skip to Main Content

The provenance of the Job Guarantee concept in MMT

As the public scrutiny of the body of work we now refer to as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) widens there is a lot of misinformation abroad that distorts or otherwise undermines what has been done to date. Most, but not all the misinformation or emphasis comes from those who attack our work. Their criticisms usually disclose an incomplete understanding of where MMT came from and what the core propositions and logic are. They stylise, usually using terms and constructs that are present in mainstream thinking, but inapplicable to an MMT way of thinking, and end up spitting out things like ‘printing money’ etc, which they think represents a devastating rejection of our work. As part of my own work, and I do this in liaison with Warren Mosler, I am interested in documenting the train of events that led to what we now call MMT. I love history and think it is very important in helping us understand things. So today I am continuing to examine archives to trace the provenance of key MMT concepts. And I am continuing to document the idea of a Job Guarantee, which is central to the MMT framework, despite many who claim to be MMTers thinking otherwise. I have noted in the recent press, claims that the origins of the buffer stock employment approach that became the Job Guarantee was the work of Hyman Minsky. Nothing could be further from the truth as you will see. It is important, in my view, to make the provenance very clear and that is what this blog post is about.

I have been providing factual historical information over the years to establish the provenance of the body of work.

Please read, for example, the following relatively recent blog posts:

1. Flattening the curve – the Phillips curve that is (April 7, 2020).

2. The historical beginning of the MMT team – from the archives (November 27, 2019).

In this vein, I was concerned to read in the Financial Times article (April 17, 2020), which reported an interview with Stephanie Kelton, that the work of Hyman Minsky was the source of the inclusion of a Job Guarantee in the development of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).

Whether this was misreporting or not, the contention is false and amounts to historical revisionism.

As a general point, I provided an assessment of the relevance of Hyman Minsky’s work to the development of MMT in this blog post – Hyman Minsky was not a guiding light for MMT (November 9, 2016).

I argued that earlier in his career, Hyman Minsky advocated Abba Lerner’s functional finance.

But later in his career, Minsky seemed to shift and started to advocate what we now term to be ‘sound finance’ principles merging with a softer ‘deficit dove’ narrative.

None of his later positions are consistent with the core principles of MMT.

His 1986 book – Stabilizing an Unstable Economy (Yale University Press) – appeared to be a turning point. Minsky’s ‘sound finance’ path really emerged in that book.

Whereas he had previously considered government debt to be a stabilising force (to allow banks to diversify into risk-free assets etc) he changed his view in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was President.

At this point, he increasingly argued that government debt was at risk of becoming non-credible in the face of non-government bond investors.

In his 1986 book, he wrote (pp.302, 304):

A government can run a deficit during a recession without suffering a deterioration of its creditworthiness if there is a tax and spending regime in place that would yield a favourable cash flow (a surplus) under reasonable and attainable circumstances …

Any deviation from a government budget that is balanced or in surplus must be understood as transitory- the war will be over, the resource development program will be finished, or income will be at the full employment level

His main message was that the fiscal outcome should be in balance or in surplus at full employment. However, that is not the MMT position at all.

He amplified that message in April 1991, when he produced a Working Paper 51 for the Levy Institute – Financial Crises: Systemic or Idiosyncratic – which was a paper presented at a Levy conference in that month.

The paper was about how the financial system could be ‘fixed’ in the face of increasing uncertainty from events such as the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980s.

In the blog post cited above, I provide detailed analysis of his shift in thinking.

But this quote is representative.

In terms of the government sector, he wrote (p.28):

The government is no different than any other organization in that it needs revenues to validate its debts. This means that the government should have a normal conditions balanced budget, allowing for deficits in recessions and depressions and major wars.

This is not even remotely an MMT position.

But what of the claim that Minsky is the source of the Job Guarantee idea as it is expressed in the MMT literature?

Minsky on Full Employment

In 1965, Hyman Minsky contributed a chapter – The Role of Employment Policy – in the volume edited by Margaret S. Gordon – Poverty in America. The download link is provided by the Minsky Archive, maintained at the Bard College. It is a great resource.

