HK: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps I misinterpret the statement, the EPI Brief #134 or both, but I think the "Statement to German colleagues" is in contradiction to main passages of the recent article on SOCIAL INVESTMENT AND THE BUDGET DEBATE by Jeff Faux and Max Sawicky (EPI Issue Brief #134 - Economic Policy Institute September 23, 1999): >>>>>>>>> mbs: When in doubt, rely on the EPI paper. :-) Like I said, I didn't write the statement. Like many others I sign things I may not agree with 100%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> . . . Why do authors resp. signers of the statement connect the economic policy of the Schroeder government to the Reagan administration - while in the same breath they criticize the inadequate social and public expenditures of the Clinton administration? Do you think the policy of Schroeder (or Blair) is just a continuation or repitition of the policy project of the Neoliberals? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't speak for the authors of the statement, but I imagine the Schroeder/Reagan link is founded on what is perceived as a Schroeder turn to the right implied by the departure of Red Oskar, and an emphasis on the role of German monetary policy in the EU. Re: the link between Schroeder/Blair/neo-liberals, I think that over-simplifies matters, though there is much to regret in the policies of both Blair and Schroeder. >I agree that this part of the statement is a little flaky. Flaky? HK >>> Yes, flaky, as in a tendency to crumble when you touch it. Cheers, mbs
