Friday Lay Day – ruminations on MMT and the JG

It’s my Friday Lay Day blog and today I’m spending some time travelling and some time thinking about the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) textbook that I’ve been promising to finish for some time. I can confidently say now that we are on track to finish the first edition by March 2016. Randy Wray and I have taken on a third author (Martin Watts) and have agreed on a completion plan. More information on availability will be available in the new year as we get closer to completion. This week I noted a lot of comments (particularly with respect to my Job Guarantee post) that suggested many readers still do not exactly know what MMT is. Further, there was a heterodox conference in Sydney this week, where MMT proponents were accused of being neo-liberals and politically naive. Unfortunately, other commitments prevented me from attending the conference this year but I read the paper in question and wondered why salaried academics would bother writing it. So a few reflections on both those matters today.

MMT is not a regime we can move to!

I often read comments like “if we introduced MMT …” or “under MMT policies …” or “when MMT becomes the norm”, All of which, implies that MMT is a regime that we would move to if society was more enlightened and would open up a new range of policy options that a truly progressive government might pursue.

This is tied in with other comments, specifically about the Job Guarantee, which suggest that MMT is a progressive doctrine or a left-wing approach to economic policy-making and what is holding MMT back from being introduced is the right-wing conspiracy to maintain hegemony.

I understand all these comments are well intended and people are genuinely attracted to some of the policy options that MMT proponents advance. This is notwithstanding, what I consider to be some doctrinal and irrational resistance to proposals such as the Job Guarantee.

But the conception that we might move to an MMT world where enlightened policy will free us from the yoke of capitalist exploitation is plain wrong.

The fact is that we are already living in the MMT world. We interact with each other every day in the MMT world. The monetary system, whether it be in the US, Australia, Japan or any of the Eurozone nations, is and MMT-type construct.

So it is not about moving to some new Shangri-La, which we might call the MMT world – we are already in, the world that is.

What MMT provides is a new lens to view the world we live in and the monetary system operations that are important in our daily lives.

This new lens opens up new insights into what is going on in the economy on a daily basis. It’s not something to move to, it already is.

MMT, as a new powerful lens, makes things that are obscured by neo-liberal narratives more transparent.

It means that the series of interlinked myths that are advanced by conservative forces to distract us from understanding causality and consequence in policy-making and non-government sector decision-making are exposed.

So when a Conservative politician or corporate leader claims that the government has run out of money and therefore cannot afford income support for the unemployed any longer at the levels previously enjoyed, MMT alerts us to the fact that this is a lie and that there must be an alternative agenda.

MMT thus empowers a population who learn about it to see things for what they are and to ask questions that they never previously would have thought possible to ask or even relevant.

Previously, when a politician has said the government will run out of money or is maxing out its credit card, an uninformed population will take that statement as granted. But an understanding of the MMT framework all its lens would mean that the population will now reject the “run out of money” obfuscation and instead demand to know why the government doesn’t want to support a particular policy option.

MMT thus, introduces into the policy debate, the possibility of new policy options and directions that have previously been dismissed out of hand through the use of spurious economic arguments that the politicians and their advisors know will not be properly scrutinised nor understood by the general population who they are trying to manipulate.

MMT is thus, a framework for understanding how the monetary system we live in operates and the capacities and options that are currency-issuing government has to advance our well-being.

It also allows us to understand the likely consequences of deviating from a truly sovereign state, which we define in terms of the currency-issuing status of the government (incorporating exchange-rate arrangements and central bank interest rate setting capacities).

In the latter context, the MMT lens provided us with a clear understanding of why the Eurozone would be a failure with significant negative consequences for the Member States.

Further, MMT is neither left-wing nor right-wing (I’ve said this before). The ideological persuasion of any perspective will manifest in the values that are expounded and the policy prescriptions that are proposed to advance those values.

What MMT means is that the ideological persuasion becomes much clearer when a person advances a particular policy proposal.

For example, when a politician, faced with rising unemployment, says that there is no fiscal space for the government to create jobs to deal with the mass unemployment, a person considering that comment through the MMT lens, will immediately realise that the government must have a reason for maintaining higher than necessary unemployment.

We know there must be a ‘hidden’ agenda because our understanding tells us that the government fiscal space is defined in terms of available real resources that the government can purchase with its currency-issuing capacity. So if there is mass unemployment then we know that there are such available real resources.

So why would the government refuse to purchase them and bring them back into productive use?

The focus then shifts on what that reason is and questions are likely to lead, for example, to an examination of corporate influence that might be leading the government to refuse to use their currency-issuing capacities to maintain full employment.

I hope that clarifies any misunderstandings.

Political naivety

The second issue that arose this week relates to a paper that was presented to the heterodox conference in Sydney this week. The paper claimed that the Job Guarantee was politically naive and that it essentially reflected a neo-liberal approach. Apparently, MMT is a “theoretical cousin” of the JG.

I’m not sure how this family tree was arrived at.

