the Eurozone, whose uncertainty has strained the economy globally--coupled with America's insolvency. One crisis is always serviceable to distract from the other, but I suppose that Germany was incited to action by reports out of Wiesbaden (
Das Hauptsitz des Statistische Bundesamt) that the Wirtschaftswunder driving the markets of Europe had stagnated of late. Proposals of introducing Eurobonds, shares in public debt that have an equalizing effect on the interest-rates that states would incur for issuing more debt--Germany and France and other fiscally sound countries would share the same burden as Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal, were roundly rejected, though some say it is a quick and effective fix for the euro, because Germany and France argue that such an institution is not conducive to economic integration at the onset but rather during the culmination. Level-growth for Germany and Europe is not as reassuring as unbridled progress, however, sustainment is nothing to be ashamed of. Besides, the level of confidence of Germany's customers, trade-partners determine who's buying what and makes up at least half the indicators of an exporters' financial health. Debt management certainly cannot go unaddressed, but no radical changes are being touted: rather than a "collective government," they are espousing a shared-governance under the established European Union legislative and executive frameworks with more time devoted to consensus building on tax-collection, trade- and market-regulation, and management of pensions. Maintaining a common-currency that does not impose common economic policies is a challenge--essential for allowing individual state to keep their national character.
What is rumoured to be a significant topic of discussion, however, is the proposed financial transaction tax. How this will develop is complete speculation but it is not double-taxation or something to impede free-trade, rather, if it does glean something off the top from the frenetic activity of stock-brokers, it might prove to be a positive thing. For those who buy and sell but never hold a commodity for longer than a few seconds, maybe a market-tax might induce some stability and thinking beyond the horizon. Trades have been relinquished to computer algorithms that cause these wild variations from one minute to the next, especially on the US market--some brokerages are using computer-routines that spurs volume ever faster by considering the limits of the speed-of-light down a wire and adjust to make the way shorter. Taxing the blatant opportunists is not sour-grapes, but perhaps a way to tame markets and closer align stock-exchanges with the real economy.
