No, tule pa je (ob evropski) še ameriška različica skepse ekonomistov proti uvedbi evra. Leta 2009 sta si dva evropska ekonomista, and , vzela čas za veliko raziskavo, v kateri sta pregledala odnos ameriških ekonomistov do uvedbe evra. In dobila sta impresivno listo znanstvenih in poljudnih člankov, ki sta jih komentirala v članku, objavljenem januarja 2010, z naslovom “It Can’t Happen, It’s a Bad Idea, It Won’t Last: U.S. Economists on the EMU and the Euro, 1989-2002“. Ugotovila sta, da niti eden izmed ameriških ekonomistov, ki je izhajal iz teorije optimalnega valutnega območja, ni imel pozitivnega mnenja o evru. Niti eden.
No, Jonung in Drea sta januarja 2010 sklenila, da so se ameriški ekonomisti … preprosto zmotili. Desetletje po uvedbi naj bi evro čudovito deloval, nič slabše od dolarja. Jonung in Drea:
The main finding of our survey is that US academic economists were mostly skeptical of the single currency in the 1990s. By now, the euro has existed for more than a decade. The pessimistic forecasts and scenarios of the U.S. academic economists in the 1990s have not materialized. The euro is well established. It has not created political turmoil in Europe, and it has fostered integration of financial, labor and commodity markets within the euro area. Trade within the euro area has increased, and so has business cycle synchronization. Inflation differentials within the euro area are presently of the same order of magnitude as in the United States.
Why were U.S. economists so skeptical towards European monetary integration prior to the physical existence of the euro?
U.S. academic economists concentrated on whether a single currency was a good or bad thing, usually using the theory of optimum currency areas, and most were skeptical towards the single currency. In contrast, Federal Reserve economists had a less analytical and a more pragmatic approach. Both groups adjusted their views as European monetary unification progressed. It is surprising that academic economists, living in and benefiting from the U.S. monetary union, were so skeptical of monetary unification in Europe. We explain the skepticism as resulting from the strong influence of the original theory of optimum currency areas; failure to see monetary unification as an evolutionary process; failure to identify pegged exchange rates, rather than floating rates, as the practical alternative to a single European currency; and the belief that the single currency for Europe was primarily a political project that ignored economic fundamentals.
Mhm, Jonung in Drea sta raziskavo objavila, ko se je evrska kriza že začela razvijati in ko so evropski voditelji začeli s pripravami na prvi reševalni paket za Grčijo (s katerim so reševali nemške in francoske banke).
No, mene bolj kot to, da so imeli skeptični ameriški (in evropski) ekonomisti prav pred uvedbo evra, da bo evro neuspešen projekt, bega vprašanje ali so imeli prav tudi glede nadaljevanja. Namreč, ali so imeli tudi prav, da bodo težave znotraj evro območja pripeljale do političnih nesoglasij v Evropi in do evropske dezintegracije.
Monnet was mistaken… If EMU does come into existence, as now seems increasingly likely, it will change the political character of Europe in ways that could lead to conflicts in Europe…What are the reasons for such conflicts? In the beginning there would be important disagreements among the EMU member countries about the goals and methods of monetary policy. These would be exacerbated whenever the business cycle raised unemployment in a particular country or group of countries. These economic disagreements could contribute to a more general distrust among the European nations.
Vir: Martin Feldstein, Foreign Affairs (1997)