Most Germans Wanted Hard Money Because a Single Generation Had Lost Its Monetary Savings Twice: In the Hyperinflation of 1923 and in the Currency Reform of 1948

The EMS [European Monetary System] tried to fix exchange rates that had been allowed to float in a corridor of ±2.25 percent around the official rate. But the intention of fixed exchange rates was incompatible with the system built to achieve that aim. The idea was that when the exchange rate would threaten to leave the corridor, central banks would intervene to bring the rate back into the corridor. For this to happen, a central bank would have to sell its currency, or in other words, produce more money when the currency was appreciating and moving above the corridor. It would have to buy its currency, selling assets such as foreign exchange reserves, if its currency was depreciating, falling below the corridor.

The Spanish Central Bank provides us with a good example. If the peseta appreciated too much in relation to the Deutschmark, the Bank of Spain had to inflate and produce pesetas to bring the peseta's price down. The central bank was probably very happy to do so. As it could produce pesetas without limits, nothing could stop the Bank of Spain from preventing an appreciation of the peseta. However, if the peseta depreciated against the Deutschmark, the Bank of Spain would have to buy its currency and sell its Deutschmark reserves or other assets, thereby propping up the exchange rate. This could not be done without limits, but was strictly limited to the reserves of the Bank of Spain. This was the basic misconstruction of the EMS and the reason it could not work. It was not possible to force another central bank to cooperate, i.e., to force the Bundesbank to buy peseta with newly produced Deutschmarks when the peseta was depreciating. In fact, the absence of such an obligation was a result of the resistance of the Bundesbank. France called for a course of required action that would reduce the independence of the Bundesbank. Bundesbank president Otmar Emminger resisted being obliged to intervene on part of falling currencies in the EMS. He finally got his way and the permission from Helmut Schmidt to suspend interventions leading to the purchase of foreign currencies within the EMS agreements. Countries with falling currencies had to support their currencies themselves.

Indeed, an obligation to intervene in favor of falling currencies would have created perverse incentives. A central bank that inflated rapidly would have forced others to follow. Fiat paper currencies are introduced for redistribution within a country. Fixed fiat exchange rates coupled with an obligation to intervene allowed for redistribution between countries. In such a setup, the faster inflating central bank (Bank of Spain) would force another central bank (Bundesbank) to follow and buy up faster, inflating one’s currency. The Bank of Spain could produce pesetas that would be exchanged into Deutschmarks buying German goods. Later the Bundesbank would have to produce Deutschmarks to buy peseta and stabilize the exchange rate. There would be a redistribution from the slower-inflating central bank to the faster-inflating central bank.

Yet, in the EMS there was no obligation to buy the faster-inflating currency. This implied also that the EMS could not fulfil its purpose of guaranteeing stable exchange rates. Fixed fiat exchange rates are impossible to guarantee when participating central banks are independent. Governments wanted both fiat money production for redistributive internal reasons and stable exchange rates. This desire makes voluntary cooperation in the pace of inflation necessary. Without voluntary cooperation, coordinated inflation is impossible. The Bundesbank was usually the spoilsport of coordinated inflation. It did not inflate fast enough when other central banks, such as the Bank of Italy, inflated the money supply to finance Italian public deficits.

The Bundesbank did not inflate as much on account of German monetary history. A single generation had lost almost all monetary savings two times, namely, after two world wars: in the hyperinflation of 1923 and the currency reform in 1948. Most Germans wanted hard money, and expressed that through the institutional set up of the Bundesbank, which was relatively independent of the government. What all of this means is that, in practice, the EMS would only function if central banks were only able to inflate as much as the slowest links in the chain: the Bundesbank and its traditional ally, De Nederlandsche Bank.

—Philipp Bagus, The Tragedy of the Euro, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012), 24-26.

European Politicians Introduced the “Stability and Growth Pact” (SGP) in 1997 in order to “Manage the Commons”; However, the Regulation of the Commons Failed

These tragic incentives stem from the unique institutional setup in the EMU [European Monetary Union]: one central bank. These incentives were not unknown when the EMU was planned. The Treaty of Maastricht (Treaty on the European Union), in fact, adopted a no-bailout principle (Article 104b) that states that there will be no bailout in case of fiscal crisis of member states. Along with the no bailout clause came the independence of the ECB. This was to ensure that the central bank would not be used for a bailout.

But political interests and the will to go on with the Euro project have proven stronger than the paper on which the no bailout clause has been written. Moreover, the independence of the ECB [European Central Bank] does not guarantee that it will not assist a bailout. In fact and as we have seen, the ECB is supporting all governments continuously by accepting their government bonds in its lending operation. It does not matter that it is forbidden for the ECB to buy bonds from governments directly. With the mechanism of accepting bonds as collateral it can finance governments equally well.

There was another attempt to curb the perverse incentives of incurring in excessive deficits. Politicians introduced “managed commons” regulations to reduce the external effects of the tragedy of the commons. The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) was adopted in 1997 to limit the tragedy in response to German pressure. The pact permits certain “quotas,” similar to fishing quotas, for the exploitation of the common central bank. The quota sets limits to the exploitation in that deficits are not allowed to exceed three percent of the GDP and total government debt not sixty percent of the GDP. If these limits had been enforced, the incentive would have been to always be at the maximum of the three percent deficit financed indirectly by the ECB. Countries with a three percent deficit would partially externalize their costs on countries with lower deficits.

