In their blind persuit of the euro superstate, the euro zelots forced upon us a single currency instead of a common currency, and by doing so reducing the sovereign parliaments to local councils, who do not have the right of budget.
With a common currency, the national currencies would not have disappeared, and governments would have made their budgets in their own local currency.
Unwise economic policies thus result in an devaluation of that national currency opposite the € euro, leaving less €€€euros in the pockets of the citizens, confronting them with the consequences of their own elections, instead of having other countries paying for their stupidity.

@ Amsterdamsky

You may be originally from Michigan, but you have clearly forgotten how markets 'work' since you moved to 'libertarian oasis'.  Sellers will 'adjust' prices (UP or DOWN) on the basis of both SUPPLY conditions (input costs, which could indeed be affected among other things by exchange rate movements) and DEMAND conditions on the particular market in which they are operating.  In any time period there are many prices going down and many (usually more) prices going up.  

Movements in the general or (weighted) average price level are measured by indexes (CPI, PPI, GDP deflator, etc...) which are calculated by governments.  The most commonly used measure is the CPI because it measures movements in the price level of consumption goods (and services), i.e. of the consumption component of GDP. 

Since the introducion of the euro, annual inflation rates (average annual price increases) have gone DOWN, i.e. those annual increases have become smaller, for most Europeans, and especially for southern Europeans.    Also, exchange rate crises, and their attendant real economic costs (in terms of temporary lost output and employment) have disappeared altogether within the euro area.

So, George2 is largely right about the benefits of the euro. But he is wrong in his last comment about there being no politics without first economics. That is a legacy of faulty marxist thinking, i.e. a marxist dogma that is contradicted by numerous factual observations.... such as North Korea, Burma, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc... Believe me, in all these places there is "politics" (which is about power) but not much "economics" (which is about broad wealth creation with scarce inputs) to speak of.

If you want to understand the impact of the introduction of the euro on prices it is NOT very sensible to go and ask "any Dutch person" (on the street) if you want an informed answer.  Prices have generally been rising for decades, and people generally do not like it (unless their incomes are rising even faster).  The relevant comparison is NOT whether (or by how much) prices have been rising after introduction of the euro.  The relevant comparison is whether inflation RATES in the euro area have become smaller or larger since interest rate policy has become 'unified' at the ECB in Frankfurt.   

The problem with the euro is that a common interest rate policy only makes sense in an area or zone where there is sufficient MOBILITY of production factors (labor and capital) to adjust to 'local market conditions'.  If there is insufficient mobility, then certain 'declining' areas could experience more unemployment and output loss, compared with a situation where a 'national' currency could be used to pursue a lower interest rate policy and/or exchange rate depreciation.   And, in 'booming' areas, the common interest rate policy of the ECB will exacerbate inflation, if there is insufficient factor mobility.   In America, labor and capital are more likely to move in response to differing 'local' conditions than in Europe. And that is why the American 'common' currency, the dollar, makes more sense than the euro.  In Europe, for the euro to survive in the long run, governments will have to find ways to promote more FLEXIBILITY in labor and capital markets.  And 'national' politicians will have to stop blaming 'Frankfurt' for their own failures to make their own economies more flexible. You think they are up the task? In a culture where even rightists, like Kapitein Andre, join leftists in convenient 'scapegoating'? In Europe, Frankfurt (ECB) is running the risk of becoming a jew or an American.

"The euro is a tool. It does not increase prices. Producers and shop owners increase prices."-George

Shop owners increase prices as their costs increase or they go out of business or in the case of Holland both.  Some of the price increase might have been due to the rebound against the dollar as foreign treasuries bought euros and sold dollars as a hedge but most of it I think just evaporated like all the tax funds paid into the EUSSR.  Try to tell any Dutch person that prices only increase 3% after the introduction of the euro as the government insists.

