When money leaks out, it leaks in to somewhere else. Sort of like connecting bodies of water will lower the water level of one body and raise it in another. One place will lose out and another will gain.
Unless differences in local taxation/laws/amenities/other lead to wealth/poverty hotspots. With some areas vacuuming up wealth and others repelling it. Is that what this is really solving? Unable to compete on local taxation/laws/amenities/other, cities have to find another way to prevent their wealth being repelled.
Sounds like just another wall though. Which can surely never last
The common currency was a bad decision in my opinion. Sure, now legislation is getting "normalized" (I love the jargon), so that nobody is happy with it anymore. I don't think I would want that for anybody. It is like a marriage that doesn't really work.
Complete detachment of capital that was created in one place is not a great idea. That doesn't mean other places cannot grow and it doesn't mean there is no exchange.
And it's not just tourism. Euro + SEPA + free movement between countries are what fueled the growth of the European economy pre-rona. That all of this got attacked in the recent years (no matter if Italy/Greece threatening/being threatened with Euro removal or Germany's Seehofer introducing border controls again to "combat immigration" aka get rid of refugees) is saddening.
The people who want to dial back European unification are going to cost Europe a lot, especially the ability to compete with the US on the global stage.
Do note that this does not mean there are no problems relating to the Euro - especially the economic disparity between the powerhouses Germany/France and the (South) Eastern European countries - but these should be solved by wealth transfers and nation building, not by risking all progress of the last decades!
The Euro has nothing to do with border control or free movement, free trade, standardisation or fishing quotas. It has nothing to do with immigration policy, the Dublin treaty, or even the Maastricht treaty.
There is no doubt that central European monetary policy has harmed Italy and Greece. It likely contributed to the Catalonian vote for independence, too and is also squeezing Portugal in ways that are making the citizenship sit up and take notice.
Britain was successfully showing it was possible to have free movement & trade and significant collaboration inside the EU's organisations and projects without a single currency or monetary policy.
Sadly, the Dublin treaty was not being enforced that led - and still leads to this very day - to hysterical media coverage that turned public opinion against the whole project. The EU's inability to flex on that was one of many contributory factors to the Brexit vote, but so was the drive for tighter political and economic unification.
That is now causing other countries to have their own exit movements gain attention. If the EU does not pull back there is a real risk those movements will gain more momentum and the project will end.
People aren't interested in competing with the US on the global stage. They want a home, a family and fulfilling work and social lives. The technocrats trying to wave their genitals don't care about the damage they do, as long as the EU rises in league tables with ever bigger numbers.
I believe a reformed EU is the only future where we get any of the benefits of the original ideals. It's not clear to me you need to have a common currency to do that. It's not even clear to me you need a Parliament to do that, never mind one that moves between two cities regularly.
Well, yes; this is standard velocity of money stuff. It is detrimental to the economy to hoard money, and even more in a ""hard money"" situation to hoard the hard money, whether that turns out to be gold and silver or just dollars in a collapsing non-dollar country.
But if you try to close the economy as a result you end up with mercantilism, and having to forgo all sorts of opportunities for cheaper, better products because you have to buy from the local entrenched elite producers instead.
Plus it basically doesn't work in the oil age for most countries because they have to import oil.
Where do you draw the boundaries? Is money leaking outside the globe?
What they mean, I presume, is that when money earned locally can only be spent locally, it encourages re-investment at the source.
This is dangerous and limiting in some ways, but an interesting thought in others. The world doesn't need to be all one or the other, and just like any other currency, a powerful enough local one (NYC Bucks or whatever) would establish an exchange rate against other currencies anyway.