Colm McCarthy ima problem z uradnim poimenovanjem evrskega območja kot Evropske monetarne unije. Glede na manjkajoče ključne elemente (prava bančna unija) namreč ne gre za monetarno unijo, pač pa za valutno unijo s skupno centralno banko. Problem seveda ni samo v semantiki, pač v realnih problemih, ki izhajajo iz tega. Pri tem pa tega ključnega manjka tudi nova evropska bančna unija seveda ne rešuje: ne jamči namreč za vloge varčevalcev posamičnih poslovnih bank, evropski reševalni sklad pa je premajhen, da bi lahko rešil banke v primeru večje finančne krize.
Defenders of the Eurozone’s initial design, subsequent management and purported reform invariably refer to the system as a ‘monetary union’. So do academic commentators including the authors of the recent Vox piece on the origins of the crisis. Whether intended or unconscious, this is an abuse of language.
Monetary unions do not experience selective bank closures, the re-introduction of exchange controls or the numerous other manifestations of financial fragmentation that have occurred before and after the Eurozone ‘reforms’. Germany is a monetary union. In 1974 the Herstatt Bank collapsed in Cologne and several banks based in Dusseldorf went down in the recent crisis. Both cities are in Nordrhein Westfalen, but there was no closure of bank branches in the state nor were exchange controls introduced by the state authorities on either occasion. Interest rates in Nordrhein Westfalen did not detach from rates elsewhere in Germany nor did bank deposits flee the state.
When the Continental Illinois Bank went under in 1984, at the time the largest-ever US bank failure, the state of Illinois was not expected to handle the fall-out. … The USA is also a monetary union and there is federal responsibility for bank supervision, bank resolution and the protection of bank creditors.
The Eurozone in contrast was established in 1999 as no more than a common currency area, with a ‘central bank’ responsible only for monetary policy in the aggregate, in pursuit of an inflation target. To describe it as a ‘monetary union’ is to deny that there is any distinction between a common currency area and a monetary union. If the Eurozone really was a monetary union in 2008 the history of the crisis would have been very different.
Language matters. … The danger is that relentless description of the Eurozone as a monetary union deflects attention from the awkward truth that it is not, and from the political unwillingness to make it so.
Vir: Colm McCarthy, The Irish Economy blog