What would happen if the Euro currency went bust?
Each country would have to go back to its own currency, or the rich countries would just kick the poor ones out of the EU.  It would be bad for the poor countries, and the global economy would suffer, but it really wouldn't be a big deal. These rumors are here just to help dollar stay alive. Euro have problems, but they are rather solvable, unlike dollar situation. Even if something wrong would happen - countries would return to their national currencies, mainly Germany & France are important here. This does not means that EuroUnion would be destroyed - some countries live in EU without Euro and they are just fine. If the Euro went bust then it would be the 12th government currency to go belly up in Europe (according to this website).  Europe holds the record for most failed currencies.  It also holds the record for the worst hyperinflation in history - Yugoslavia 1993.  I'm not sure what would happen if the Euro failed.  It depends on how it fails.  If it fails quickly (which most do) then there will be bank runs, bank holidays, capital controls, massive price increases, price controls, and just general confusion as people race to get rid of their Euros.  Black markets for everything will pop up if the price controls remain in place.  Some countries may switch to a foreign currency (i.e. the US dollar if it is still around) until they can get their own currency in circulation. I'd have anything you would need for maybe 3-6 months stored up: food, fuel, toiletries, other incidentals.  What might replace the currency after the Euro collapses will be the least of your concerns when it does collapse. Krugman (Nobel prize in Economy) has just said: Greek euro exit, very possibly next month. Huge withdrawals from Spanish and Italian banks, as depositors try to move their money to Germany. 3a. Maybe, just possibly, de facto controls, with banks forbidden to   transfer deposits out of country and limits on cash withdrawals. 3b. Alternatively, or maybe in tandem, huge draws on ECB credit to   keep the banks from collapsing. 4a. Germany has a choice. Accept huge indirect public claims on Italy   and Spain, plus a drastic revision of strategy — basically, to give   Spain in particular any hope you need both guarantees on its debt to   hold borrowing costs down and a higher eurozone inflation target to   make relative price adjustment possible; or: 4b. End of the euro. And we’re talking about months, not years, for this to play out. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/eurodammerung-2/ "The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much ""connected"". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite."
I can't see it happening because most of the population seems to be against it, even if their reasoning on the whole is wrong. Theoretically, people are against the Euro here as a result of national pride. If it's the best thing to do for the good of the country then national pride shouldn't be taken into account. It'd be perverse in the sense that you'd be stopping your country from progressing because you love it. That doesn't add up. Personally, I don't think it's possible for an entire continent to have a single currency. There's too many different countries and cultures involved. For it to work you'd have to have centralised fiscal policy and this makes no sense at all for a continent. What works here might not work in France or Germany. What works in Greece might not work here. etc, etc. The make up of each country's economies is different. "Depends on the country, whether its a currency issuer with floating exchange rate, and what the debt is denominated in. For instance, the US has no real debt, b/c its all in US dollars and can be printed at any time. It has no need to borrow anything, it issues its own currency. It used to be different 4 decades ago, on the gold standard, so in general people still think currency issuers need to borrow (or earn) to spend. Just a relic in thinking.  But when the country does not issue its own currency, then it does need to earn or borrow in order to spend. In this case, it could borrow from anywhere that will lend it money. In US, a state would fit this description. Or Greece, as it borrowed Euros, for which it is not an issuer of.  EDIT: just came across this blog http://pragcap.com/where-does-the-money-come-from Its title, ""Where does the money come from"". Maybe he saw this question. Anyway, the US does not need to borrow money. Why would it borrow what it creates? From the video: ""Thinking is hard, that's why we don't do it a lot"". Great line." If the transfer is from a country in Euro region, then yes, using Does, it's possible. However if it's outside then all other details are required. Edit IBAN is used by EURO countries and is supposed to simplify things. However till its fully adopted by all countries and clearing networks, there is quite a bit of confusion and complexity for individuals.   Low Value Transfer in Euro region in EUR currency is on SEPA network that only understands IBAN and only supports EUR currency. If you are transfering within UK [both banks in UK] in GBP, it would go on BACS network that only understands SortCode+AccountNumber. There are some Banks that give you interface that take an IBAN and convert to SortCode+AccountNumber and submit to BACS. "How should I allocate short-term assets in a rising-interest rate   environment? Assuming that the last part is correct, there could be bear bond funds that short bonds that could work well as a way to invest. However, bear in that the the ""rising-interest rate environment"" is part of the basis that may or may not be true in the end as I'm not sure I've seen anything to tell me why rates couldn't stay where they are for another couple of years or more. Long-Term Capital Management would be a cautionary tale before about bonds that had assumptions that backfired when something that wasn't supposed to happen, happened. Thus, while you can say there is ""rising-interest rate environment"" what else are you prepared to assume and how certain are you of that happening? An alternate theory here would be that ""junk bonds"" may do well because the economy has to be heating up for rates to rise and thus the bonds that are priced down so much because of default risk may turn out to not go bust and thus could do well. Course this would carry the ""Your mileage may vary"" and without a working time machine I couldn't say which funds will be good and which would suck. As for what I would do if I was dealing with my own money: Money market funds and CDs would likely be my suggestion for the short-term where I want to prevent principal risk. This is likely what I would do if I believed the rising rate environment is here." Short the Pound and other English financial items.  Because the English economy is tied to the EU, it will be hit as well.  You might prefer this over Euro denominated investments, since it's not exactly clear who your counterpart is if the Euro really crashes hard.  Meaning suppose you have a short position Euro's versus dollars, but the clearing house is taken down by the crash. Government default doesn't mean that all US money is immediately worthless.  First, the bondholders will get stiffed.  Following that, interest rates will shoot up (because the US is a bad credit risk at this point) and the government will monetize its ongoing expenses -- i.e., fire up the printing presses. If you're concerned about not having access to your money, start pulling out a little extra when you get cash at an ATM.  Build it up over time until you have enough currency to weather through whatever emergency you envision with your bank account. "These have the potential to become ""end-of-the-world"" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid.  Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default.  Take Zimbabwe, for example.  Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies.  Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece." The Euro is a common currency between various countries in Europe.  This means that individual countries give up their traditional sovereign control of their own currency, and cede that control to the EU. Such a system has many advantages, but it also means that individual countries cannot deal with their unique situations as easily.  For instance, if the US were a part of the EU, then the Fed couldn't issue $600B the way they are to bolster the economy. The danger to the Euro is that countries will withdraw their participation in order to micromanage their economies more effectively.  If a major country withdraws its participation, it could start a domino effect where many countries withdraw so that they too can manage their economies more effectively.  As more countries withdraw, a shared currency becomes less and less appealing.