Podcasts about european monetary union

In the fourth episode of Season 12 of Compliance Clarified, Todd Ehret, senior regulatory intelligence expert, is joined by Henry Engler for an insightful discussion on the Basel III endgame.Basel III was originally developed in response to the financial crisis of 2008- 2009. The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision finalization of Basel III, known as Basel III endgame, introduces extensive changes, especially in the calculation of risk-weighted assets (RWA). These changes will significantly impact business models, compelling banks to reconsider their capital allocation strategies.On July 27th, 2023, the US Federal Reserve and FDIC published their Notice for Proposed rulemaking for Basel III endgame. After months of criticism and discussion, on September 10, the Federal Reserve announced a re-proposal of the much discussed and awaited Basel III Endgame.Henry Engler is a Senior Editor for North America for Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence based in New York. Henry joined Thomson Reuters after a decade in the financial industry in which he has served in roles as an executive or managing consultant overseeing compliance-related and other projects. Henry is also a trained economist and has served as a financial journalist and business strategy executive at Reuters. Henry has edited books on the European Monetary Union and the future of banking and is also the author of "Remaking Culture on Wall Street: A Behavioral Science Approach for Building Trust from the Bottom Up."For more information on the podcast and additional resources, see the links below.Links: Todd Ehret LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/todd-ehret-91827264/Henry Engler LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/henry-engler-29133/Link to recent article by Henry Engler:U.S. Basel Endgame enters uncertain phase as regulators jostle behind the scenes: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7246539010406252546/ Compliance Clarified is a podcast from Thomson Reuters Regulatory Intelligence.Listen to wide-ranging, insightful discussions on all things compliance for financial services firms. We delve into the hot topics of the day, the challenges faced and offer up practical ideas for emerging good practice. We de-mystify regulation and explore the art, as well as the science, of the ever-expanding role of the compliance officer.  Enforcements, digital transformation, regulatory change, governance, culture, conduct risk – anything and everything impacting the compliance function is up for discussion.

Welcome to episode 143 of Activist #MMT. Today I talk with historian, author, and Harvard master's graduate, Emily Ruhl, on her new paper and master's thesis, In League with the Devine: How Religion Influenced Nazi Perpetrators of the Holocaust. This is the first of a three-part episode. You will find my full and detailed question list at the bottom of today's show notes. Also, be sure to see the list "audio chapters" in all three parts to find exactly where each topic is discussed. (Here are links to parts two and three. A list of the audio chapters in this episode can be found right below [above the full-question list].) (In order to preserve both my podcast and sanity as I proceed through the Torrens graduate program, I've decided to slow my podcast from one episode a week to once a month.) The Nazi Party started by trying to resist and reject all religion, but soon, religion became a fundamental part of the Party's strategy of coercing and propagandizing everybody, from members of the public, to the highest ranking figures in both religious and political institutions, into accepting the brutal and systematic murder of eleven-million souls. The Nazi religion took elements of Christianity, Protestantism, and Paganism, to make one geared not to brotherly love, but primarily to erasing non-Aryans from the Earth. This Nazi pseudo-religion served both as coercion – you must kill the unworthy, or at least stand back while others do – and also as a salve, to come to terms with what you've just done. As you'll hear in the cool quote for part two (the first minute before the opening music), that salve can make the difference between sanity and insanity, and life and death. The Nazi's didn't want to murder eleven million people, they had to, because God said they had to. It was "unfortunate, but necessary." My primary goal for this interview is to demonstrate how this is parallel to mainstream economics, which is also a tool to justify suffering, this time in the form of austerity. Instead of a gun to the head at point blank range, austerity is mass deprivation and exploitation, resulting in a slow and torturous death by despair, starvation, exposure, and untreated sickness and injury – not to mention wasted potential. We currently have the ability to provide all with what they desperately need, including healthcare, education, decent food and shelter, un-poisoned water, and breathable air. As illuminated by Kate Raworth's doughnut, if we are to continue existing as a species, then we must provide the desperate with what they most desperately need. At the same time, we also have to stop the very few on top from using the vast majority of our precious and limited resources to needlessly lavish themselves. Unfortunately, we are instead digging ourselves into an even deeper ecological crisis, when we should be getting off fossil fuels entirely, and restructuring society so we don't require as much. On our current path, in the not-too-distant future, it may indeed become unfortunate but necessary to choose who must be deprived in order for the rest to live. Of course, given our obscene and still growing inequality, the most powerful few will be the ones to make those decisions, and the least powerful many will be the sacrificed. This is the lifeboat economics of the tragedy of the tragedy of the commons. Instead of the around eleven million murdered by the Nazi Party, mainstream economics is little more than a religion to justify what may ultimately result in the death of not millions, but billions. Austerity is genocide at a slower pace. As if riding in a bus hurtling towards a cliff, we as a species currently face a binary choice, between having a terrible accident, and plunging off into oblivion. As Mark Twain said, "History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme." There is still time to learn from that history. We can choose another path. On a completely unrelated side note, while attending her master's program, writing her master's thesis and working full time, Emily also wrote… an entire fantasy novel. You can find out more about it, and read the entire first chapter, at her website, emilyruhlbooks.com. In order to preserve both my podcast and my sanity as I proceed through Torrens University and Modern Money Lab's graduate program in MMT and ecological economics (

