Georges Caravelis's argument is about a monetary-theoretic approach to the origin, transformation and evolution of monetary institutions. It consists of five hypotheses, the realism and logic of which are geared to economic history. It is applied to Economic and Monetary Union and is intended to provide answers to five questions relating to why EMU was agreed on, when it would be realized, how its monetary unit would be established, which means should be used to implement it and what purpose it would serve. These five hypotheses are meant to frame formerly unresolved problems in the theory of money as well as to act as tools for the appraisal of the Utility theory of money through a reconsideration of Walras's Elements, and of the State theory of money via a restatement of Keynes's General Theory. Both are found to be inadequate; the first, because of the logical inconsistency entailed in its theoretical construction; the second, because of its limited explanatory power and suggestive capacity. An alternative approach to money is offered, aiming at suggesting new answers to the basic questions about money. It starts from the premise that the asset which internalizes a sufficient number of money externalities is capable of becoming money. For this to happen, certain conditions embodied in the hypotheses ought to be satisfied. If the postulate: money is an externality is applied to EMU, it is found that EMU's institutional arrangement is defective.This suggestion accords well with the Cipolla thesis that refers to independent monetary units, not composite currencies. ... This implies that transforming the EMS into EMU will be effected more efficiently if one concentrates on the monetary a#39;naturea#39; of the ECU. ... Idea a) states the line of monetary causality and is specified in Table 3.6 as follows: Table 3.6 Diagram on the nexus of causality The nexusanbsp;...
|Title||:||European monetary union|