On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 07:51:28 GMT, [email protected] wrote in
<[email protected]>:

    >David Lewis wrote:
    >> You really are unaware of the European antipathy to the USA, aren't you? That
    >> is the *last* thing they wuld do.
    >Really? Then how did they determine how much to make a Euro worth?

They valued it at 1 ECU.

    >Most of the currencies had values that took multiples of that currency to make
    >a dollar.

What of it? All but one, in fact but, again, what of it. Shall we start calling the
USD the Ameri-Pound?

    >Now there is a single currency that is about the value of a dollar.

Now, yes but not at the time the decision was taken.


--
Cheers,

Chris

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

    > Right.. They got all of these currencies together, and came up with a single
    > currency that is closer to the dollar than any of the older currencies were. Do you
    > really believe they weren't trying to mimick the dollar?

Well. After WW2 there was a virtual currency unit used in Europe, designed to move
funds of the Marshall Plan. This unit (I forgot its name) had parity to the dollar
for obvious reasons. Decades later, the EC came up with another virtual currency, the
ECU. Its value against other currencies was calculated from a weighted basket of all
membership currencies, multiplied by an arbitrary adjustment factor. The factor was
chosen to fix the ECU 1:1 to the previous Marhall Plan unit at the time of
introduction (and hence implicitly to the dollar) for sake of continuity. Even later
the Euro was invented, and its value was fixed 1:1 against the previous ECU. Since
the member currencies of ECU and Euro have fluctuated up and down all over the place
meanwhile, dollar parity was lost long ago, but it's still in the vicinity. So the
point was continuity, but since at the beginning of its history the idea was dollar
parity, the "similar" value isn't really a coincidence. But it's just a side effect,
not really the intention.

    > They should have put dollar in the name, that is what they wanted.

Well they want something equally important but not equal.

Regards

--
Im neuen Millenium Synergieeffekte nutzen

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > David Lewis wrote:
    > > You really are unaware of the European antipathy to the USA, aren't you? That
    > > is the *last* thing they wuld do.
    > Really? Then how did they determine how much to make a Euro worth? Most of the
    > currencies had values that took multiples of that currency to make a dollar. Now
    > there is a single currency that is about the value of a dollar.


Actually, if memory serves correctly, when the euro first debuted, it was well
over a dollar and closer to the pound. That didn't last long. Then, as the
dollar fell against the pound recently, the euro rose against the dollar. It
would seem the euro is tracking the pound more than the dollar. Hey,that's it,
the euro POUND. That's what they should have called it. The UK might have been
warmer to that idea.

Chris Raistrick wrote:
    > In short: The value of the euro dates back to 1978. It would take the sort of
    > foresight that would have made them billionaires to predict that the values of the
    > two currencies would be so close 21 years late.

No matter which value you would initially pick (within a reasonable range, i.e.
initially the same), there would be moments when it would happen to be fairly close.

As luck would have it, so it is right now. But will it stay that way?

On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:24:58 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >> Right.. They got all of these currencies together, and came up with a single
    >> currency that is closer to the dollar than any of the older currencies were. Do
    >> you really believe they weren't trying to mimick the dollar?
    >Well. After WW2 there was a virtual currency unit used in Europe, designed to move
    >funds of the Marshall Plan. This unit (I forgot its name) had parity to the dollar
    >for obvious reasons.

I'm probably barking up the wrong tree here, but was this the "Gold Franc"?

In the early 1970's I worked for British Railways, and all international
traffic via train-ferries was accounted for in these Gold Francs, which were a
"virtual" currency.

    >Decades later, the EC came up with another virtual currency, the ECU. Its value
    >against other currencies was calculated from a weighted basket of all membership
    >currencies, multiplied by an arbitrary adjustment factor. The factor was chosen to
    >fix the ECU 1:1 to the previous Marhall Plan unit at the time of introduction (and
    >hence implicitly to the dollar) for sake of continuity. Even later the Euro was
    >invented, and its value was fixed 1:1 against the previous ECU. Since the member
    >currencies of ECU and Euro have fluctuated up and down all over the place meanwhile,
    >dollar parity was lost long ago, but it's still in the vicinity. So the point was
    >continuity, but since at the beginning of its history the idea was dollar parity,
    >the "similar" value isn't really a coincidence. But it's just a side effect, not
    >really the intention.
    >> They should have put dollar in the name, that is what they wanted.
    >Well they want something equally important but not equal.
    >Regards

You guys are morons. In currencies, it's relative value over time that matters, not nominal 1=1 stuff that you're talking.