The JG is a buffer stock approach to macroeconomic stability, where employment buffers are used instead of unemployment buffers, the latter which characterises the so-called NAIRU approach of mainstream economics.

The JG should not be thought of, exclusively, as a job creation program, although clearly its use of employment buffers accomplishes that end.

The JG is the MMT response to Phillips curve equations in the mainstream macroeconomic theoretical frameworks. The Phillips curve proposes a trade-off between unemployment and inflation, and the extent of that trade-off is a topic of considerable debate within the mainstream framework.

The advent of Monetarism tried to claim there was no trade-off, which they believed all owed for a categorical rejection of the so-called Keynesian framework.

By turning the question of price stability on its head, if you like, the JG, through the use of employment buffers, also shows that there is no trade-off between involuntary unemployment and inflation, but with quite devastating consequences for the Monetarist conclusions.

What the JG shows is that a currency-issuing government can maintain stable inflation rates with full employment through the use of appropriately designed employment buffers. I consider that a major theoretical advance in macroeconomics and one of the contributions of MMT to advancing knowledge in this area.

The claim in the paper presented to the heterodox conference in Sydney is that the use of employment buffers “incorporates neoliberal methods of inflation reduction” and “does not represent a departure from a neoliberal paradigm.”

Apparently, using restrictive macroeconomic policies to ensure that total spending is consistent with the available real output at any point in time is a neoliberal mechanism.

The alternative proposed by some Post Keynesians is to rely on so-called incomes policies to suppress income growth in the private sector so that spending grows in line with real capacity.

Apart from the logistical problems of introducing effective incomes policies and the fact that these policies have historically broken down when under strain, there is nothing objectionable to an MMT proponent about the use of incomes policies.

But to suggest that the introduction of the JG will face political constraints yet the implementation of an effective incomes policy will not is rather far-fetched.

Further, Keynes’ himself, in his essay – How to Pay for the War – written in 1940, considered the question of inflationary pressures. He had also written extensively about this in the early 1930s (for example, in Essays on Persuasion), but this was before he broke with classical monetary theory and published his General Theory in 1936.

The range of policies proposed all amounted to limiting the spending capacity of the private sector to allow for more spending space by the public sector – all intended to avoid inflation.

Further, Abba Lerner, in his theories of functional finance, elaborated more extensively on the way in which inflation control could be accomplished by the government managing total spending.

Are we really going to call these approaches neoliberal?

In my early JG writings (which, by the way go back to 1978 when I was fourth-year (honours) student), I examined, in detail, the shift from a NAIRU economy to a JG.

Specifically, I considered the issues that arise when the government seeks to maintain full employment using the JG.

I should add that my intellectual evolution in economics did not start with Keynes’ General Theory but rather with Karl Marx and later Michał Kalecki. Some of the early MMT proponents place much more emphasis on Keynes than I ever have.

While orthodox economists typically attack the JG policy for fiscal reasons, economists on the Left are also critical.

They constantly cite Kalecki’s 1943 article – Political Aspects of Full Employment – to argue that the JG policy is politically naive.

That brilliant article by Kalecki laid out the blueprint for socialist opposition to Keynesian-style employment policy. The criticisms are also relevant to the JG.

Indeed, the paper presented in Sydney this week specifically uses the 1943 article as its authority.

Kalecki said:

… the assumption that a Government will maintain full employment in a capitalist economy if it knows how to do it is fallacious. In this connection the misgivings of big business about maintenance of full employment by Government spending are of paramount importance.

Kalecki (1971: 139) lists three reasons why the industrial leaders would be opposed to full employment “achieved by Government spending.”

The first asserts that the private sector opposes government employment per se.

The second asserts that the private sector does not like public sector infrastructure development or any subsidy of consumption.

The third asserts that the private sector merely dislikes “the social and political changes resulting from the maintenance of full employment”.

One is tempted to respond to these assertions by referring to the long period of growth and full employment from the end of WWII up until the first oil shock.

Most economies experienced strong employment growth, full employment and price stability, and strong private sector investment over that period under the guidance of interventionist government fiscal and monetary policy.

This period of relative stability was only broken by a massive supply shock, which then led to ill advised policy changes that provoked the beginning of the malaise we are still facing some 40 years after they occurred.

In Kalecki’s defense it might be argued that it took 30 odd years of the Welfare State to generate the inflationary biases that were observed in the 1970s.

Kalecki explains how the dislike by business leaders of government spending:

… grows even more acute when they come to consider the objects on which the money would be spent: public investment and subsidising mass consumption.

If public spending overlaps with private spending then:

… the profitability of private investment might be impaired and the positive effect of public investment upon employment offset by the negative effect of the decline in private investment.

This criticism is inapplicable to the JG because the JG jobs would most likely be located in the areas that have been neglected or harmed by capitalist growth. The chance of overlap and substitution is minimal.

Of course, government industry policy may deliberately target an overlap to drive inefficient private capital out.

Kalecki acknowledges that the “pressure of the masses” in democratic systems may thwart the capitalists and allow the government to engage in job creation.

His principle objection then seems to be that:

… the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.

The issue at stake is the relationship between the threat of dismissal and the level of employment.

Kalecki says:

Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, ‘the sack’ would cease to play its role as a disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined and the self assurance and class consciousness of the working class would grow.

Kalecki is really considering a fully employed private sector that is prone to inflation rather than a mixed private-JG economy.

The JG creates loose full employment rather than tight full employment because the Job Guarantee wage is fixed (growing with national productivity).

The issue comes down to whether the JG pool is a greater or lesser threat to those in employment than the unemployed when wage bargaining is underway.

This is particularly relevant when we consider the significance of the long-term unemployed in total unemployment. It can be argued that the long-term unemployed exert very little downward pressure on wages growth because they are not a credible substitute.

The JG workers, however, do comprise a credible threat to the current private sector employees for reasons noted above. The JG pool provides business with a fixed-price stock of skilled labour to recruit from.

In an inflationary episode, business is more likely to resist wage demands from its existing workforce because it can achieve cost control.

In this way, longer term planning with cost control is achievable. So in this sense, the inflation restraint exerted via the employment buffer is likely to be more effective than using a NAIRU strategy.

The International Labour Organisation (1996/97) said “… prolonged mass unemployment transforms a proportion of the unemployed into a permanently excluded class.” The ILO argues that these people “cease to exert any pressure on wage negotiations and real wages.”

The result is that “the competitive functioning of the labour market is eroded and the influence of unemployment on real wages is reduced.”

Kalecki says that counter-stabilisation policy would not worry business as long as the “businessman remains the medium through which the intervention is conducted.”

Such intervention should target private investment and should not “involve the Government either in … (public) investment or … subsiding consumption.”

He said that if attempts are made to:

… maintain the high level of employment reached in the subsequent boom a strong opposition of ‘business leaders’ is likely to be encountered … lasting full employment is not at all to their liking. The workers would ‘get out of hand’ and the ‘captains of industry’ would be anxious to teach them a lesson.

He was very vague about the form that capitalist opposition would take. Kalecki implies that the reaction would work via business and rentier interests pressuring the government to cut its budget deficit. Presumably, corporate investors could threaten to withdraw investment.

It is clear that the investment ratio moves as a mirror image to the unemployment rate, which reinforces the demand deficiency explanation for the swings in unemployment. In Australia, the rapid rise in the unemployment rate in the early 1970s followed a significant decline in the investment ratio. The mirrored relationship between the two resumed albeit the unemployment rate never returned to its 1960s levels.

Far from being a reason to avoid active government intervention, the JG is needed to insulate the economy from these investment swings, whether they are motivated by political factors or technical profit-oriented factors.

Another factor bearing on the way we might view Kalecki’s analysis is the move to increasingly deregulated and globalised systems.

Many countries have dismantled their welfare states and enacted harsh labour legislation. Trade union membership has declined substantially in many countries as the traditional manufacturing sector has declined and the service sector has grown. Trade unions have traditionally found it hard to organise or cover the service sector due to its heavy reliance on casual work and gender bias towards women. It is now much harder for trade unions to impose costs on the employer. Far from being a threat to employers, the JG policy becomes essential for restoring some security for workers.

Finally, looking to the future, those who criticise the JG from a Kaleckian viewpoint have to address the issue of binding constraints.

Kalecki comes from a traditional Marxian framework where industrial capital and labour face each other in conflict. The goals of capital are antithetical to those of labour. In this environment, the relative bargaining power of the two sides determines the distribution of income and the rate of accumulation.

Industrial capital protects its powerful position by balancing the high profits that come from strong growth with the need to keep labour weak through unemployment. However, the swings in bargaining power that have marked this conflict over many years have no natural limits.

But the concept of natural capital, ignored by Kalecki and other Marxians, may now become the binding constraint on the functionality and longevity of the system. It doesn’t really matter what the state of distributional conflict is if the biosystem fails to support the continued levels of production. The research agenda for Marxians has to embrace this additional factor – natural capital.

I could write much more about all of these issues and I haven’t provided a detailed critique of the specific paper presented this week in Sydney but time is short today.

Update on November Labour Force estimates for Australia

The ABS publication – Labour Force, Australia – November 2015 – allows us to understand why I (and many other commentators) assessed yesterday’s employment data as being a strain on credibility.

In yesterday’s blog (December 10, 2015) – Australian Labour Force – improvement but credibility stretched – we learned that employment increased by 71,400 (0.6 per cent) on the back of a similar substantial increase last month.

In the ABS commentary, we learn that:

The Labour Force Survey sample can be thought of as comprising eight sub-samples (or rotation groups), with each sub-sample remaining in the survey for eight months, and one rotation group “rotating out” each month and being replaced by a new group “rotating in”. This replacement sample generally comes from the same geographic areas as the outgoing one, as part of a representative sampling approach. To understand movements in the original estimates, it is important to consider the contributions from the three components of the sample:

  • the matched common sample (survey respondents who responded in both October and November,
  • the unmatched common sample (respondents in November but for whom we didn’t have a response in October, or vice versa), and
  • the incoming rotation group (who replaced respondents who rotated out in October).

… the matched common sample is generally around 80% of the sample …

Analysis of the matched part of the common sample in November 2015 shows that just over 94% did not change their labour force status over the period (with 61% of the matched sample remaining employed, 2% remaining unemployed, and about 32% remaining not in the labour force). Of the 6% that did change their labour force status, around a third entered employment, left employment or moved status outside of employment.

So what does this mean for the estimates published yesterday?

1. The original (unseasonally adjusted) increase in employment was 69,600.

2. The “matched common sample contributed 5,300, while the aggregate difference in the unmatched part of the common sample contributed 11,600, and 52,700 came from the aggregate difference between the outgoing and incoming rotation groups”.

3. The new group for the November 2015 survey (“the incoming rotation group”) “displayed a stronger tendency towards both participation and particularly employment than the group it replaced” which meant that the participation rate and the employment estimate were pushed up.

4. Both the October and November surveys were effected by the incoming rotation group having employment to population ratios much higher than the other groups in the sample.

5. The ABS say that this survey sample quirk has led to the “strong growth in employment” estimates.

6. If oranges were compared to oranges, then the matched common sample is the most reliable guide to what has happened between the months – which means that the more reasonable estimate of employment change is 5,300 rather than 71,400.

Some difference.

I also remind readers that the sample (point) estimates are subject to standard errors and associated 95 per cent confidence intervals.

In the latest publication the ABS tell us that there is 95 per cent confidence that the “true value of the estimate lies within that interval”.

And for November 2015 they are:

1. Employment change: Estimate 71,400; Interval: 13,000 to 129,800

2. Unemployment change: Estimate -2,800; Interval: -39,800 to 34,200

3. Unemployment Rate change: Estimate -0.1 points; Interval: -0.5 points to -0.3 points

4. Participation Rate change: Estimate 0.3 points; Interval: -0.1 points to 0.7 points

Which means, for example, that we can be equally confident that total employment grew by anywhere between 13,000 and 129,800 (the sample rotation discussion notwithstanding), which is a very large span and at either end of the span would generate a very different final assessment of the state of the labour market.

Thus we have to be circumspect when dealing with these numbers. They are information but we also need to understand their limitations and their nuances.

All this does not warrant claims that the data are meaningless.

Music – BFE on the revolution

This is what I have been listening to this morning while I have been working. It is from a 1995 album by the American music collective – Brooklyn Funk EssentialsCool And Steady And Easy – and it is called The Revolution Was Postponed Because of Rain.

It is a great album overall and this song is typical of the acid-jazz poetry that BFE is renowned for.

It is about Black American activism in the face of mass consumerism and the way in which individualism undermines collective, revolutionary zeal.

But it could easily be about all the left-wing progressive coffee shop plots, where left-wingers with protected jobs and stable salaries discuss tactics relating to overthrowing the capitalist system in between sipping their cafe latte.

I have often been criticised for advancing the Job Guarantee among other measures to help the day to day lives of the most disadvantaged in our society. The criticism doesn’t just come from the right-wingers but also from the Left, the latter who say I’m just a stooge for the capitalist system advocating palliative measures that underpin the profit rate of the capitalists and preclude any revolution occurring.

As these characters order another croissant and stir the cream at the top of their coffee, they wheel out this sort of abuse with some disdain.

I often think about this song when that sort of criticism arises.

The lyrics are as follows:

The underlying
immediate
political
socio-economic
and trigger mechanism causes
were all in place when
some nee-gro or the other got hungry
had to stop at the McDonald’s
had to get on the line
with the new trainee cashier
“uhh, where’s the button for the fries?”
so we missed the bus…

Then the leader couldn’t find his keys
didn’t want some poor ass moving
his brand new 20″ and VCR
out his living room on the shoulders.
It was too late when the locksmith came

Then our demo expert Willie Blew got arrested
came out with his head hanging under his hoody
“Didn’t know they started doing that
for jumping the turnstiles,” he said.
“How many times must we tell you –
Don’t.. get.. caught.”
We voted against shootin’ him on the spot
In the winter we were all depressed
so we leaned our guns against the sofas
and listened instead to Tim Tim Tiree
singing about his dysfunctions:

Cool and steady and easy
It makes them like it
What?

“Sometimes I wonder if ah’ll ever be free
free of the sins of my brutish daddee
Like the cheating, the stealing, the drinking, and the beating”. . .

The weatherman said the 17th would be sunshine
and it wouldn’t be too hot –
Tim Tim Tiree doesn’t like sweatin’
but that night the weatherman came on crying
saying he didn’t control the weather
that God was real
that he’s lucky He, God, didn’t strike him, the weatherman, with lightning
for taking the credit sometimes
and that he, the weatherman, was in no way responsible
for the hurricane coming
and that we, the viewers, should
pray Jesus into our hearts
before it was too late.

Superbowl Sunday was out
all the women wanted
to see the game
and the men were pissed
at their insensitivity

The 20th was supposed to be a definite
we looked for some Bastille to storm
didn’t find any
settled on the armory instead
before they moved the homeless in…
“We’ll bum-rush it anyway,” I said
“It smells like a collection
of a thousand farts in there,” they said
So we waited for the approval of the city
contract to build a Bastille
which set the revolution back five years.

Cool and steady and easy
It makes them like it
What?

Peace wanted to start the revolution on Tuesday
She was in a pissed-off mood
her tax return didn’t come in time for the rent
But they showed the We Are the World video
on cable that evening
and we all held hands
and cried to stop from laughing
and our anger subsided
Looking back, it could’ve been a plot
but there are more substantive plots to expose
than the We Are the World conspiracy

Now we wait for the rain to stop
All forces on the alert
some in Brooklyn basements
packed in between booming speakers
listening to Shabba Ranks and Arrested Development
bogling and doing the east coast stomp
gargling with Bacardi and Brown Cow
breaking that monotony with slow movements –
slow, hip-grinding movements
with the men breathing in the women’s ears to
Earth Wind & Fire’s Reasons
and wondering what the weather will be like
next weekend.

Saturday Quiz

The Saturday Quiz will be back again tomorrow. It will be of an appropriate order of difficulty (-:

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2015 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.

Spread the word ...
    This entry was posted in Economics, Friday, Job Guarantee, MMT Textbook. Bookmark the permalink.

    122 Responses to Friday Lay Day – ruminations on MMT and the JG

    1. Neil Wilson says:

      “Maybe 2-3% at most. ”

      Which is millions of people. Whole cities full of people with no hope of getting a job. Structurally unable to fulfil their potential.

      This is not wait unemployment – simple liquidity in the market cause by the snapshot process. This is people without hope.

      You *cannot* ensure that everybody who wants a job can get one unless you address the job matching problem.

      ‘Training’ is the usual rubbish that requires infinite fungibility. You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear. You need to come up with a use for the Sow’s ear.

      You cannot fix the allocation problem without significant liquidity in the job market. There are too many people ‘stuck’ in jobs they don’t really want. So you need lots of jobs on the ‘offer’ queue to get the matching process out of its inevitable halts.

      The JG addresses both those point. It provides infinite liquidity to the job market and ‘jobs for the people’. It is the only process that ensures there is no involuntary unemployment.

    2. Neil Wilson says:

      “It’s the T&C’s of such a scheme that could be the difficulty. ie the details.”

      Not really. It’s very simple.

      As I said on the other thread, you are probably targeting your ire at the wrong target.

      The Job Guarantee goes on top of the other provisions of society.

      If you have a problem with the other provisions, then get those changed.

      “Have Job Seekers Allowance scrapped and return to the old Income Support system without the job seeking requirements. Have Unemployment Benefit paid as a matter of right based upon the contribution record.

      Put that forward to conference and see how far you get. Get the improved existing provision into the 2020 Labour manifesto. Should be straightforward if there is as much support for it as you believe.

      It didn’t happen in 13 years of Labour rule but, hey, perhaps they just overlooked it.”

    3. Neil Wilson says:

      Luta,

      Never forget that the EU treaty is enacted in UK law by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. Parliament has the right to simply put a rider in that act overriding any provision of the treaty if it so wishes.

    4. Neil Wilson says:

      “The larger inflation problem with a BIG is that paying everyone a fixed amount whether they have a job or not cannot respond to inflationary pressure.”

      You cripple your spend side auto-stabilisers, which means you have to take up the slack on the tax side.

      In the UK the basic tax rate would have to be about 45-50% to recover the income guarantee, and that would of course be from much reduced additional income.

      So you have the problem of people working 40 hours a week for a reduced income and then paying the majority of that in tax even if they are just median earners.

      Not really a winning proposition that in the sales department.

    5. Neil Wilson says:

      “But I would sooner receive without any doubt whatsoever a payment (say £8000 min per year) no questions asked than work in a soul destroying Govt created job just to keep me employed.”

      I’m sure you would. But that is the wrong question.

      The question is whether the person working 40 hours a week digging fat bergs out of the swear is happy with you receiving a payment ‘no questions asked’.

      Everybody loves a bung. They are less enamoured when somebody else is getting a bung that they feel is undeserved.

    6. A Luta Continua says:

      Neil

      “Never forget that the EU treaty is enacted in UK law by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. Parliament has the right to simply put a rider in that act overriding any provision of the treaty if it so wishes.”

      Thanks, I didn’t know that. So, would there be any blow-back if the UK used this power? Is it the same for all EU member states and have any of them used it?