However, the regulation of the commons failed. The main problem is that the SGP is an agreement of independent states without credible enforcement. Fishing quotas may be enforced by a particular state. But inflation and deficit quotas of independent states are more difficult to enforce. Automatic sanctions, as initially proposed by the German government, were not included in the SGP. Even though countries violated the limits, warnings were issued, but penalties were never enforced. Politically influential countries such as France and Germany, which could have defended the SGP, violated its provisions by having more than three percent deficits from 2003 onward. With a larger number of votes, they and other countries could prevent the imposition of penalties. Consequently, the SGP was a total failure. It could not close the Pandora’s Box of a tragedy of the commons. For 2010, all but one member state are expected to violate the three percent maximum limit on deficits. The general European debt ratio to GDP is eighty-eight percent.

—Philipp Bagus, The Tragedy of the Euro, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012), 108-110.

The Tragedy of the Euro Is the Incentive to Incur Higher Deficits and Make the Whole Euro Group Burden the Costs of Irresponsible Policies

The tragedy of the Euro is the incentive to incur higher deficits, issue government bonds, and make the whole Euro group burden the costs of irresponsible policies—in the form of the lower purchasing power of the Euro. With such incentives, politicians tend to run high deficits. Why pay for higher expenditures by raising unpopular taxes? Why not just issue bonds that will be purchased by the creation of new money, even if it ultimately increases prices in the whole of the EMU [European Monetary Union]? Why not externalize the costs of government spending?

The resulting moral hazard is asymmetrical. Governments of larger states would produce considerable inflationary pressure running high deficits and might be too big to be bailed out. On the contrary, governments of smaller states would not produce much inflationary pressures even if they would run high deficits because the impact of the money creation would not be important for the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, small countries could expect to be bailed out by larger countries. It is unsurprising that the sovereign debt crisis has been worse in small countries such as Greece, Ireland and Portugal.

The tragedy of the Euro is aggravated by the typical shortsightedness of rulers in democracies: politicians tend to focus on the next election rather than the long-term effects of their policies. They use public spending and extend favors to voting factions in order to win the next election. Increasing deficits delays problems into the future and also into the other countries of the Eurozone. EMU leaders know how to externalize the costs of government spending in two dimensions: geographically and temporarily. Geographically, some of the costs are borne in the form of higher prices by the whole Eurozone. Temporarily, the problems resulting from higher deficits are possibly borne by other politicians and only in the remote future. The sovereign debt problems caused by the deficits may require spending cuts imposed by the EMU.

—Philipp Bagus, The Tragedy of the Euro, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012), 107-108.

France Made Gains at the Expense of the Germans Due to the Socialization of Seignorage When the Euro Was Introduced

Some countries, especially France, made gains at the expense of the Germans due to a socialization of seignorage wealth. Seignorage are the net profits resulting from the use of the printing press. When a central bank produces more base money, it buys assets, many of which yield income. For instance, a central bank may buy a government bond with newly produced money. The net interest income resulting from the assets is seignorage and transmitted at the end of the year to the government. As a result of the introduction of the Euro, seignorage was socialized in the EMU. Central banks had to send interest revenues to the ECB. The ECB would remit its own profits at the end of the year. One could imagine that this would be a zero sum game. But it is not. The ECB remits profits to national central banks based not on the assets held by individual central banks, but rather based on the capital that each central bank holds in the ECB. This capital, in turn, reflects population and GDP and not the national central banks' assets.

The Bundesbank, for instance, produced more base money in relation to its population and GDP than France, basically because the Deutschmark was an international reserve currency and was used in international transactions. The Bundesbank held more interest generating assets in relation to its population and GDP than France did. Consequently, the Bundesbank remitted relatively more interest revenues to the ECB than France, which were then redistributed to central banks based on population and GDP figures. While this scheme was disadvantageous for Germany, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands it was beneficial to France. Indeed, the Bundesbank profits remitted back to the German government fell after the introduction of the Euro. In the ten years before the single currency, the Bundesbank obtained €68.5 billion in profits. In the first ten years of the Euro the profit fell to €47.5 billion.

--Philipp Bagus, The Tragedy of the Euro, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012), 45-46.

Ridding Europe of the Hated Deutschmark

Governments of Latin countries, and especially France, regarded the Euro as an efficient means of getting rid of the hated Deutschmark. Before the introduction of the Euro, the Deutschmark was a standard that laid bare the monetary mismanagement of irresponsible governments. While the Bundesbank inflated the money supply, it produced new money at a slower rate than the high inflation of—especially Southern European—countries, who used their central banks most generously to finance deficits. The exchange rate against the Deutschmark served citizens in those countries as a standard of comparison. Governments of high inflation countries feared the comparison with the Bundesbank. The Euro was a means to end the embarrassing comparisons and devaluations.

Governments of high inflation countries did not fear the newly established European Central Bank. While the new central bank would look like a copy of the Bundesbank from the outside, from the inside it could be put under political pressure and gradually become a central bank more like that of Latin central banks. Actually, Southern Europe has control over the ECB. The council of the ECB is composed of the directors of the ECB and the presidents of the national central banks. All have the same vote. Germany and Northern, hard currency countries such as the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium hold the minority of votes against countries like Italy, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and France, whose governments are less averse to deficits. These Latin countries had strong labor unions and high debts making them inherently prone to inflation.

--Philipp Bagus, The Tragedy of the Euro, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012), 43-44.