Sean Ross 2016年8月8日
歐盟在2016年上半年的處境非常艱難。英國在這期間公投決定退出歐盟，盡管完成退歐最早要在2018年實現。德意志銀行、瑞士信貸和幾乎所有的意大利金融機構都出現了重大問題。希臘經濟形式仍然非常嚴峻，而且還有其他幾個國家也正在朝這個趨勢發展。最後問題可能是歐洲過度的官僚機制和歐洲央行，歐洲央行為了刺激經濟增長推出了負利率政策。陷入困境的歐元岌岌可危，而整個歐元區似乎也將進入這種境地。
當前壓力
目前歐元面臨的最主要威脅是主要國家可能出現的背叛。法國、西班牙、意大利、瑞典、德國、匈牙利和波蘭都有出現進行和英國類似的公投的趨勢。希臘一直以來都在徘徊在經濟崩潰邊緣並可能第一個退出歐盟，而如果希臘用貶值的德拉馬克償還債務其外國債權人將遭受損失。
申根區的終結
歐元的崩潰可能危害1995年申根協定之後命名的“申根區”。根據該協議，26個歐洲國家同意允許人員、商品、服務和資本在歐元區的自由流動。不是所有的歐盟成員都是申根區成員，也不是所有的申根區成員都是歐盟成員，但是歐元的崩潰還是會影響這個區域内外國家的經濟。
經濟上，同一經濟區可能出現競争貨幣。例如，沒有什麼能阻止德國和意大利同時交易德國馬克和意大利裡拉。唯一使這種情況不能出現的情形是歐元區的崩潰使歐盟也面臨解體的壓力。
如果申根協議被廢除，將會馬上造成實際成本。歐元區内國家可能需要實行邊界管制、設立檢查站和其他因申根協議廢除的内部管理。這些成本將會被轉移到私營企業，尤其是那些依賴跨境運輸和旅遊的企業。
各個國家都會實行進口報價和關稅，而這些措施可能是相互的，這必然將導致國際貿易下降並影響到經濟增長。雖然影響的方式還不能確定，但是很顯然，歐元的崩潰影響的不僅僅是歐元區國家。其他地區，尤其是作為主要貿易夥伴的北美和亞洲將會面臨相應的金融和可能的政治後果。
對歐洲之外的影響
許多歐盟内部的經濟好處並沒有傳遞給外部貿易夥伴。例如，勞動力和資本的自由流動沒有延伸到中國和美國，除非是外國消費者和生產商獲得了一些國家的權限。這使我們很難預測潛在影響，因為可能會有更加支持經濟增長的政策取代坐落在佈魯塞爾的官僚主義政策。另一方面，民族主義運動增加的經濟獨立可能會危及國際商業和金融市場。
在短期内，市場可能會增加負面反應並產生不確定性。歐盟是一個衆所週知的商品，盡管它不完美，市場喜歡能預測的東西。在長期中，市場將會從再次增長的歐洲經濟中受益。在2010到2015年間，歐洲的GDP增長率遠遠低於美洲、非洲、亞洲和太平洋地區。如果歐元崩潰後歐洲大陸能重回競争性經濟增長，那麼全球經濟很可能將會受益。
重新使用國家貨幣
停止使用歐元並使用原有的貨幣的正式稱謂為“變更貨幣單位”。這個轉換肯定要比2002年採用歐元簡單的多，但是投資者還是要警惕不確定性的出現。
本質上說，變更貨幣單位可以歸結為兩個變化。第一個是在一個國家境内採用新的貨幣。這意味著想在的工資、價格和其他價值將會以大致相近的基礎轉換為新貨幣。第二個是新貨幣的國際價值需要在外匯市場定價。這取決於許多因素，包括每個國家的生產能力和貨幣貶值的風險。
很有可能許多像希臘這樣的負債過獎想要通過變更貨幣單位減輕他們的還款壓力。實現這個目標的方法之一是在變更貨幣單位的同時立即展開高通脹，因此降低需要償還債務的購買力。經濟學家有時將這種方式稱為“即時内部貶值”。這種方法的缺點是對國家經濟造成嚴重破壞，因為銀行賬戶、養老金、工資和資產價值都將受到影響。
最近時間發生的相似情況是奧匈帝國崩潰後，該國成立於1867年並在1918年分裂。帝國解體後，許多成員國希望繼續使用奧匈克朗作為貨幣。不幸的是，一些不負責任的政府使用高度擴張性的貨幣政策用於償還一戰帶來的高額債務，使奧地利在20世紀20年代初出現非常嚴重通貨膨脹。斯洛文尼亞、匈牙利和其他一些國家也出現了類似的情況。到1930年，每個之前的成員國都使用了由黃金或者白銀支撐的新貨幣。
對銀行、外匯和國際貿易的影響
如果歐元被競争性的國家貨幣取代，對歐元的廢除只會造成貨幣政策的長期變化。歐元區最初的理念只是在歐洲創建一個美聯儲的對手方。廢除歐元將會把貨幣政策的管理權返還給成員國。例如，德國央行將會控制德國國内的利率和貨幣供應，而葡萄牙央行將會控制葡萄牙境内的。
銀行可能在其國家貨幣下進行資本重組，他們可能會更加積極的補充外匯儲備以用於貿易和和解。不同的匯率將會使不同國家持有的相同資產價值不同，並且在低通脹歐洲市場工作的工人相遇對於實行寬松貨幣政策國家的工人工資會增加。例如，高生產率國家的工人將會比的生產率斯洛文尼亞的工人更加容易的支付商品和服務。
然而，如果歐元崩潰，其他經濟政策不太可能保持不變。即使歐盟技術上能幸存下來，移民和貿易也可能會被施加其他限制。支持歐元的政黨將會遭受政治後果，使民族主義政黨增加影響力並很可能實施新的財政政策。如果申根協議也被廢除，可能在短期内會對經濟造成極大的擾亂。
Here's What Will Happen if the Euro Fails
By Sean Ross | August 8, 2016 — 1:00 PM EDT
