Euro Analysis

The Hammer and Sickle is something that has been well known across Europe for decades. Since it was first introduced in 1924 by the Soviet Union, it had been flown on their flag all over that continent until the country and all it represented collapsed. It was seen as a symbol of repression, of struggle, and of strife to all who were imprisoned under its power. Many years passed where none the world over viewed the symbol with anything near pride or admiration but saw it with disdain and fear. It was quite the shock then on May 4, 2010 when that banner was draped across the famous landmark, the Acropolis, in Athens, Greece. A striking symbol of culture and heritage had been shroud in the crossed symbols of communism with the words "People of Europe Rise Up" inviting citizens to revolt against a failing government and its currency they believed that had failed them (Lynn, 2011).

Much had happened in Greece to bring the people to the point that showed them that the economic system implemented only a decade prior was not all they hoped it would be and with it went all the hopes and dreams the people of that country held and the Hammer and Sickle proved that with sickening clarity. This storm had been brewing for years as financial markets across the world had derailed with the speed and force of a freight train. Greece was out of money and with it went any options they hoped to employ. The European Union and the International Monetary Fund were now in control with promises of rescue that included massive budget cuts and brutal ends to easy money lifestyles. With this news came catastrophic revolts that were "violent, brutal, and passionate" (Lynn, 2011). The euro came into being through the efforts of "economic elite convinced they were creating a better, more harmonious, and more efficient Europe" (Lynn, 2011). Surely that is not how it was supposed to be but one must ask the question, was the Euro a good idea for Europe?

To discuss this further, knowing what the euro is and how it came to be must be understood. It is a single currency used throughout Europe and was first discussed in 1988 when plans were first made to create the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) which would eventually monetarily unite 23 countries (Rosenberg, 2011). This was not a new idea nor was it unique. As the great French writer, Victor Hugo, author of The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les Miserables, penned in 1855:

A continental currency, with a dual metallic and fiduciary base, resting on all Europe as its capital, and driven by the activity of 200 million men: this one currency would replace and bring down all the absurd varieties of money that exist today, with their effigies of princes, those symbols of misery (cited in Lynn, 2011).

While not a new idea, it is one that has been tried and failed many times from the Latin Monetary Union in 1865 consisting of France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, and Greece, to the Scandinavian Monetary Union in 1873 which linked Denmark, Sweden, and Norway with both lasting around 50 years (Wood & Yesilada, 2002).

Once the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and Germany was once again unified as one country, these countries moved forward with the EMU and the idea to create a single currency for these many countries. This started with the Maastricht Treaty and under its design would create the EMU, the euro, and many other improvements for Europe. This wasn't without opposition. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Britain, showed a great dislike and opposition to the idea. She did finally give her support when pressured by several within Britain's government "not to leave Britain in an isolated position" (Wood & Yesilada, 2002). Nearly every country involved in the set up and implementation of the EMU faced opposition from its people and battled details until it was fully ratified in 1993. It would be many years later, however, until the euro was finally placed in circulation and great challenges were still in their path. The hurdle of making the people of the land believe this paper was worth something was nearly insurmountable. Printing began in January of 1999 and became the official circulating currency in January of 2002 more than a full decade following the beginning negotiations (Wood & Yesilada, 2002).

We are now a full decade beyond its introduction and have seen it fluctuate greatly in comparison to the world's leading currencies and there are many reasons for this. Some countries are prospering greatly with the euro in trade while others struggle and sink. In many ways, the euro was a phenomenal idea with huge benefits. Having been there myself, I have a personal view of the situation. Each is presented below in trying to answer whether the Euro really was a worthy goal.

The euro's effects have been felt the world over but none have felt its influence more than those who use it. In creating a single currency for the people of Europe, it has been able to allow a far greater amount of trade and tourism throughout the area. One main challenge a company faces when trading and doing business internationally is through exchange rates and the cost associated with all that entails. With implementing a single coinage, business can conduct operations with the potential for error through money transactions. As Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, said in a celebration speech honoring the tenth anniversary of the euro:

Raw materials