Frederic Heine joins Money on the Left to discuss his recent essay, “Performing Hard Money: Monetary Policy, Metaphor and Masculinity in the Making of EMU,” published this summer in the Journal of Cultural Economy. Heine is a university assistant at the Institute for Women's and Gender Studies at Johannes Kepler University, Linz. In his essay, Heine analyzes the cluster of masculine metaphors that ground  and mobilize the European Monetary Union's hard-line opposition to soft money politics. At the time of this episode's publishing in early September 2022, what Heine classifies as the masculine performative agency of EMU leaders can be seen all over Europe, with Macron decrying the end of abundance and the ECB signaling a coming period of sacrifice across the Eurozone. We speak with Heine about this essay as well as his broader inquiry into the intersections of gender, global finance, and political economy. See Frederic Heine's essay here.Visit our Patreon page here: https://www.patreon.com/MoLsuperstructureMusic by Nahneen Kula: www.nahneenkula.com

The transition to digital currencies continues at a rapid pace and has inevitably been accelerated by Covid-19. As the economy moves towards a greater degree of digitalisation, a retail CBDC could prove important in safeguarding central bank money as well as protecting the interest of consumers and vendors online. The main topics of discussion for this panel include the unbundling of financial services and the impact on commercial banks, the ECB's balance sheet implications under a two-tier model, the role of central banks in supporting digital evolution and how a programmable euro could safeguard the EU's technological competitiveness. The need for a digital euro, the growing role of fintech and the potential division of labour under a two-tier retail model also come under consideration. This podcast is taken from the virtual conference 'European payments and digital assets: promoting sovereignty and integration through digitalisation'. Catch up here.

Hugo Bänziger (eabh) and Thomas Mayer (Flossbach von Storch Research Institute) discuss Monetary Unions from the Latin Currency Union to the European Monetary Union of today. Why are monetary unions created? Which are the drivers? If monetary unions are mere devices to obtain political power, what motivates independent countries to join? Do political aspirations always dominate economic reason? Or is the facilitation of international trade the one most important factor to participate in these standard setting unions? Inflationary monetary policies (seignorage) are ancient techniques of financing the state, as much as the migration of paper money towards the North of Europe has historical precedent for a variety of reasons. Now, how do these insights give perspective to what is happening on the stage of international monetary policy? Does Europe today compare to the late Roman Empire? *The topic will further be discussed at the 2022 eabh annual conference in cooperation with the Bulgarian National Bank on 1 July 2022 in Sofia, Bulgaria. We are still open for submissions: http://bankinghistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2022_Sofia_Monetary-Unions-in-History.pdf