The European Union (EU) had a rough first six months of 2016. The United Kingdom voted to leave, though the Brexit process will not be complete until 2018 at the earliest. There are major banking troubles at Deutsche Bank AG (NYSE: DB), Credit Suisse Group AG (NYSE: CS) and virtually every Italian financial institution. Greece remains in terrible shape economically, and several other countries are at least heading in that direction. The final nail in the coffin might be the ineffective policies of the EU's overly bureaucratic government in Brussels, and the European Central Bank (ECB), which threw in negative interest rates as a Hail Mary to spur growth. A distressed euro may be looking at the brink, and the entire eurozone may not be far behind.
Current Pressures
The clearest danger to the eurozone is further defection from prominent governments. There are popular movements in France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, Hungary and Poland for a U.K.-style referendum. Greece is consistently flirting with economic collapse and may be the first to leave the euro, though its foreign creditors might also suffer if repaid with devalued Greek drachmas.
End of the Schengen Area
A collapsed euro would likely compromise the so-called “Schengen Area,” named after the 1995 Schengen Agreement. Under this agreement, 26 separate European countries agreed to allow free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the borders of the eurozone. Not every member of the EU is also a member of Schengen, and not every participant in Schengen is part of the EU, but a collapse of the euro would nonetheless affect countries inside and outside of the region.
Economically, it is certainly possible to have competing currencies in the same economic zone. There is nothing preventing Germans or Italians from trading in both German deutsche marks and Italian lira, for example. That scenario only seems unlikely because an end to the euro would increase pressure to dissolve the entire EU experiment.
If Schengen falls, there are immediate practical costs to consider. Countries inside the eurozone would need to implement border controls, checkpoints and other internal regulations previously eliminated in the Schengen Agreement. These costs would spill over into private businesses, especially those relying on continental transportation or tourism.