Two primary problems with the Euro of course is that: (a) it was originally geared to replace the Deutschmark, especially as Germany remains the engine of the EU, and (b) it is produced by a variety of states instead of a single central bank; of course, a single central bank would imply a further loss of sovereignty for those entering the EU.

I certainly think the introduction of the euro has advantages:

1. I don't have 2-3 different currencies in my wallet anymore
2. It is much easier to compare prices of goods (I shop in two countries; other people of my town shop in three countries)
3. Transaction costs went down dramatically (I have multiple accounts in two EU countries); however, I should not include this with euro advantages; it is actually something positive decided by the EU.
4. when I mention 150€ in a discussion with people of different countries, they know what this means, so it improves communication. It takes more time to understand what the value is of 150£ or 150$.

The euro is a tool. It does not increase prices. Producers and shop owners increase prices.

And yes people mix things up. The euro becomes the symbol of everything EU: the mogol that moves from Brussels to Strassbourg and back, all the little rules that annoy EU citizens but make the inventors feel 'useful' etc. As Ségolène Royal recently demonstrated: politicians are too eager to point to the euro for many things that go bad in their countries. Again, the euro is a tool, not a policiy. It makes it easier to carry out policies. I ask myself what cowards as Royal are doing in a union. I don't want to have a relationship with a coward.

One more remark: yes the people are right in distrusting the mogol that swallows money and craps little rules. If Baroso want to gain the trust of the EU people he is not going to crap out yet another constitution. He's going to put the fat lady in Brussels on a diet if he doesn't want to hang her straight away. Economics first and then maybe politics, because there is no politics without economics (and not the other way around).

Sonamaca, a link for you for the information at Gates of Vienna is:  http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/01/first-they-came-for-domain-names.html

The central banks of every country have owners who know how to make money for themselves by creating inflation.  All they need to do is print more money.  More money in circulation means more competition for the same goods, so prices rise.

They can do the reverse by taking money out of the system.  Less money for the same goods can drive demand and make prices rise for essential goods.  They win both ways.  Those who beleive the independance myth of central banks don't question so long as things are relatively in line with expectations.

There is plenty of opportunity for the owners to make money just by knowledge of what is planned.  Manipulation is not all that necessary.

It seems apparent to me that inflation is occurring in EU markets and the euro is not well liked.  Whether it is the fault of the euro, I don't know.  People don't seem to question much in Europe and, if they do, I hear little about questions of any consequence from the media.  They just seem to accept and resign themselves, much different from the US(except for the media).

Gates of Vienna has the story

Consumer prices doubled here despite the "official" numbers for inflation of 3%.  This had much to do with the guilder being undervalued at the conversion but there is other funny business that went on.  Something like 20% - 30% of small business went under in the two years after the euro.  Our government blames them for raising prices too high.  Interesting how our government never admits when they make a mistake also.  This carnage was the true reason for the Nee vote on the Constitution. 

"Fortunately, here in Britain the population are [and always have been] very 'mixed up' about the EU indeed."

Unfortunately, the English have long been anti-european and not simply anti-EU. I think England should have used its xenophobic streak to prevent mass immigration from the third-world instead of bashing the EU !

Fortunately, here in Britain the population are [and always have been] very 'mixed up' about the EU indeed. No matter how often we're surveyed or how loaded the questions, the answers are always the same - we don't like it, we don't trust it and we don't want it. It seems we even have the audacity to "mix things up" when completing the EU's own Eurobarometer surveys.

Luckily for Brussels , our neo-Com political class aren't as 'mixed up' as the rest of us and, sadly, they're the ones with all the power.

The thing I have never understood about the euro is how the seigniorage profits are divided up among Belgium, France, Germany and the others. Seigniorage is the difference between what it costs to print currency and the actual purchasing power of the currency. A similar concept applies to checking account balances. In the case of a national currency, it is clear that the government involved keeps the profits. In the case of the euro, the division of the spoils among the member governments must be a contentious matter indeed.