Find out more on our website: https://bit.ly/32MuM9E Join us in conversation with author Harold James, to discuss his key takeaways and learnings from his new book Making a Modern Central Bank. Making a Modern Central Bank examines a revolution in monetary and economic policy. This authoritative guide explores how the Bank of England shifted its traditional mechanisms to accommodate a newly internationalized financial and economic system. The Bank's transformation into a modern inflation-targeting independent central bank allowed it to focus on a precisely defined task of monetary management, ensuring price stability. The reframing of the task of central banks, however, left them increasingly vulnerable to financial crisis. James vividly outlines and discusses significant historical developments in UK monetary policy, and his knowledge of modern European history adds rich context to archival research on the Bank of England's internal documents. A worthy continuation of the previous official histories of the Bank of England, this book also reckons with contemporary issues, shedding light on the origins of growing backlash against globalization and the European Union Speaker: Harold James, the Claude and Lore Kelly Professor in European Studies at Princeton University, is Professor of History and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School. His books include a study of the interwar depression in Germany, The German Slump (1986); an analysis of the changing character of national identity in Germany, A German Identity 1770-1990 (1989); International Monetary Cooperation Since Bretton Woods (1996), and The End of Globalization (2001), which is available in 8 languages. He was also co-author of a history of Deutsche Bank (1995), which won the Financial Times Global Business Book Award in 1996, and he wrote The Deutsche Bank and the Nazi Economic War Against the Jews (2001). His most recent books include Family Capitalism, Harvard University Press, 2006; The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Harvard University Press, 2009; Making the European Monetary Union, Harvard University Press, 2012; The Euro and the Battle of Economic Ideas (with Markus K. Brunnermeier and Jean-Pierre Landau), Princeton University Press, 2016; Making A Modern Central Bank: The Bank of England 1979-2003, Cambridge University Press 2020. He is the official historian of the International Monetary Fund. In 2004 he was awarded the Helmut Schmidt Prize for Economic History, and in 2005 the Ludwig Erhard Prize for writing about economics.

In its judgment pronounced on 5 May, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court granted several constitutional complaints directed against the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB). The Court found that the Federal Government and the German Bundestag violated the complainants’ rights under Art. 38(1) first sentence in conjunction with Art. 20(1) and (2), and Art. 79(3) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG) by failing to take steps challenging that the ECB, in its decisions on the adoption and implementation of the PSPP, neither assessed nor substantiated that the measures provided for in these decisions satisfy the principle of proportionality. This seminar considers how the decision fits with the other major European Monetary Union decisions and ongoing questions concerning the role of the European Central Bank; the broader economic implications of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s decision for the ECB’s independence and for the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme; as well as constitutional questions such as supremacy of EU law and the role of judicial dialogue in the EU constitutional order. Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard Speakers: Dr Alicia Hinarejos Dr Markus Gehring Professor Michael Waibel This was the first CELS online webinar. For more information see the CELS website at: http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/ This entry provides an audio source.

In its judgment pronounced on 5 May, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court granted several constitutional complaints directed against the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB). The Court found that the Federal Government and the German Bundestag violated the complainants’ rights under Art. 38(1) first sentence in conjunction with Art. 20(1) and (2), and Art. 79(3) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG) by failing to take steps challenging that the ECB, in its decisions on the adoption and implementation of the PSPP, neither assessed nor substantiated that the measures provided for in these decisions satisfy the principle of proportionality. This seminar considers how the decision fits with the other major European Monetary Union decisions and ongoing questions concerning the role of the European Central Bank; the broader economic implications of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s decision for the ECB’s independence and for the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme; as well as constitutional questions such as supremacy of EU law and the role of judicial dialogue in the EU constitutional order. Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard Speakers: Dr Alicia Hinarejos Dr Markus Gehring Professor Michael Waibel This was the first CELS online webinar. For more information see the CELS website at: http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/

In its judgment pronounced on 5 May, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court granted several constitutional complaints directed against the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB). The Court found that the Federal Government and the German Bundestag violated the complainants’ rights under Art. 38(1) first sentence in conjunction with Art. 20(1) and (2), and Art. 79(3) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG) by failing to take steps challenging that the ECB, in its decisions on the adoption and implementation of the PSPP, neither assessed nor substantiated that the measures provided for in these decisions satisfy the principle of proportionality. This seminar considers how the decision fits with the other major European Monetary Union decisions and ongoing questions concerning the role of the European Central Bank; the broader economic implications of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s decision for the ECB’s independence and for the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme; as well as constitutional questions such as supremacy of EU law and the role of judicial dialogue in the EU constitutional order. Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard Speakers: Dr Alicia Hinarejos Dr Markus Gehring Professor Michael Waibel This was the first CELS online webinar. For more information see the CELS website at: http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/ This entry provides an audio source.