In message <[email protected]>, Keith Anderson
<[email protected]> writes
    >On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:24:58 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
    >>> Right.. They got all of these currencies together, and came up with a single
    >>> currency that is closer to the dollar than any of the older currencies were. Do
    >>> you really believe they weren't trying to mimick the dollar?
    >>Well. After WW2 there was a virtual currency unit used in Europe, designed to move
    >>funds of the Marshall Plan. This unit (I forgot its name) had parity to the dollar
    >>for obvious reasons.
    >I'm probably barking up the wrong tree here, but was this the "Gold Franc"?
    >In the early 1970's I worked for British Railways, and all international traffic via
    >train-ferries was accounted for in these Gold Francs, which were a "virtual"
    >currency.

I doubt it - Gold Francs were a nineteenth century invention created by the Universal
Postal Union to simplify international postal arrangements, so postal clerks in one
country would know how much to charge if a letter was underpaid in another country,
and similar reasons. I suppose the railways knew a good system when they saw it!

--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

newstartnz wrote:
    > Originally posted by Devil:
    >>Chris Raistrick wrote:
    >>>In short: The value of the euro dates back to 1978. It would take the sort of
    >>>foresight that would have made them billionaires to predict that the values of the
    >>>two currencies would be so close 21 years late.
    >>No matter which value you would initially pick (within a reasonable range,
    >>i.e. initially the same), there would be moments when it would happen to be
    >>fairly close.
    >>As luck would have it, so it is right now. But will it stay that way?
    > You guys are morons. In currencies, it's relative value over time that matters, not
    > nominal 1=1 stuff that you're talking.

I think that was my point.

And BTW, thanks for calling us morons. Need a mirror?

On 13 Aug 2002 18:32:01 GMT, newstartnz wrote in
<[email protected]>:

    >Originally posted by Devil:
    >> Chris Raistrick wrote:
    >> > In short: The value of the euro dates back to 1978. It would take the sort of
    >> > foresight that would have made them billionaires to predict that the values of
    >> > the two currencies would be so close 21 years late.
    >> No matter which value you would initially pick (within a reasonable range,
    >> i.e. initially the same), there would be moments when it would happen to be
    >> fairly close.
    >> As luck would have it, so it is right now. But will it stay that way?
    >You guys are morons.

Gee, thanks.

    >In currencies, it's relative value over time that matters, not nominal 1=1 stuff
    >that you're talking.

Where do you get the impression from either of our posts that we think that parity is
important?

If you were able to read, you'd notice that I was refuting the idea that the ECB have
made the euro equal to the dollar and that Devil is pointing out that currencies
regularly fluctuate.

So, both of us clearly believe that it's relative value over time (or "stability" as
us morons call it) that matters.

We may be morons, possibly, or it may be that you are incapable of reading a usenet
post unless it's spelled out in short words.


--
Cheers,

Chris

newstartnz <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > Originally posted by Devil:
    > > Chris Raistrick wrote:
    > > > In short: The value of the euro dates back to 1978. It would take the sort of
    > > > foresight that would have made them billionaires to predict that the values of
    > > > the two currencies would be so close 21 years late.
    > >
    > > No matter which value you would initially pick (within a reasonable range, i.e.
    > > initially the same), there would be moments when it would happen to be fairly
    > > close.
    > >
    > > As luck would have it, so it is right now. But will it stay that way?
    > >
    > You guys are morons. In currencies, it's relative value over time that matters, not
    > nominal 1=1 stuff that you're talking.

Not necessarily in international business - the spot rate has much greater
implications. Business is run on quarters (hence the 90-day forward contracts as
opposed to the 5-year hedge).

As a US employer, when my German payroll comes due I need to pay it in Euro, not
dollars and that means conversions at the spot rate or at best, based on a 90-day
forward hedge.

amp

David wrote:
    >To us the Eurp is worth more than the dollar and it is climbing.

Actually, 'Eurp' may be a more fitting name than 'euro'. At least that sounds more
appropriate.

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > David Lewis wrote:
    > > You really are unaware of the European antipathy to the USA, aren't you? That
    > > is the *last* thing they wuld do.
    > Really? Then how did they determine how much to make a Euro worth? Most of the
    > currencies had values that took multiples of that currency to make a dollar. Now
    > there is a single currency that is about the value of a dollar.

==========[url="http://www.ecb.int/press/pr981231_2.htm=============================-
=========="]http://www.ecb.int/press/pr981231_2.htm=============================[/ur-
==========l]

PRESS RELEASE Determination of the euro conversion rates

31 December 1998

In accordance with Article 109l (4) of the Treaty establishing the European
Community, the irrevocable conversion rates for the euro were today adopted by the EU
Council, upon a proposal from the Commission of the European Communities and after
consultation of the European Central Bank (ECB) for effect at 0.00 on 1 January 1999
(local time). In compliance with the legal framework for the use of the euro, the
irrevocable conversion rate for the euro for each participating currency is the only
rate to be used for conversion either way between the euro and the national currency
unit and also for conversions between national currency units.

