The euro was from the beginning a "political conceit."  Anyone with a basic knowledge of economics could predict that a monetary system built on the principle of one-size-fits-all interest rates for 17 different nation-states with vastly divergent economies would end in disaster for its participants. 

Why pursue a system so contrary to sound economic principles?

The most logical answer, as evidenced by the statements of European integrationists, but also by the proposals of many globalist opportunists now conspicuously entering the scene, is that the Eurozone was designed to fail.  The euro exists arguably to undermine national economic sovereignty and create an artificial need for regional political cooperation, much like the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the earliest attempt at European political integration.  The theory behind the ECSC was essentially that if Germany and France were forced to submit to common control of natural resources, war might be averted.  It was Jean Monnet who said:

There will be no peace in Europe if the states are reconstituted on the basis of national sovereignty...Europe's nations should be guided towards their superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose but which will irreversibly lead to federation.

Former President of the European Central Bank Wim Duisenberg, echoing Monnet, several years ago said that "monetary union" must go hand in hand with "political union."

A nation without control of its money is a nation without any real power.  How can a nation project power without the ability to guarantee the liquidity necessary to mobilize military elements?

Despite the method of cloaking loss of sovereignty in economic terms, currency unions are never an easy sell, unless there is a natural impetus towards financial integration.  Current proponents of financial integration are the same individuals who over the last few decades advanced a movement to liberalize global capital markets with the object of increasing capital mobility to the point where sudden shifts in capital flows could have untold consequences, causing exchange rate volatility, disrupting world trade, and creating an artificial need for a common currency. 

The euro is but a step on the ladder, a means to an end.  The proliferation of regional governments at varying stages of development worldwide is another important step, and it suggests a natural question: "regions of what?"  Clearly, something beyond our present structure is the aim.

Including states in the Eurozone with underdeveloped economies and grave fiscal vulnerabilities is a recipe for currency failure.  Accidents usually lack the meticulous pyramidal organization that is observable in the collapse of the U.S. housing market, as well as in the European debt crisis. 

The euro's collapse will impact markets worldwide, rippling to the U.S. market and dealing a deadly blow, enabling proponents of currency union to rush forward with the answer.  This time, however, the project will be global in scope and touch everyone, dramatically altering the way the world economy, and more specifically, nations, interact. 

As with any global agreement which pools sovereignty to achieve an alleged global "good" -- e.g., the WTO -- America would most likely bear the brunt of monetary union's many problems, the biggest of which is the incompatibility of business cycles amongst union members.  Monetary unions create booms in some countries and busts in others, due to the unavoidable variance in the impact of unitary interest rates, resulting in the failure of the union and its instruments.   The result of a monetary union can be summed up in one word: Greece. 

For world citizens to surrender sovereignty over vital financial matters, something would have to happen to make a shift of this nature seem necessary, even desirable. 

Actions taken recently at meetings of the G-8 put the U.S. and Europe on the path to what vaunted economist John Maynard Keynes once called "financial Dunkirk."  The present trajectory is due in part to the unanimous embrace by the Federal Reserve and ECB of a dangerously fallacious monetary policy called Quantitative Easing (QE). 

QE, a last-ditch tool utilized by central banks when interest rates are either at or below zero, is a policy that always leads to hyperinflation, stagflation, and high levels of worker displacement, as businesses slash payrolls to adjust to the new cost of operation.  In short, QE causes market distortions that result in investment decisions based on the appearance of nonexistent growth and the illusion of market vitality.  When the market distortion is seen to be an anomaly, bubbles pop, and millions lose their shirts. 

The Federal Reserve is at the root of these distortions.  In fact, every major bust in the last century can be readily traced to Fed policies of easy credit and excessively low interest rates, followed by massive market corrections that caused widespread economic pain at every level.  What is different now?

What is different now is that U.S. lending rates have never been so low.  What is different is that American debt exceeds its GDP; America let this happen.  And now, the financial wizards who caused the crisis now destroying the livelihood of billions want us to do again the very thing that permitted the crisis in the first place.  QE, so they say, will make servicing U.S. and European debts easier, by lowering the amount that must be paid out to bondholders, which in turn lowers debt payments as a proportion of national budget outlays. 

Unfortunately, since American and European debt is already at saturation point, finding new buyers will be difficult, especially since China and Russia oppose new Anglo-American-European QE schemes and own the table on which the house of cards that is Western civilization sits.  And because debased American and European currencies mean a decline in the value of current foreign holdings of euro- and dollar-denominated debt, the incentive to shed such assets, not buy them, will be in play.  What then can be the predictable result of QE at such a fragile time in global economic history?  In short, chaos.

Those at the helm are not insane.  These are educated men and women.  How can the masters of finance support something they know will end in disaster, unless disaster is in some sense the object?

This hypothesis, if correct, would further mean that these individuals had some sort of plan to attempt containment and direction of the resultant chaos toward a premeditated solution.

It appears that a plan may indeed be underway.  The last two meetings of the G-8 have focused predominantly on increasing use of QE, which will most assuredly plunge Europe and the United States into even greater financial chaos, while G-20 representatives have in parallel resolved to create new supranational financial regulatory authorities with actual power in the domestic sphere, followed by discussions of new global currency units to trade in the place of the U.S. dollar and euro, even superseding their reserve status as primary currencies.  The G-20, which includes Russia and China, is beating the drums of monetary union.

The president of the Chinese central bank has advocated something like a "euro" for the industrial countries.  Russia has been equally zealous towards this end. 

If a nation does not control its finances, it cannot act independently.  If the monetary system is globalized, the locus of power will also be globalized, portending an end to American leadership in every respect.  Efforts to destroy the present financial system in order to realize the fantasies of detached intellectuals must be resisted at all costs.  If prosperity and economic well-being are the object, monetary union should be opposed.  Surrender of sovereignty is not easily undone.