In its judgment pronounced on 5 May, the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court granted several constitutional complaints directed against the Public Sector Purchase Programme (PSPP) of the European Central Bank (ECB). The Court found that the Federal Government and the German Bundestag violated the complainants’ rights under Art. 38(1) first sentence in conjunction with Art. 20(1) and (2), and Art. 79(3) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz – GG) by failing to take steps challenging that the ECB, in its decisions on the adoption and implementation of the PSPP, neither assessed nor substantiated that the measures provided for in these decisions satisfy the principle of proportionality. This seminar considers how the decision fits with the other major European Monetary Union decisions and ongoing questions concerning the role of the European Central Bank; the broader economic implications of the German Federal Constitutional Court’s decision for the ECB’s independence and for the Pandemic Emergency Purchase Programme; as well as constitutional questions such as supremacy of EU law and the role of judicial dialogue in the EU constitutional order. Chair: Professor Catherine Barnard Speakers: Dr Alicia Hinarejos Dr Markus Gehring Professor Michael Waibel This was the first CELS online webinar. For more information see the CELS website at: http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/

In this episode, I talk to Dr. Harold James of Princeton University about Brexit. We delve into topics like trade deals, currency movements, the future of Britain, and much more! Check out the episode to learn about Brexit in a simplified way! Harold James is the Claude and Lore Kelly Professor in European Studies, the Professor of History and International Affairs, and the Director of the Program in Contemporary European Politics and Society at Princeton University and the university’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He studies economic and financial history and modern European history. In addition to being a professor, he used to be a fellow at Cambridge University’s prestigious Peterhouse College. He also has won the Helmut Schmidt Prize for Economic History, and the Ludwig Erhard Prize for writing about economics. He has written several books on economics and, in particular, European economics, which are linked below. Harold received both his undergraduate degree and Ph.D. from Cambridge University. Follow Princeton University, Princeton Economics, and the Woodrow Wilson School on Twitter here! Follow StreetFins on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook here! Find and subscribe to Finance Simplified on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Spotify! Harold’s Books: The Euro and the Battle of Ideas (2016) The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle (2012) Making the European Monetary Union (2014) Want to learn more? Check out some StreetFins articles relating to topics mentioned in the episode: Understanding Brexit Intro to the Federal Reserve System (helps understand Europe’s banking system) The Basics of Forex Markets Intro to Economics Intro to Keynesian Economics

After the ECOFIN meeting, Bruegel and the Financial Times hosted a conversation with the Minister of Finance from Spain to discuss challenges related to pressing issues in the agenda ahead of the European Council in December, including European Monetary Union reforms and digital taxation.

Annual Lecture on Contemporary German History. The lecture was given on 24 April 2018 at the German Embassy London. In his lecture Timothy Garton Ash gives an insightful analysis of the processes of German and European unification, reflecting on the history of the European Monetary Union, the unification of Germany as a means towards a more united European continent and on how the roots of the problems we face in Europe today are connected to the historic developments in 1989 and the 1990s.

Outgoing Eurogroup President and former Minister of Finance of the Netherlands Jeroen Dijsselbloem discusses with Clingendael expert Rem Korteweg the future of the European Monetary Union, and reflects on the developments of the past years.