This chapter is cited as being the source of Minksy’s advocacy of a ‘job guarantee’.

In that chapter, Minsky correctly noted that a “war against poverty” has to include “a program of job creation” and that required a nation to “sustain tight labor markets”, which, in turn required:

… bolder, more imaginative, and more consistent us of expansionary monetary and fiscal policy to create jobs than we have witnessed to date.

The problem that he recognised was to maintain “tight full employment” without “undue inflation”.

The paper was about how to achieve that goal.

His concept of “tight full employment” required that “at going wages”, firms “would prefer to employ more workers than they in fact do”.

In other words, vacancies outstrip the unemployed, which used be the way we conceived of full employment.

Such a state leads to dynamic efficiencies: higher wages, upgrading of jobs from low wage to higher wages, higher productivity, higher participation and lower unemployment.

Arthur Okun talked about this in his ‘upgrading hypothesis’.

Minsky, however, argued that pursuing “tight full employment” would “lead to a cost push inflation” arising from the wage upgrading effects.

However, that inflation would be a once-off adjustment to the new wage relativities.

His paper then focused on the “barriers” to achieving “tight full employment” and it is hear that he talked about the ‘gold standard’ and “our balance of payments problem”. This related to the idea that in a fixed exchange rate system (as it was then), monetary policy had to target the exchange rate.

He concluded that:

Thus, the only really available devises for expanding aggregate demand are fiscal.

And the problem then, in a Phillips curve world, was ensuring the fiscal expansion didn’t create inflationary bottlenecks – in other words, it had to be tailored to “have the largest primary and secondary impact upon the present poor.”

He criticised past spending initiatives as being “biased against the poor”. And he thought it was accurate to say that “the cross that the American poor bear is made of gold” – in reference to the balance of payments constraint which forced the government to eschew tight labour markets.

He clearly thought the US should abandon the gold standard but understood that would not happen at that time.

After rejecting the traditional “public works” approach to public sector job creation, he proposed several policy interventions to target the poor (such as, training, relocation, etc).

Among these interventions, Minsky wrote the following:

Work should be made available to all who want work at the national minimum wage. This would be a wage support law, analogous to the price supports for agricultural products. It would replace the minimum wage law; for, if work is available to all at the minimum wage, no labor will be available to private employers at a wage lower than this minimum … To qualify for employment at these terms, all that would be necessary would be to register at the local public employment office.

On the face of it, this proposal has similarities with the Job Guarantee.

But Minsky’s motivation was quite different – as a war on poverty. There was no mention of the scheme being an ‘automatic stabiliser’ or a redistributive mechanism to shift workers from inflating to the fixed price sector.

Indeed, Minsky was all about creating conditions where “low wages in the private sector would be pushed up, hopefully more quickly than high wages” once the scheme was introduced.

But even if Minsky had elaborated the full concept of what we call the Job Guarantee at that time, it would still not make the claim valid.

The provenance of the Job Guarantee concept in MMT

The FT article brought up the question of the Job Guarantee, which goes to the heart of the provenance of the concept within MMT and prompted me to write this response.

This is the relevant section (the interviewer writing in the first person):

I have always wondered why Kelton ties modern monetary theory explicitly to the policy of a federal jobs guarantee — a minimum pay cheque, for anyone who wants one. “It’s all in Minsky,” she says. A job guarantee is an “automatic stabiliser”, she explains. It stabilises growth by pushing money into the economy during a downturn in the most straightforward way: as firms cut staff, people still have a salary to spend.

Let us be clear – the contention that the concept of the Job Guarantee, a core MMT construct, is “all in Minsky” is false.

I will not attempt to impute motivation for the comments reported in the Financial Times here. Perhaps, there is some misquoting going on. Who knows?

But anyone familiar with the beginnings of MMT would not impute Minsky as a valuable source of motivation.

What I can say, with the authority of two (Warren Mosler and myself) is that the concept of the Job Guarantee as it entered the body of work which we now call Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) had nothing to do with the work of Hyman Minsky.

Minsky was in no way an intellectual source of the ideas that have become known as the Job Guarantee.

