Sennholz’s essay assesses the euro at the moment it became everyday money. He presents monetary union as a large political and economic experiment: it promises lower transaction costs, more transparent prices, and wider competition, yet it also transfers monetary power from national institutions to a new fiat-money authority.
On January 1, 2002, some 300 million Europeans entered a new financial era; they surrendered their national currencies in exchange for a common medium of exchange: the euro.
The essay reconstructs the road from European integration to Maastricht and the Stability and Growth Pact. Sennholz emphasizes that monetary union was never merely technical; it was tied to political unification, institutional convergence, and the effort to bind diverse national economies into a single monetary framework. Germany occupies a special place in the argument because the mark symbolized postwar monetary discipline.
For many Germans the coming of the euro and the departure of the German mark are a painful and needless experience.
Sennholz’s central criticism concerns the meaning of “stability.” The euro is officially committed to stable prices, but he argues that the ECB’s standard already permits continuing depreciation. In his reading, the mandate reflects the habits of modern central banking rather than a genuine hard-money ideal.
It is clearly visible in the mandate to the new European Central Bank to maintain price stability, which is defined as an increase in consumer prices of less than two percent a year.
From this point the essay develops an Austrian critique of central banking. Sennholz treats the ECB as a political institution subject to the same incentives that shaped earlier central banks: pressure to support governments, rescue financial institutions, and accommodate welfare-state finance. He doubts that statutory independence can overcome these pressures.
Unfortunately, throughout the long history of central banking no central bank has ever managed to achieve the illusive goal of price stability.
The conversion from national currencies to euro cash also allows Sennholz to discuss black markets, taxation, and regulation. He argues that the exchange of old notes exposed the scale of the underground economy and gave governments an opportunity to monitor, tax, or penalize holders of cash. For him this episode illustrates how monetary administration can become an instrument of fiscal enforcement.
The essay then turns to consequences within the euro area. Common money may intensify market competition by making prices, wages, and public burdens easier to compare. Yet this very transparency may provoke political demands for harmonized taxes, labor rules, welfare benefits, and protectionist policy. Sennholz warns that forcing similar standards onto economies with different productivity levels would not create prosperity; it would likely deepen unemployment and dependency.
He also stresses the uncertainty facing the ECB. It can influence money supply and interest rates, but it cannot command the public’s demand for money. New financial instruments, electronic payments, offshore banking, and private substitutes could reduce central-bank control and complicate monetary policy. The euro may therefore strengthen European markets in some respects while exposing the fragility of centralized monetary management.
The closing discussion weighs possible anchors for the euro, including dollar pegs, commodity standards, and gold. Sennholz rejects the idea that stability can be secured by mandate alone. His ideal remains money disciplined by market choice and commodity backing rather than political discretion. The essay’s enduring importance lies in its early free-market warning that the euro would face not only technical monetary problems but recurring conflicts among inflation, bailouts, national politics, and institutional centralization.
This work was divided into 7 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 7 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian