Conceding too much
Sir : 'The measure of union responsibility for unemployment and economic stagnation is common ground between pseudoKeynesians and imputed-monetarists' writes Sir Keith Joseph (10 July) as an 'imputedmonetarist'. Referring to the alleged union responsibility for unemployment, might not both sides of the controversy be wrong? As far as I can understand, the shared opinion is that governments inflate currencies because they fear that trade unions might, in the absence of inflation, price the labour of their members out of employment. I cannot make sense of the alleged roles of government and unions in any other way. Unions, however, have never made this threat, and I do not know of any evidence that this is how unions behave. (I am not, however, satisfied that the true reason for governments behaving in this irresponsible manner is what it is alleged to be.) This, of course, strengthens Sir Keith's argument ; so my only criticism of his excellent article is that he is conceding more than is necessary to his opponents.
D. E. Folkes 5 Queen's Walk, London W5
Previous page