To say otherwise is to reinvent history and deny the basic provenance of the concept within the MMT framework.

And clearly, Warren and I are interested in preserving the provenance of the foundations.

To be absolutely clear, Warren and I have discussed this issue at length.

I have documented in the past the evolution of my own thinking that led to the proposition I called the Buffer Stock Employment (BSE) approach to full employment and price stability.

I won’t repeat that here but I recently discussed that, again, in some detail, in this blog post – Flattening the curve – the Phillips curve that is (April 7, 2020).

What I didn’t say then is that at the time, even up to the point that I met Warren and we more or less agreed that the BSE and his Employer of Last Resort (ELR) approach were the same, is that I had never really read any of Minsky’s work. That includes the 1965 article or any later work where he elaborated his poverty approach.

I had certainly not read his work on employment but had a familiarity with his ideas on financial instability, which have nothing to do with the topic in focus here.

I knew Warren also had come up with the ELR idea, independently of any reading of Minsky. But to ensure that recollection was accurate, I also sought specific clarification from him before I wrote this response.

The following interchange in the last 24 hours between us is relevant:

Q (me): When you were coming up with the original ELR idea, had you read Hyman Minsky’s 1965 article on full employment?

A (Warren): No, never even heard of him until somewhat later Randy brought his name up and said he’d set up a meeting. I asked Randy if he thought Minsky would take it in and he wasn’t all that optimistic.

Q (me): Was Minsky the motivation for your thinking at any point in those days?

A (Warren): No. The few parts I was directed to showed some possibility of an understanding of monetary operations, but others showed the opposite.

In this blog post – The historical beginning of the MMT team – from the archives (November 27, 2019) – I traced the beginnings of my relationship with Warren Mosler as contributors to the – Post Keynesian Theory E-mail Discussion List – which was an early Internet list server that began life in July 1994.

You can read the snippets from the archives in that blog post which helps to establish the provenance of the concept.

I used the term BSE to describe the ‘buffer stock employment’ model that I had developed in my undergraduate years in 1978. Warren introduced his Employer of Last Resort (ELR) model to the PKT list around then as well.

At this time, during the first two months of 1997, it became clear that the two conceptions were of the same thing and we started referring to the BSE/ELR approach.

In January 1997, I gave a ‘seminar’ to the discussion list (this was a process where one person would submit a paper and it would be discussed by the list for the next month).

In February 1997, it was Warren’s turn to give his seminar.

During those two months, there was a lot of push-back to the ideas from the list members including outright hostility from a few.

On Thursday, February 13, 1997, Warren Mosler wrote to the list and among other things said:

I wrote ‘Soft Currency Economics’ several years ago to outline why sovereign debt in local currency is always money good. It goes into the essence of why myself and several other hedge fund managers felt secure in purchasing Italian government lira debt at libor + 1.50% when most others were in fear of default. I had never heard the term ‘endogenous money;’ did not know the names Moore, Wray, Goodhart, and Kaldor; and knew nothing of Post Keynesian monetary economics.

Which reinforces the point that he was operating outside of the economics literature.

It was also clear that the majority of Post Keynesian economists (and the list was comprised of all the leading members of that school of thought, however, one wants to define it), were not particularly supportive of the BSE/ELR approach and failed to see the way in which a buffer stock would work.

After extensive criticism was aired, on Sunday, February 23, 1997, I wrote a detailed comment to support Warren where I reiterated the way in which the BSE model would work and noted among other things:

I cannot speak for Warren but my BSE model (which is equivalent in mechanics to ELR) certainly does see these jobs as regular day to day jobs providing dignity, security, and an attachment to the LF that i might currently have.

We were focusing on the place of the BSE/ELR in the monetary system.

Warren wrote later that day (February 23, 1997) in response:

This is exactly the type of dialogue all would be engaging in if they understood modern money and desired 0 unemployment and price stability. The political process would come up with a program and then modify it over time.

Our partnership was forming.

Paul Davidson, who was editor of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, and a lifelong supporter of Keynes’ own work, offered his summary of the main themes of the ‘seminar’ on February 23, 1997.

