Re: Euro. Union: Resolution for a debate.

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Terence Murphy writes: >If you accept the modificed resolution in the
debate, you are on the negative side. That makes two (Gillis and Murphy)
against one (you). You're argument is based on the premise : " Europe seems
to be submitting itself to austerity programs (without the helping hand of
the IMF) in order to force itself into a Union." Hence, as you opposed to
EMU.<

That doesn't follow logically. It's quite possible I could be in favor of
the EMU as a goal but not in favor of the method in which the EMU is being
created. (Similarly, I could be in favor of abolishing drug abuse but
against the US gov't tactics and strategy in fighting drug abuse (mass
incarceration, etc.))

In fact, the purpose of my post was to point to the conflict between means
and ends when it comes to the EMU: your proposal (and John's) seemed to be
proposing a high-employ- ment/high wage EMU (_not_ the EMU _per se_),
whereas the way in which the EMU is _actually_ being established seems to
be going against both high wages and high employment.

So _don't_ count me in some vote, either pro or con. What I said was more
complicated than that (even though I didn't say much). (We in California
have a primary election and I'm suffering already from being forced to vote
yes or no on simplistic questions.)

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html