To the extent that import quotas or tariffs are implemented by various member nations, and to the extent that those measures are reciprocated elsewhere, it would be a corresponding decline in international trade and economic growth. It is clear that the collapse of the euro would affect more countries than just European ones, though in uncertain ways. Other regions, especially major trading partners in North America and Asia, would face financial and possibly political consequences.
Impact Outside the EU
Many of the supposed economic benefits inside the EU did not transfer to external trading partners. The freedom of labor and capital did not extend to the United States or China, for example, unless foreign consumers and producers gained access to a member country. This makes it difficult to predict potential fallout, since it is possible that even stronger pro-growth policies could replace the bureaucratic super-state seated in Brussels. On the other hand, increased economic isolationism from nationalist movements threatens international businesses and financial markets.
In the very short term, markets would likely react negatively to added uncertainty. The EU is a known commodity, even if imperfect, and markets like predictability. In the longer term, however, the markets could certainly benefit from a once-again growing Europe. Between 2010 and 2015, Europe lagged significantly behind the Americas, Africa, Asia and the Pacific regions in real gross domestic product (GDP) growth. If a post-euro world returns continental Europe to competitive economic growth, it is very likely that the global economy will benefit.
Switching Back to National Currencies
The official term for leaving the euro and installing an old currency is called “redenomination.” Such a conversion would almost certainly be less complicated than coordinating the adoption of the euro in 2002, but investors should still be wary of uncertainty.
Essentially, the redenomination boils down to two broad changes. The first is the official adoption of a new currency within one nation’s boundaries. This means adjusting present wages, prices and other values to the new money in an approximately proportionate basis. Second, the international value of the currency needs to be priced into foreign exchange (forex) markets. This is based on many factors, including the productive capacity of each national government and the relative risk of devaluation for its currency.
It is likely that many indebted countries with lots of foreign creditors, such as Greece, would try to redenominate in such a way as to reduce their real repayment burden. One way to accomplish this is to redenominate and immediately begin a strong inflation, thus reducing the purchasing power of the repaid debt. Economists sometimes refer to this as “instant internal devaluation.” The downside to such a policy is that it creates havoc in the devalued country’s economy, since bank accounts, pensions, wages and asset values all suffer.
Close historical parallels can be found after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which stood between 1867 and 1918. After the empire fell apart, many member countries hoped to retain the Austro-Hungarian krone as currency. Unfortunately, several irresponsible governments used highly expansionary monetary policy to pay off the high debts from WWI, triggering hyperinflation in Austria by the early 1920s. Slovenia, Hungary and others experienced much of the same. By 1930, each former member nation had to use a new currency, often backed by gold or silver.
Impact on Banking, Forex and International Trade
If all that changed were the euro being replaced by competing national currencies, then the abolition of the euro would only create real long-term changes in monetary policy. The eurozone was originally sold, in part, by the concept of creating a European counterpart to the U.S. Federal Reserve. Getting rid of the euro would decentralize monetary authority back to the member nations; for example, a German central bank would control interest rates and the money supply in Germany, while a Portuguese central bank would control them in Portugal.
Banks could otherwise recapitalize in their national currencies, although they would likely have to keep more active foreign exchange balances for regional trade and reconciliation. The various exchange rates would change the relative values of some assets held internationally, and the workers in less-inflationary European job markets would see a relative income boost compared to European governments with loose monetary policy. For example, it is likely that workers in highly productive Germany would have an easier time affording goods and services produced in less-productive Slovenia.
However, it is very unlikely that other economic policies would remain unchanged if the euro failed. Even if the EU technically survived, other restrictions could be implemented on immigration or trade. Pro-euro parties would likely suffer political consequences, allowing for nationalistic parties to gain influence and maybe implement new fiscal policies. If Schengen also failed, the economic consequences could be extremely disruptive, even if only for the short term.
本文翻譯由兄弟財經提供
文章來源：http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/080816/heres-what-will-happen-if-euro-fails.asp