In part, he wrote:

… the ELR or what Bill calls the buffer stock of labor proposal. Here I think Bill and Warren have shown the best of the argument.

As an aside, to demonstrate the cognitive dissonance that was going on, even within this community of progressives, one member of PKT wrote (February 20, 1997):

… Mosler, Mitchell, Davidson and Wray are living somewhere else.

On February 24, 1997, Warren Mosler responded to a largely favourable rendition of his seminar paper with this:

… The traditional approach also works, but it takes an understanding of Bill Mitchell’s or Basil Moore’s last papers, for example to explain it. This is complicated enough so the man in the street votes to balance the budget. Including the most intelligent men in the street. The few econs against balancing the budget can’t get through with current logic.

On March 1, 1997, Randy Wray made his first intervention into the debate and wrote a long piece in support of the ELR approach.

He made the point at the outset:

I have long been interested in govt as employer of last resort because this was something advocated by Minsky (eg in his 1986 book). However, in Minsky it always seemed a bit utopian; there were a few gaps in the argument. When I saw Warren’s paper, however, he seemed to provide a way to fill the gaps

On March 7, 1997, the notion that BSE/ELR was intrinsically related to the broader Phillips curve debates in macroeconomics were made explicit.

I wrote (with edits for spelling and grammar):

In the development of my BSE model (which is similar to ELR) the important thing I am working on right now is the relationship between this option and the Phillips curve (PC).

Without the BSE in practice, there is a NAIRU – which is a reflection of a conflict between labour and capital over real income shares – that level of the unemployment rate, which temporarily renders the claims for real income compatible. It is not a harmonious or natural rate of unemployment rate – it might last, conceptually, for a day before some change to the bargaining relations sets the rate higher or lower for stable shares.

So there are a multitude of steady-state unemployment rates, each defined in terms of the past history of the economy (state dependence …) and each as unstable as the next.

The PC then is defined by a particular state-dependent path.

With a BSE policy, there is no unemployment so there can be no NAIRU in the broadest sense. There is only a private sector NAIRU …

The reality is with the BSE/ELR, wage-price conflict can still occur and so you can still get inflation. You cannot get macroeconomic unemployment though emerging from it.

But you can still get shifts between the private sector and the public sector … When the inflation spiral is eating into AD (as the govt does not accommodate the pressure), jobs are lost in the private sector but not overall. So we can still define some unemployment rate in terms of a current steady state (or compatible) bargaining relations. This unemployment rate is a private sector rate only. Significantly different inflation-unemployment rate (overall) dynamics emerge.

Warren responded on the same day and placed that conceptualisation within a micro-oriented monopoly:

Yes. I would add that fundamentally this stems from the government, as monopolist, setting (budgeting) q (spending and lending, and manipulating desired H(nfa) through monetary policy) and letting p (prices paid by govt.) be at market.

On March 9, 1997, Randy Wray reentered the conversation, saying:

… glad to see the elr seminar is carrying on; bill m. and warren have made some interesting contributions, but i want to print them so i can examine bill’s exposition in detail.

On March 16, 1997, Warren’s seminar, which had ‘raged’ for 6 weeks, was formally closed with a summary statement from Warren, which said, in part:

This will officially end the ‘Full Employment AND Price Stability’ (FEAPS) seminar. The focus was the elr proposal, which is not materially
different from Bill Mitchell’s BSE proposal … Perhaps what was added were reasons that an elr policy can allow the budget deficit to float while maintaining price stability as defined, much like various incomes policies have been designed to do. And that the key is for the Government to constrain the prices it pays, in this case for the elr wage, to maintain a stable value of its currency.

Once again, pitching the BSE/ELR in terms of the Phillips curve debate.

Once we (Warren, Randy and I) started working together and Warren had recruited others to the project (Mathew, Pavlina etc) we debated the terminology that we would use to describe the buffer stock approach.

As I have previously noted, this period coincided with the outbreak of the mad cow disease, principally in the UK, and so I thought it unwise to continue calling my approach the BSE model

I also didn’t like the terminology ELR for reasons I have explained elsewhere.