In the next couple of weeks, Greece will elect a new government and according to the polls, the emerging Syriza party could form that government.  They are calling for an end to austerity measures and their Marxist Communist roots are causing quite a bit of concern in the wider Europe.  Greece, austerity and the European Monetary Union are a heady mix! But regardless of who wins this election, Greece faces substantial problems. Among them, a huge, and growing, public debt. Craig Barfoot spoke to Greek economist Dr Yiannis Kitromilides, an Associate Member of the Cambridge Centre for Economic and Public Policy, Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, about the current situation and the position of Greece within the European Monetary Union (EMU). He started by asking Dr Kitromilides  to comment on the repeated narrative that high public spending and widespread tax evasion, combined with the credit crunch, were the causes of Greece’s problems. Yiannis Kitromilides:  This narrative is correct.  There was widespread tax evasion, and avoidance. There is tax avoidance in most countries, but there was tax evasion on a large scale in Greece; there was corruption; an overblown public sector (politicians were creating jobs in the public sector and employing their supporters, even in key positions). Craig Barfoot:  so where are we now? YK: The current economic situation in Greece is best compared to the economic situation in the US in the 1930s.  Since 2009 the economy has lost 25% of its output, they are 25% poorer, unemployment is 25%, youth unemployment is about 60% and the prospects of growth are – as in the wider Eurozone – quite bleak.  And yet the debt, the original form of the problem, is increasing. So, after five years of sacrificing all this output the prospects are bleak. CB: When we talk about austerity measures specifically for Greece, what was implemented? YK: Austerity measures are those measure imposed in order to produce a balance in the annual budget.  The reason you owe money is that you are spending more than you’re earning, so if you are an individual who wants to avoid insolvency the only way to get out of it is to cut down on your spending and increase your income. If you apply this to governments, it means cutting government spending and increasing taxes, as in Greece. CB:  That sounds reasonable…. YK: But this is a process that many economists believe to be counterproductive. If you are trying to pay your debts as a country, you must not look at the solution for an individual family.  It is what the economists call the ‘fallacy of composition’ - what is true for the part is not always true for the whole. This is something that has a long history in economic thought going back to the 1930s, when Keynes argued along similar lines about what needed to be done to deal with the 1930s depression in the UK and USA.  That if you are in a bad situation economicallhy, the solution is not to act in the same way as a family in economic difficulties (ie to impose austerity), but rather to do the opposite. It sounds paradoxical and counter intuitive, but some people say this is what needed to be done, not only in Greece but also in other indebted economies.  By trying to solve the problem of indebtedness by austerity, you are making the problem worse. CB:  Who does Greece owe its debt to? YK: Not to the European banks, though they were the original lenders, but rather to international institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the European Central Bank (ECB) - which means Greece owes money to the other members of the Monetary Union. Syriza is asking them to cut the debt by 50% - to forgive 50%.  The other 50% they say they will repay as soon as Greece achieves sustainable growth of 3-4%.  They says this was exactly what was done for the German debt in 1953 - it is what the allies agreed – to give Germany more time to repay,

The G20 France 2011 Summit, scheduled for November 3 and 4, will take place in the context of what has turned into a severe crisis in the eurozone. Given the rather poor performance of the G20 until now, and taking into account how the European Monetary Union seems to be unraveling, the YCSG has organized this panel discussion to review the situation right before the summit and imagine what outcomes should be expected. Are we on the brink of a new global crisis?

In the run-up to this week's announcement of the European Union's $960 billion stabilization plan Wharton management professors Mauro Guillén and Saikat Chaudhuri and Jean Salmona founder and chairman of the editorial board of ParisTech Review participated in an interview with Knowledge at Wharton on likely outcomes from the financial crisis facing Greece some of its sister countries and the European Monetary Union more generally. How did events spin so out of control? How will the politics of the crisis affect the Eurozone's economic performance? Guillén Chaudhuri and Salmona addressed these and other questions on May 7 just before the huge financial support package was announced. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Maastricht convergence criteria and the Growth and Stability Pack were designed to win the support of Germany for European Monetary Union. Now EMU has arrived, these institutions are an obstacle to its success. How should they be reformed and which new institutions are needed?

In the course of the EU enlargement process, the participation of accession countries in the European Monetary Union might lead to a significant redistribution of seigniorage wealth if current regulations prevail. In general, accession countries will be winners from this redistribution, for example Poland with 12.9 billion euros, Romania with 9.9 billion euros or Hungary with 3.3 billion euros. Correspondingly, the current member countries of the European Union face costs of 35.3 billion euros in total, the biggest part of which has to be borne by Germany.