The euro conversion rates are the following:

Currency

Units of national currency for 1

Belgian franc

40.3399

Deutsche Mark

41.95583

Spanish peseta

42.386

French franc

43.55957

Irish pound

.787564

Italian lira

1936.27

Luxembourg franc

44.3399

Dutch guilder

45.20371

Austrian schilling

46.7603

Portuguese escudo

47.482

Finnish markka

48.94573



The conversion rates adopted today by the EU Council were determined according to the
principles described in a Joint Communiqué, issued on 2 May 1998 by the ministers of
the Member States adopting the euro as their single currency, the governors of the
national central banks of these Member States, the Commission of the European
Communities and the European Monetary Institute. The steps carried out to determine
the conversion rates were as follows.

49. A teleconference was held at 11 a.m. (C.E.T.) in which the EU national central
banks, on the basis of observation of the markets, calculated the exchange
rates of their national currencies, ensuring that those between the currencies
of the participating countries were equal to the pre-announced ERM bilateral
central rates.
50. At the end of the teleconference (11.30 a.m.) on the basis of the rates
recorded by the EU national central banks, the Commission calculated the final
official ECU exchange rates (to become euro rates) for the participating
currencies and transmitted them to the ECB for a cross-check.
51. Shortly after noon the Governing Council of the ECB, together with the
Governors of the four non-euro area national central banks, held a
teleconference, chaired by the ECB President, Mr. Duisenberg, to adopt the
ECB's Opinion on the proposed "Council (EU) Regulation on the adoption of the
conversion rates between the euro and the currencies of the Member States
adopting the euro".
52. The European Commission formally proposed the irrevocable conversion rates for
the euro for adoption by the EU Council in a televised session at 12.30 p.m.
(C.E.T.). At the same time, the Commission made these proposed rates public
via the Internet and financial information providers.
53. The Council, taking into account the ECB's Opinion, adopted the Regulation and
informed the public of its adoption at 1.40 p.m.
(C.E.T.). In addition, the European Commission made the adoption public by the same
means as when publishing the proposed rates.
6. At 2 p.m. the ECB will send a S.W.I.F.T. broadcast to all those institutions
with a S.W.I.F.T. address to confirm the euro conversion rates.
7. The Regulation as well as the ECB's Opinion will be published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities and will be available from the Office for
Official Publications in Luxembourg at 3 p.m. in the eleven official EU
languages.
8. The Regulation will be effective as from 0.00 hours (local time) on 1
January 1999.

_________

(9) http://www.europa.eu.int/eurobi-
rth.



European Central Bank Press Division Kaiserstrasse 29, D-60311 Frankfurt am Main
Tel.: 0049 69 1344 7455, Fax: 0049 69 1344 7404 Internet:
http://www.ecb.int Reproduction is permitted
provided that the source is acknowledged

ECB - European Central Bank

Son Gohan <[email protected]> wrote:
    > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Really? Then how did they determine how much to make a Euro worth? Most of the
    >> currencies had values that took multiples of that currency to make a dollar. Now
    >> there is a single currency that is about the value of a dollar.
    > ==========http://www.ecb.int/press/pr981231_2.htm=============================-
    > ==========
    > PRESS RELEASE Determination of the euro conversion rates
    > 31 December 1998

This press release doesn't answer anything; those rates were arbitrarily selected in
order to make the Euro valued at what they wanted it to be valued at.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world:
http://travel.u.nu New mini photo-feature: Life in
DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

[email protected] (Miguel Cruz) writes:

    > This press release doesn't answer anything; those rates were arbitrarily selected
    > in order to make the Euro valued at what they wanted it to be valued at.

Arbitrarily selected to be worth exactly one ECU?

--
-- Chris.

On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 06:39:00 GMT, Miguel Cruz wrote in
<[email protected]>:

    >Son Gohan <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Really? Then how did they determine how much to make a Euro worth? Most of the
    >>> currencies had values that took multiples of that currency to make a dollar. Now
    >>> there is a single currency that is about the value of a dollar.
    >> ==========http://www.ecb.int/press/pr981231_2.htm===========================-
    >> ============
    >> PRESS RELEASE Determination of the euro conversion rates
    >> 31 December 1998
    >This press release doesn't answer anything; those rates were arbitrarily selected in
    >order to make the Euro valued at what they wanted it to be valued at.

But, at the risk of repeating myself, again, those were valued at what they were
valued at so long ago that they weren't valued at any value that results in a total
value close to the dollar's value at the time.

Add to that the fact that most of the currencies making up the euro weren't part of
that valuation and any inference as to what they wanted it to be valued at in 2002 is
pointless.

--
Cheers,

Chris