Around that time, I had read the paper of Wendell Gordon – Job Assurance — The Job Guarantee Revisited – which had just been published in the ”, Journal of Economic Issues – and I proposed we unify the BSE/ELR under the name Job Guarantee.

Gordon’s conception was not an MMT Job Guarantee, but I thought the terminology (JG) would help us advance.

Again, Minsky’s name or work, never came into the deliberations.

Conclusion

The point is that:

1. The concept of a Job Guarantee that is now core MMT was entered into the discussion at that time by Warren Mosler (ELR) and myself (BSE). This was the provenance of the concept within MMT.

2. Minsky was never mentioned. Only his former PhD student, Randy Wray, once exposed to the BSE/ELR ideas, noted some overlap between the BSE/ELR approach and Minsky’s own, earlier ideas. But that was well into the PKT debate about the concept and he acknowledged that the BSE/ELR approach that Warren and I were advocating went much further than Minsky’s ideas and tied the concept into core monetary logic – the MMT approach.

3. Anyone with knowledge of the history and the beginnings of the MMT work would not reasonably say that the reason that MMT considers a Job Guarantee to be an essential part of the body of work was due to anything that Hyman Minsky had written or said.

To try to argue that line is to explicitly deny (deliberately or through ignorance) the provenance of the concept.

It is important to render history as accurately as we can.

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2020 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.

Spread the word ...
    This Post Has 17 Comments
    1. Very interesting history, thanks Bill! From a more academic perspective, which journal article or book would you point to as being the first (or alternatively the best) statement of the JG idea by you and your colleagues?

    2. Hi Bill,
      Nice to see this quote from Randy:
      “I have long been interested in govt as employer of last resort because this was something advocated by Minsky (eg in his 1986 book). However, in Minsky it always seemed a bit utopian; there were a few gaps in the argument. When I saw Warren’s paper, however, he seemed to provide a way to fill the gaps.”

      And the critical understandings that fills these ‘gaps’ includes ‘sequencing’ (gov spends first and only then can taxes be paid and bonds etc. purchased) which obviates ‘solvency/sustainablility’ type issues, and that the mainstream has had ‘the interest rate thing’ backwards which reverses notions of monetary policy.

      Best!
      Warren

    3. “and that the mainstream has had ‘the interest rate thing’ backwards which reverses notions of monetary policy. ”

      Which is a real danger, Because with that understanding they have. That’s how they will create inflationary pressures. When they think they are fighting inflation during and after this virus is over.

    4. You need a Job Guarantee for it to be MMT.

      The critical point the mainstream misses is that the Job Guarantee is there to take over from the failed Interest Rate Targeting structure that failed twelve years ago and is failing again today.

      The counter proposals from so called progressives always maintain the interest rate targeting system – and instead try to paper over the cracks using income guarantees and ineffective taxation schemes. All because they are obsessed with numbers adding up rather than creating real goods and services and getting them to people that currently haven’t got them.

      Job Guarantee is an economic operating system level scheduling algorithm, not a mere program.

    5. “It is important to render history as accurately as we can”.

      Absolutely! And that is just what this account succeeds in doing, superbly. Fascinating and instructive.

      It also, I think, demonstrates conclusively the artificiality of insisting on divorcing the theoretical exposition of MMT from its application in real existing societies. In all such, the medium through which any economic theory (including current mainstream) must be actualised has to be politics. “Economics” embraces both aspects equally – a given theory’s theoretical foundation and the policy-settings required for its implementation. In the modern world political parties of all ideological persuasions must take a position on employment policy (even if the position taken is to have no employment policy except to step aside and let “the market” in conjunction with the dictates of “sound finance” decide the level of employment).

      MMT stipulates its own employment policy (familiar to us as the Job Guarantee). In that light the JG is clearly seen not as an “optional extra” but as an integral element of MMT’s macroeconomic policy-prescription. Bill’s historical account documents the steps whereby that came about. Upon reflection I confess it was mistaken to have quibbled (as I did) with Neil’s pronouncement:- “It’s only MMT if it has a Job Guarantee. If you reject the Job Guarantee you’re doing some other economic theory. Not this one”. He was right, on both counts.

