Having closely followed the (dis)information campaign against the euro in anglosaxon media for more than a year now, I have alternated between amazement at the sudden bout of 'concern' for a currency they left largely unattended for a decade, anger at their indifference to the consequences of their fearmongering for the populations of the affected countries, and joy at the backfiring of their mendacious efforts.

So an article that just restates all the cliches about the eurozone's alleged 'unsustainability', while adding some dire predictions even the maddest economists shrink from making, should leave me thoroughly uninterested. It does, but since it also neatly sums up and even exaggerates so many of the fallacies anglosaxon commentators have come up with in their desperate attempts to disparage an economic rival's currency, I feel this may be a good place to deconstruct this nonsense.

First, there is no economic crisis exposing the eurozone's 'troubled future', as the writer proclaims. There has been first and foremost a financial crisis, exposing the myriad forms of deception, plunder and theft practised by American financial institutions. If anything, this has shown Europeans the dangers of depending on an 'ally' that systematically abuses its exorbitant privilege to print the world's reserve and transaction currency in order to extort free lunches from the rest of the world, more particularly, its foreign creditors and trading partners.

Second, the collapse of the euro is not simple arithmetic (though if it were, I would still shrink from trusting this author's conclusions). While a high debt-to-GDP ratio will hamper economic growth in most countries (as per Reinhart and Rogoff's research), there is no rule that states a certain ratio 'inevitably' leads to default and/or currency collapse.

The reference to 'math' by the author is therefore disingenuous at best, and I dare him to show me the equations that lead to this conclusion. Of course, this would have to include an explanation why the developed country with by far the hightest debt/GDP ratio - Japan - is so far in no danger of defaulting or collapse. But such an explanation would have to refer to the fact that the main holders of these debts are the frugal Japanese themselves. And because the same holds for many of the large European countries like Italy and France now 'teetering on the precipice', this would require an intellectual honesty this author has done nothing to expect.

Third, Greece has made a mess of its finances by deceiving its eurozone partners with close help and cooperation of American financial institutions that then did everything to profit from the subsequent fallout, including mobilizing the - always cooperative - anglosaxon financial media. Ireland bailed out its banks, but not at the bidding of its eurozone partners.

Fourth, to say Europe need rules to limit government spending - ludicrous as this is in itself, coming from an American - is to display a thorough ignorance of EMU. For there actually have been such rules in place since the Maastricht Treaty - 3% deficit, 60% debt/GDP. The problem has been enforcement, as well as keeping out predatory American institutions helping countries to bend these rules with complex financial chicaneries (and then shorting the hell out of them when the story breaks).

Fifth, 'austerity' imposed on overindebted countries with a large public sector does not necessarily translate into lower economic growth. In fact, given their bloated bureaucracies and social security systems, austerity will likely contribute to increased efficiency and private sector initiative, rather than eat into economic growth as it would in economies with a smaller public sector, like the US's or the UK's.

Sixth, the anti-euro campaign to which this author so incompetently contributes has actually already backfired. The desired effect of crowding in investment in Treasuries has not materialized. For one thing, rising yields of peripherals have corresponded to lower yields of core countries, increasing spreads but diminishing the crowding out effects of 'safe haven' flows to dollar and pound.

Furthermore the artificially weakened euro has unleashed the export might of the European core on the rest of the world, resulting in high growth that is as yet only partially reflected in a stronger currency. Meanwhile, the Chinese are slowly offloading US Treasuries (which is why long yields are rising despite QE2) to ensure a soft landing, converting some of their dollars into euro denominated debt, thus strengthening the common currency.

So the campaign against the euro has already failed. And if it weren't such a disgusting sight to see American academics, economists and pundits twist and turn the truth (not to mention 'math) in order to provide for the 'inevitable' collapse of their rival's currency, I would encourage them to keep it up by all means.

All the suggestions for the countries of the Med would seem to be the exact opposite of what other successful northern European Euro countries are doing. There are plenty of employment protection laws in both Germany and Holland. The author seems to be using the failings of the Euro and of various countries to change policies than aren't necessarily the cause of their woes.

Having said that, I do think it would behoove Ireland to get out of the Euro now and to abandon its bank guarantees. The author is correct in saying that Ireland's commitments as a condition for a bailout seems partly to have been to help out German and English banks at the expense of Irish tax payers, most of whom weren't engaged in property speculation or banking. Not being in the Euro seems to have worked well for Iceland.

As the Germans and the English clearly don't have the best interest of the Irish at heart, (nor would I expect them to) I don't see why the Irish should engage in such self-immolation; especially as the Euro will live or die without them.

In monetary matters Spain or Ireland are to Europe what California or Hawaii are to the US.
It is not a matter of debt-to-GDP ratio getting to high and leaving the eurozone to avoid paying existing debt and interest costs.
The euro is here to stay, alongside the dollar. Europe has the capacity and the means to overcome financial bottlenecks and to rescue their "federal states", because that's what they already are, in monetary matters.
Compare the euro to the dollar - and ask why the dollar - and the American economy - is surviving? Then you have the answer.

Dear Sir.
You mention Portugal a lot in your article and you may well be right. You do not write a word, though, to sustain your assertions concerning this country, which makes me wonder where does it fit your story.

So we in the Uk still had to change money when visiting our neighbours in Europe.

It has been impossible to set up a Euro bank account in Britain which of course would be very helpful for both business travellers and those going taking holidays in Europe.

However reading the article it could be argued that we are better off without it.