Euro Crisis

Frankfurt is a significant center of attention when it comes to economic news lately. It is home of the fifth largest stock exchange in the world. It also houses European headquarters for 218 banks. In Frankfurt is also the Deutsche Bundesbank, the central bank of Germany. Finally, the European Central Bank also makes Frankfurt its home.
Its no wonder that when talking about the European debt crisis, much of the focus is going to be in Germany. Angela Merkel states that this is the “worst crisis since World War II”. Because of the possibility of a Greek default, Germany is considering lending over half the money towards a proposed bailout fund of Greece. This is because many believe that the Euro is vital to the existence of a stable Europe. “The Euro is much more than a currency. The Euro is a guarantee for a united Europe. If the Euro fails, then Europe fails.”
However, Mayer's article seems to inflate the importance of the sustenance of the Euro to Germany's national interests. The article makes a very daring claim: “The European project tamed German national ambitions.” However, this runs with the historical fallacy that German ambitions were the sole cause of the chain of events leading to the World Wars, as opposed to the tension caused by the unstable alliance system. It would not be foolish to question the narrative that the European Union was a miracle that formed a peaceful, cooperative continent from a previously fractal, war shattered one. It would be wise to see the chain reactions of the World Wars, not caused by the lack of a central economic and banking system for Europe, but rather on the flimsiness of the world alliance system.
Furthermore, saving the Euro would require the main thing that the Euro was meant to prevent: Germany taking a dominant role in shaping European politics. According to Mayer, “For the Euro to survive, the finding goes , the profligate peoples of the weaker euro zone countries have to be made to behave like sensible Germans.” This seems to suggest that, if weaker countries are to be bailed out, much of their economic policy might be dictated by German banks. While this makes sense from a German's perspective(they want to make sure that their loans are repaid), it is likely to lead to political conflict between eurozone nations and would not lead to a more united Europe.
Mayer talked to both sides before writing her story. For instance, she quotes Angela Merkel on the importance of the Euro in her introduction. She also talks to working class Germans, including a bratwurst vendor. Many working class Germans want to simply let the Euro dissolve. They believe that it is unfair that they loan money to Greece, while Greeks employ many more entitlements than Germans and in consequence, Greece has been falling on its debt to gdp ratio promises. Many working class Germans see this outcome as predictable and enabled by Germany's guilt for World War II. They believe that people should stop hanging on the past, and begin thinking about the future. Therefore, it would be immoral and not sustainable that today's generation of Germans be made to bail out the welfare-entitlement states surrounding them.
Although Greece facing a default may mean that Germany may not get repaid some of its loans, in the long run it would be worth it to let the Euro dissolve. The alternative is that the standard of living among all Europeans, Germans in particular, will be reduced to the lowest common denominator. This is what any traditional economist would have predicted would happened when you combine two or more nations under one currency, especially nations with vastly different approaches to welfare and entitlements. The economically weaker nations, unless their spending is limited and economic policies reformed, will almost always drain capital from the stronger ones until its entitlement system finally causes a national default, which almost always leads to bailout by the stronger nations, which then restarts this cycle of welfare, loose credit, and bankruptcy that is encouraged by such bailouts.
Mayer's article is an example of hard news. Its important events with information vital to all people. The sovereign debt crisis is happening right now. It had a soft lede, however, in that it tries to draw the reader in with descriptions of Frankfurt as Europe's financial capital. I would say that the article is mostly objective, in that Mayer attempted to get the arguments from both sides of the story. However, I would still say that it is opinionated in that it made a lot of historical assumptions(for instance, that a united Europe is the only thing keeping France and Germany from attacking one another). This shows a historical bias against Germany and for a more integrated Europe.