    6. Hi Bill:

      thanks for this post. i sometimes wonder whether the Job Guarantee is a child of MMT framework or whether you and Warren thought it up. it is now helpful for me as a student of MMT to relate the Job Guarantee to MMT framework. Please don’t get me wrong, i am not disacknowledging the work you and Warren put in, i needed to feel that the Job Guarantee could only have been synthesised from the MMT framework.

    7. I fully understand Bill’s desire to set the record straight with regard to the history of the JG component of MMT and how MMT should be distinguished from Minsky’s work. But at this time of global crisis, with economies largely frozen in place and plutocrats pressuring governments for massive bailouts in order to strengthen their stranglehold on the masses, I hate to see any division occurring, however slight it may be or respectfully it may be pointed out, between leading MMT economists. Thus I’m glad that Bill acknowledges the distinct possibility of the misreporting of Stephanie’s remarks, to which I would add the observation that history, especially the history of origins, often includes subjective judgments or interpretations which resist the binary category of right vs. wrong. That said, let me put forward on this extraordinary blog a thought which suddenly came to me as I woke up this morning. We all know at least the outline of our current plight. A global pandemic/panic has disrupted economic business as usual, and during the lull, made mandatory by law, the creditor class is using its bought-and-paid for governmental apparatuses to increase their wealth and power so that it not only survives the lull but is positioned to squeeze whatever money and assets (blood) may remain in the debtor class as the lull begins to subside. As a retired attorney, for example, I just received an email announcing a webinar to fully inform creditors of their panoply of rights and powers to foreclose, evict, otherwise seize assets, accelerate loans, garnish wages, etc. No doubt, as they have before, many in my former profession will be eager to serve as weapons of the few against the many, the elites against the masses. But there are also attorneys out there, I’m sure in every country, who have not let the pressures and enticements of their profession completely override their humanity, and for them (and the rest of us) I have an idea to consider, if they (or you) haven’t already thought of it. There are long-established legal doctrines, going back at least to the days of Blackstone, which have to do with the operation of interrelated equitable legal principles: Acts of God/frustration of contract/illegality of contract/impossibility of performance. All four, in some configuration, would seem to apply to what now is, and will increasingly become, the dire predicaments in which debtors find themselves, post-pandemic, in relation to their creditors. This is no place for a detailed legal analysis, and I’m far from having thought all of this through, but the gist of the doctrines, working together on behalf of debtors, is along these lines: (1) the pandemic is an obvious Act of God in the legal sense; (2) added to its impact on most small businesses and most employment situations are governmental directives to stay home and maintain social distancing or suffer legal consequences (the illegality factor); (3) the upshot of this double whammy (God and State) is that debtors, through no fault of their own, are unable to go to work to earn the money they must have to pay interest on their loans or meet other essential obligations; (4) this causes inevitable frustration of financial, consumer, and employment contracts and renders their performance impossible. In such situations, various courts have found the power to cancel contracts, revise their terms, extend the times for their performance, and take other similar actions to restore the parties, BOTH parties, to as viable a situation as possible so that minimal harm is caused by the unforeseen events. I hear people calling these days for something like a Debt Jubilee, a society-wide forgiveness of debtors by creditors, a wiping clean of the slate, which has Biblical roots and no doubt counterparts in other religious traditions. I also hear even more radical proposals for a reset of the entire neoliberal system that is relentlessly killing both people and planet. I heartily support these proposals and offer here just one possible and well-established legal avenue to take some initial steps in these directions. I hope others, including but not limited to those legally trained, will chime in here and help to flesh out and sharpen what could become an effective weapon to defend the masses of debtors from the creditor onslaught about to be unleashed on them.

    8. Newton Finn- “the creditor class is using its bought-and-paid for governmental apparatuses to increase their wealth and power so that it not only survives the lull but is positioned to squeeze whatever money and assets (blood) may remain in the debtor class as the lull begins to subside”.

