Read it at The Modern Monetary Theory Trader
I believe we have everything we already need to effectively make the JG superfluous.
Why Not Use What We Already Have (instead of a JG?)
(h/t Clonal Antibody in a comment at Trader's Crucible)
Read it at The Modern Monetary Theory Trader
I believe we have everything we already need to effectively make the JG superfluous.
11 comments:
Indeed. Why not? It is contrary to the current belief that only the private sector can create jobs. Employment creation is completely absent from mainstream political discourse. Occupy did not change this (yet).
I don't think Warren Mosler's approach to the employment issue is ambitious enough. Going forward, my approach will be to defend a national re-commitment to full employment:
(i) That is fully consistent with MMT and informed by MMT;
(ii) For which MMT provides additional supporting reasons in the areas of macroeconomic benefits and financing feasibility;
and
(iii) Is primarily supported by reasons that are independent of MMT.
More later.
Dan K, it's already been legislated, and like the banking crisis, the existing laws and regs were not applied and are not being applied. Same with war crimes. This is a travesty of law and justice that is based on a double standard that is creating a privileged class, just what previous revolutions were mounted to overthrow.
What can one do when government will not enforce existing law? Revolt? That is what some people are concluding.
Tom,
I do believe that this suggestion is on par with Beowulf's platinum coin. Use the existing laws - put in as little new legislation as possible. Move existing legislation towards becoming an automatic stabilizer!
Agree, with the approach, Clonal, since it is probably the most practical politically.
However, the issue is much broader than that, and I think that we have to be looking at this from much more expanded perspectives. MMT macro (which includes the JG) is one. Energy economics is another, Then there are environmental economics, ecological economics, institutional economics, cognitive economics, evolutionary economics, etc.
But I agree, start from were you are and take one step at a time. The problem as I see it is that there is not a lot of time in the first place, given looming challenges, and, secondly, any delay results in huge waste and human suffering.
As they say, economics always involves tradeoffs. So it is constantly an issue of assessing opportunity cost.
Also, a new article up at New Economic Perspectives - A Federally-Funded Jobs Program? Lessons from the WPA
Quote:
In the current debates surrounding various job guarantee programs (in association with the Chartalist or Modern Money perspectives), it might prove helpful to review some aspects of the Works Progress Administration (renamed in 1939 as Work Projects Administration). While the WPA was not a “job guarantee” program, it nevertheless points to a number of issues that are under current discussion, including those of the nature of the projects undertaken, impact on the larger economy, concerns surrounding bureaucratic impediments, etc.
Thanks, Clonal. Promoted.
Not that it matters but I don't have any issues with a non-coercive JG and agree that it's preferable (far preferable) to unemployment which has no benefits (aside from serving as a counter-cyclical stabilizer). I just don't see politically how the JG will pass. At my last shop, every portfolio manager I knew would condemn ordinary public sector hiring in itself (such as the Census hires in 2008) as a waste. It's a small sample, sure, but it seems to be an easy political target. Also, the channels do seem to already exist. If the JG isn't intended to increase demand, it's all about increasing employment, or perhaps how I see it, creating a more effective buffer stock than unemployment. I think unemployment benefits have to be retained (which the JG does allow for) to prevent possible coercion. I think a Job Corps program is better than unemployment in that it addresses at least somewhat the "unskilled" part while still supporting demand, perhaps more of an investment than expenditure. But for anyone who wants to work, they certainly should be allowed to work. At $8/hour, however, I'd personally take the Job Corps over public sector employment. But if it comes down to the public sector doing the hiring for the JG, the public sector already has the ability to do the hiring without an official JG declaration.
I have no criticisms, again, not that it matters, but the JG is like trying for third base when the world appears to still be on its first date with MMT.
Also the MMT Trader has a new post on More on the Job Corps
As great as the JG is, I don't trust today's government and political structure to implement it. We're a long way from the 1930s and the administrators who ran the WPA and similar programs with such success. Look at the latest attempt at "health care reform", which turned into mandatory junk insurance for all. The only way our government could implement a JG would twist it into a project for private business to profit off the unemployed at cutrate wages.
I realize there's a long way to actually implementing something like the JG. But to even discuss it without also discussing the corruption among the 1% is in my opinion grossly irresponsible.
Another telling point, reslez. TPTB will figure a way to monetize anything.
Post a Comment