Krugman highlights but provides no link to Nouriel Roubini’s address to the 2006 Davos meeting (direct link to Economonitors here).
What I would say is that this incident exemplified something that was going on all along the march to the eurodebacle. Serious discussion of the risks and possible downsides was simply not allowed. If you were an independent economist expressing even mild concerns about the project, you were labeled an enemy and shut out of the discussion.
and in the same op ed It’s Not About Welfare States (via truthout) reviews election rhetoric and disinformation on the economic crisis in Europe being mainly welfare oriented countries:
Whenever a disaster happens, people rush to claim it as vindication for whatever they believed before. And so it is with the euro.
As an aside, the interesting thing about the introduction of the euro from a political point of view is the way it cut across the ideological spectrum. It was hailed by the Wall Street Journal crowd, who saw it as a sort of milestone on the way back to gold, and by many on the British left, who saw it as a way to create an alliance of social democracies. It was criticized by Thatcherites, who wanted to be free to move Britain in an American direction, and by American liberals, who believed in the importance of discretionary monetary and fiscal policy.
But now that the thing is in trouble, people on the right are spinning this as a demonstration that … strong welfare states can’t work.