      In case people haven’t seen it, Michael Hudson has launched a typically pugnacious broadside on “The Use and Abuse of MMT” (co-signed by Bezemer, Keen and Oncu).

      Among other things, he says the “blind spot of vulgarized MMT” is a failure to distinguish between net government spending into the “real” economy on employment and production (desirable) and net government spending into the financial sector and asset markets, which the US and Europe have done since 2008 to bail out the 1%/10% and which “implies imposing austerity on the rest of the economy” (deflationary and undesirable).

      He says the latter type has empowered the banking sector, whose philosophy can be summed up as:

      Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day
      Teach him how to fish and you lose a customer
      But give him a loan to buy a boat and a net to fish and he will end up paying you all the fishes he catches. You have a debt servant.

      https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/04/13/the-use-and-abuse-of-mmt/

    9. Very interesting Newton.

      Michael Hudson is screaming this in his recent 3 articles on his website.

      They could have easily instructed the central bank to credit business bank accounts rather than price gouging with their loans. Notice, how the big fish have had access to the loans whilst the small fish, small to medium size companies are struggling to get access.

      Once the stars and the currents have aligned there is going to be a feeding frenzy.

    10. I was a little surprised to learn that you had seen the Stephanie Kelton article, Bill. It was a little superficial I thought; short on substance. Your exposition of the JG history was more in keeping with standards.

      Of course, the JG feature you highlight is a subject that ought to be paramount in post-coronavirus considerations, but I notice an apparent reluctance by the new Labour party leader to push it to the forefront just yet. Meanwhile Boris Johnson is determined not to lift the lockdown until he is sure that the economy appears set to rebound quickly into its “normal” consumer driven mode.

      I also guess that there is some government fear that things might not actually return to “normal” despite the huge fiscal support and possible tax and debt concessions yet to come. There is no doubt that society has been shocked out of its complacency about the role and priority of social care, for instance.

      The longer therefore, that economic resurgence takes, the more likely that questioning ideological dialogue will become more belligerent. This applies especially to the fledgling generation now confronting a planet and an economy stripped by the materialism of its parents and grandparents.

    11. Bill, you can expect a lot more of that type of thing. Wealth and power always tries to corrupt, deflect, distract, misdirect, confuse, defraud. Whenever someone expresses an interest, I tell them to look to you , Warren or Randy. I tell them they’re lucky – the originators are alive and available.

    12. Derek: You may also like David Ruccio’s recent post on MMT, quoting Bill and Hudson. Real World Economic Review Blog.

    13. “This applies especially to the fledgling generation now confronting a planet and an economy stripped by the materialism of its parents and grandparents”.

      A thought-provoking observation which I must admit hadn’t entered my own mind to ponder-on before but which, when one comes to think about it, is what is actually going to decide how this whole thing is going to pan-out ultimately. Which way are they going to jump …?

      I’d love to be around to find out – but maybe I’m happier not knowing, when I remember the magnitude of what’s at stake:- nothing less than the fate of western society as the present older generations have known it.

      It could go either way:- towards a new dawn, or the kind of dystopia which a Donald Trump would – forever – feel thoroughly at home in (of which we see the makings all around us in the present).

      I’d like to be an optimist, but it’s difficult.

    14. “And he thought it was accurate to say that “the cross that the American poor bear is made of gold” – in reference to the balance of payments constraint which forced the government to eschew tight labour markets.”

      Or possibly in reference to that greatest of speeches in the US Congress by William Jennings Bryan who fought against the gold bugs during the bimetallism debates in 1896. If you haven’t heard it, I can thoroughly recommend it – there is even an actual audio recording that Bryan made later.

      “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.”

    15. Is the purpose of the jobs guarantee to have people work? Or is it to provide income to those that otherwise would not have a source of income? Who was it that said: “Pay them to dig holes and then fill them up? Does the U.S. federal government program that pays individuals more than they can earn the equivalent of a job plus guarantee where employers can’t find workers to come back to work because they will lose income by doing so? How does the jobs guarantee fit into this equation?

    Leave a Reply

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

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

    Back To Top