    7. F. Beard says:

      “It is the only process that ensures there is no involuntary unemployment.” Neil Wilson

      With adequate resources* people can employ themselves or volunteer** to work for someone else if they need to be bossed around. A sufficient BIG and/or asset redistribution would maximize MEANINGFUL employment.

      Or is the purpose of a JG to provide pre-conditioned wage slaves for their oppressors and to save the banks from themselves? And that’s progress? I call it a perpetuation of an unjust system – one that Progressives have been instrumental in creating**.

      *Such as the commons and family farms and businesses stolen via another Progressive cause, government subsidized private credit creation.

      ** Eg. FDR’s creation of the FDIC rather than expanding the risk-free Postal Savings Service along with bailing out depositors in the so-called private banks.

    8. Neil,

      When I point out that there should be no more than 2-3% unemployment, as there was in the sixties, you don’t seem too happy about that. In the sixties, the counting method was much fairer than it is now, and the unemployment rate was no more than about 2%. I don’t know what that would be on the new scale. Something less that 2%, obviously, maybe 1.5%?

      What’s not to like about that when we compare that to how it is now? That’s not to say we abandon the 1.5% and we would need to look at how many of that 1.5% were long term unemployed rather than just transitory unemployed. Training would be just one aspect of the help they would receive. If there was a medical impediment to employment we can look a targetted subsidies.

      There are many possibilities to be explored before we get ourselves bogged down in what I would consider to be the compulsion of a JG scheme which Bill himself admits isn’t a socialist solution. But, that’s what we do need IMO.

    9. bill says:

      Dear petermatin2001 (at 2015/12/14 at 8:51)

      You said:

      … the compulsion of a JG scheme which Bill himself admits isn’t a socialist solution.

      Where exactly do I admit that a JG scheme founded on the principles that those that can contribute to society should do so in return for society guaranteeing them a living wage (if they want one) “isn’t a socialist solution”?

      I have never said that – please refrain from verballing me falsely.

      best wishes
      bill

    10. Bill,

      I’m sorry if I misrepresented your earlier comments. I’m sensitive to others doing that to me. Especially if they put quotation marks around words that I haven’t used!

      The exact quotation I had in mind when I made the comment to which you’ve objected is from your posting “Austerity proponents should adopt a Job Guarantee”.

      where you said:

      ‘The Job Guarantee is not a “left-wing” “socialist” construct’

      So have I misinterpreted your position? Or quoted out of context maybe?

      I would say that in the right hands a JG could be considered socialist solution or even a socialist construct. But its not necessarily socialist and wouldn’t be in it were in the wrong hands.

    11. bill says:

      Dear petermartin2001 (at 2015/12/14 at 10:25)

      I would fully agree with your conclusion “I would say that in the right hands a JG could be considered socialist solution or even a socialist construct. But its not necessarily socialist and wouldn’t be in it were in the wrong hands.”

      But the reciprocity element in the JG as I have developed the concept where a person is required to contribute to society if they can in return for society guaranteeing them a living wage would typically be a desirable ‘socialist’ element.

      As Marx wrote in his Critique of the Gotha Program:

      In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

      best wishes
      bill

    12. Bill,

      Thanks for your comment!

      I intend to keep quiet about the JG for a time now. If I do have any misgivings about it they are vastly outweighed by all the other advantages that an understanding of MMT offers. There’s much more to unite us than divide us.

      I do have to thank you and Randall Wray for helping me along with that. I’ll never forget the first time I watched a series of short lectures on youtube – filmed on what looked like the deck of your house in Australia. I just remember thinking “Yes of course. It’s got to be like that. Why didn’t I think of it that way?”

      It was a real eye opener. So thanks very much.

      Best Wishes

      PM

    13. Steve says:

      Whether or not a JG is a palliative or a solution depends upon whether or not the economy/productive system itself is inherently cost inflationary as Douglas purported. Regardless, a JG or citizen’s dividend must be financed with new and additional credits and not via socialist re-distribution of present incomes generated by private work for pay. Then, if numerous futurists including guys like Ray Kurzweil suggest, AI will conservatively eliminate private employment by something like 30-40% in the next 10-15 years….which would anyone here rather have a JG job, or a citizen’s dividend and retail discount that together equated to an annual income of approximately $25,000, ($50,000 for a married couple)??? In other words the leisure and income to pursue self determined goals, higher education…and the option to try to find employment if they chose as well…which due to the additional aggregate demand would undoubtedly be much more prevalent than if we idiotically fail to make our technologically advanced economies functional by pursuing the austerity the non-comprehending pols, economists and self interested private financiers currently insist is enlightened!!!

