Read it at Pragmatic Capitalism
A Job Guarantee Is Not A “Price Anchor”, It’s A “Price Buoy”
by Cullen Roche
My comment there:
Interesting post but it avoids the basic question that MMT deals with as a macro theory, that is, reconciling the big three, GDP growth, FE, and PS. A macro policy tool has to encompass all three to be taken seriously by policy makers, who are elected politicians that know voter care about all of the big three, and ignoring any of them puts one’s seat at peril. It is very difficult to reconcile these satisfactorily, as economic history shows, and the political consequences of failing to do so satisfactorily in the public’s eye are well-known to politicians.
So I don’t see FE and PS “normative” concerns that can be easily dismissed if productivity is emphasized. Even granting for sake of the argument that “productivity “should” be the chief concern, no policy maker will buy into the argument if following that course ends in either rising unemployment or high inflation, both of which spell loss politically. Yes, the JG may be unpopular among some people and even quite few people, but high unemployment in times of contraction and high inflation in times of expansion are more poisonous politically, since these issues most people are deeply concerned over, their pocket books are affected directly. That is a real concern. Concern about creeping socialism pales in comparison.So I don’t see that this post advances the game in the larger purview that the MMT economists are dealing with.