Two Sides of the Coin - Battle for Euro’s survival is a modern Greek Tragedy

Two Sides of the Coin - Battle for Euro’s survival is a modern Greek Tragedy

The continuing fight for survival of the Euro is a kind of a modern Greek tragedy, due largely to our hubris in conceiving the most ambitious financial and political endeavour in history, while being completely blind to our own weaknesses to long-term commitments and goals.

It was in 2002 that the Euro came into circulation. In 2011, talk of its imminent collapse emerged, and extraordinary measures to salvage the currency began with various emergency loans being made. However, compare the Euro’s decade-long track record to that of the Bank of England and its over 300-year-old Sterling Pound notes.

The EU launching the Euro now comes across as a kid that has grown up on super-hero comics and action movies like Rocky, Rambo and Die Hard. He is convinced he can finish a marathon without training. Just set your sights high enough, He is then surprised to collapse after sprinting the first kilometre.

If I am to carry out a psychological evaluation on the EU as if it were an individual person, its issues and skewed perception of itself, which is obstructing it from dealing with reality, seem strikingly similar to the average European citizen. Both appear to be victims of outlandish ambitions and expectations to receive phenomenal results and compensation for very little effort.
There seems in general a lack of understanding that there is a connection between the values created by a person or a nation where their contribution is reflected as to what they can exchange these values for in the marketplace.

Instead, a naïve kind of belief has set in, a thinking that success is largely a matter of randomness. It is more about being at the right time, right place and having the right contacts, oftentimes by being at the right party. 

We have been seduced into believing that quick and radical results are going to come from sudden flashes of inspiration and willpower.

In hindsight, it may seem and be conveniently portrayed that individual inventors and leaders brought us forward in giant leaps. For instance, the idea of sole inventors spawning ideas from scratch in ‘eureka’ moments is a misperception. Even Graham Bell’s telephone and Thomas Edison’s lightbulb were the results of broad incremental improvements in an era where innovation over long periods enabled such paradigm shifts. 

The truth is that individual willpower is very limited in a larger perspective. How an individual performs in a society, and how society fares as a whole, is almost completely dictated by societal structure and its established norms, expectations and accepted behaviours. Though many like to identify themselves as rebels, humans are, by nature, hardwired to be flock animals. We simply do not dare to deviate that far from the group we are in. 

However, what separates us from animals is not any willpower to go against our environment; with enough time, almost all of us give in. What enables one civilisation to develop and outperform others is how we, as humans, are able to consciously and purposefully design, influence and set the norms of accepted behaviours for the group.

To paraphrase Confucius, all men are created equal; it is their habits that distinguish them. This is worth keeping in mind when contemplating the path forward for Europe. Societies that encourage or accept the behavioural norm of a semi-passive state of Facebook hypnosis and consumption of light entertainment, soft drinks and fast food may not lead to the desired type of long-term growth.