    14. Kevin Harding says:

      I see no one answering concerns about the logistics of starting up
      a universal Job Guarentee which pays a living wage and is tailored to the
      individual.The problem will not be what to do with the very small percent of people
      who will be unable to or unwilling to hold down a full time JG job.
      The problem will be accomadating all the people who are currently hating their jobs.
      You guys might enjoy what you do but most of us do not.I work in a average
      paid ,secure ,at times satisfying but relentlessly stressful State healthcare sector
      at the frontline clinical coalface and I dream of giving in the notice and working
      for less pay with less jobs One of these tailored made secure JG jobs would be perfect.
      Me and millions of others.It would be chaos.
      What would the response be to compete with these wonderful jobs in comparison
      to most of the labour market after 30 years of neo liberal onslaught.Well of course
      that depends if you really mean a living wage .But the private sector and much of the
      overworked and over managed current public sector would need to pay more than the
      JG so this begs the question how fast can the minimum wage rise without leading to
      cost push inflation and a resultant wage price spiral to protect the new ‘living wage’.
      I get the theory of how it might work as an inflation buffer when up and running
      (such a buffer is an improvement on an unemployed buffer )but most of us know
      where we want to get to the abscence of involuntary unemployment (which is what I
      mean by full employment not necessarily full time from 18 -67 ) and an end to poverty.
      The question is how we get there.
      Macroeconomic theoretical constructs to deal with the ‘problem’ of the Phillips curve may
      appeal to you but maybe you are not seeing the wood for the trees .The inflation problem
      is a conflict problem arising from asymmetrical power relationships .Good governance is
      using all powers available force,monetary sovereignty (spending),taxation and regulations
      for the public purpose .With inflation as with all else it means taking sides ,for justice,
      for the majority ,mitigating the effects of inevitable asymmetrical power.It can tax hopefully
      progressively to limit aggregate demand ,it can tax scarcity (land value tax),it can subsidies
      essentials as many governments already do (food ,mass transportation,non co2 electric production)
      regulate max prices if necessary (rent controls) it can direct resources to essentials to curb
      scarcity inflation.
      There is no autonomous ,self correcting inflation free system available.It is an idealized folly
      in its JG or social credit form.Macoeconomic hubris.
      Yes let’s get the monetary sovereign government to employ more people .To provide the
      most important stuff.Housing,healthcare,mass transportation,education lets attempt to
      future proof this wealth (well being) with public expansion of non co2 electrical production
      and scientific research .Let the government compete with the private sector for jobs at the
      bottom middle and top of the labour market .

    15. Steve says:

      Inflation IS inevitable because the system is complex; because human beings are complex and to one degree or another flawed probably most basically because security is so important and so poorly addressed by the system, and because as Minsky said: “The fundamental direction of capitalism is up.”

      As depressing as that seems it is not a hopeless condition because most basically money is creditary, i.e. digital in nature and also, despite the complexity of the system and the legerdemain of Finance, it is basically accounting. So if this is the case then a chronic and continual scarcity of total individual income in ratio to total costs/prices (all profit making enterprises are currently bound to the cost accounting convention that ALL costs must go into price) then that scarcity can be equated simply by gifting the individual a supplementary income. $10 in costs/prices and $5 in wages and salaries + $5 in citizen’s dividend = a continual ratio of $10 to $10.

      But wait you say, “the fundamental direction of capitalism is up.” Right. But if you reduce the price at retail sale which is where all costs of goods and services are terminally summed….the individual suffers no inflation, the system’s fundamental tendency is thwarted and, if we’re real smart (because a citizen’s dividend and a rebated back to merchants retail discount are macro-economic policy mechanisms) we discount prices by 30, 40 maybe 50% and we end up with the win-win situation of a stable, monetarily abundant profit making economy…with active price deflation. And additionally you’ve broken up the present monopoly on credit creation by private finance (and its monopolistic claim of ownership of credit it creates out of nothing as well) so that it takes its proper and smaller place in the overall economy.

      Finally, these policies wouldn’t solve all possible problems, but they would solve its most basic and chronic one. Human systems, especially if they are made humane by policy, are reflective of human beings. It is a well known and observed behavioral phenomenon that when a neurotic resolves his/her most basic conflict many of the peripheral symptoms in their behavior tend to dissipate/disappear as well. This would probably tend to be the case with the economy as well. And where it didn’t gracious and yet definitive regulation would obviously e called for. But let us have monetary security and the clarity that such security would effect FIRST. Our economic motto should be “Transformational policy first! Rational and ethical regulation…right along with it.

    16. Daniel says:

      @Kevin,

      How much of the “relentless stress” of your job come about from constant “efficiency savings” and other regulatory changes imposed by the market-driven neoliberals? What would your opinions of your job be if your workload reduced, with more staff?

      I used to be a teacher (Science, in the UK). It was a job I truly loved, but I gave it up in the end because of the stress. Having classes of 25-30+ students, all of different abilities, expected to set “aspirational” targets that became the minimum I was expected to achieve with them (and no, I couldn’t set their real targets as aspirational due to pressure from senior management and parents), marking, assessments, planning lessons and activities that were suitably differentiated… I wonder now how some teachers seem to breeze through all that when I typically stayed up until 1-2am every day, and most weekends. In the end, I just couldn’t take it anymore.

      Class sizes in the State system are dictated by cost savings and efficiency. Not what’s best for the students and staff, but what’s best for the “British taxpayer”, hence why stories of overfilled classes are abound, why the UK faces the worst teacher shortage in history, why the State system fails most of the pupils, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. And they KNOW it’s failing them, just as it failed their low paid or unemployed parents, so participation seems pointless to them!

      Here’s where a Job Guarantee could help, in a number of ways:

      More staff in schools: Carefully selected JG “Volunteers” helping out in schools. More people becoming teachers, since much of the stress factors are reduced/removed

      Kids in schools have parents now able to have a job or meaningful training, giving them a role in society. This serves as a role model anchor, the kids are more likely to engage in education (right now, the “encouragement” to participate in education is around the “you don’t want to end up like those unemployed scroungers” narrative, which both attacks their background if both parents are unemployed, but also falls flat against their sense of fairness – most state kids know it’s not hard work that gets rewarded, given our cash and celebrity obsessed media!)

      A choice that’s not “FE or bust”. I’ve been in some schools (when I did a stint as a supply teacher) where most of the class I was teaching had no idea what they were going to do when they left school, since they had it rammed down their throats that not going to college/university was not an option, since the competition for jobs was so fierce. Try accepting that if you’re not academically gifted, and the odds seem stacked against you. If instead, they know they can get a guaranteed job (even if paid minimum wage) which can include vocational training, you offer them a future!

      Regarding that last point, one of the courses I taught on was BTEC Science, which is a vocational course. Sadly, vocational courses in the UK are mostly just “coursework based”, rather than truly vocational, due to costs. So the “choice” right now is between Exams and Coursework. It’s a rare school/college where the course can be truly vocational, hands on experience! (the first incarnation of BTEC Level 3 was actually designed for students currently working and on day-release, but was adapted for schools and colleges to also be available for Post-compulsory students, 16-19. However, this depended on the facilities of the school/college, which was often sparse due to “budget cuts”)

    17. kevin harding says:

      daniel my job would be transformed by more staff and equipment.I take MRI scans and the uk
      mahcines per capita is well below the OECD average.
      My point is those are the kinds of priorities which a government needs to make even if it was
      liberated by the idea of fiscal restraint. What real resources most importantly labour to direct
      where.In the current labour market i find the idea of a universal tailor made secure job offer
      at a living wage from the government fanciful and there are so many crucial areas to direct
      resources

    18. Daniel says:

      @Kevin that is my point. Our current labour market can never supply a tailor made job for everyone not because it’s too difficult (we could include training and volunteer work into JG jobs, research and build renewable energy systems, build social housing and infrastructure.. there’s literally more that could be used to employ the workforce than individuals currently under/unemployed in my opinion!) but because politicians and managers refer to resource constraints as money, rather than labour or equipment.

      When they say we cannot get the resources for education/healthcare/housing/infrastructure/energy, they mean that we cannot, in their opinion, afford it.

      But MMT tells us that money is not a resource in limited supply, labour and equipment are the only constraints, the former of which we have literally millions currently underutilised, all to maintain the power, wealth and status of those who have or control the money.

      Change the way we think about work. Imagine using colleges (who would have all the staff and funding they need) needed to train people to be builders, electricians, plumbers, mechanics (even Medical Technicians, and any other trades you can think of), with them required to work a minimum of 2 years in the Public sector building affordable/social housing, maintaining said housing, fixing fleet vehicles etc. After 2 years, they have the choice to move to the private sector (in their own business or employed) or stay on the JG (if theirs a shortage of private electricians, for example, they can make much more in the private sector. Too many, they’re better off on the JG). Pay people to volunteer in charity shops, care homes or wherever. The JG doesn’t require all participants work 37hrs a week, pensioners could work a couple of hours a week to “top-up” their pensions so they can afford luxuries. My vision of a JG (which I hope Bill doesn’t mind me sharing) would be like a Government run Agency – you register with them if you choose to, indicating your skills and working preferences, and when you need a few hours work, you go to the JG centre (which would replace Jobcentres) and see what “tasks” are on offer, you’re free to take a “task”, complete it and get paid. (People familiar with online games would see this a little like quests or tasks offered by NPCs to get coin or experience in the game). Handled electronically, this system shouldn’t be beyond the wit of society!

    19. Jesse Hermans says:

      Can’t wait for your MMT Textbook Bill, super excited! Another grand addition to add to my growing arsenal, I hope to spread it far and wide among my peers. Keep up the great work!

      Merry Christmas,

      Jesse Hermans

    20. Paul says:

      Do you have much on China, in particular government and state entity debt?

      [Bill notes: I edited out links to sites I do not wish to promote]

      best wishes
      bill

    21. Paul says:

      Let me try without links.
      Do you have any comment on China, debt and rebalancing needs and effects?

    22. John says:

      Further news on your MMT upcoming text book?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    *
    To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the answer to the math equation shown in the picture.
    Anti-spam equation

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.