Well, this is where we differ. You guys see no need for unemployment. I do. I think it serves an incredibly important psychological component to any healthy economy. I’ve feared for my job and been unemployed. Those moments shaped who I am and what I’ve become. They were invaluable in retrospect. If I’d been able to apply for a JG job I might not be half the man I am today. Maybe it’s just personal entrepreneurial experience speaking here, but I know what it means to hunt and kill for ones dinner. Very little, aside from great parenting and education, was handed to me in life. My psychological development through having to earn things has been a building block that no govt program can ever provide. Ever.
Honestly, I find it shocking how one could argue that the JG could be implemented “for free”. There’s a certain level of common sense that seems to be missing from the conversation here. I wish empire building were as easy as govt job programs. There are potentially catastrophic praxeological and societal impacts from such programs. The arguments that the JG would not substantially impact the way our society uses resources, competes, thinks, etc is beyond wrong and doesn’t come close to passing simple logic.Pragmatic Capitalism
Interesting. That's where my debate with some Austrians ended, when they said they saw no priority in making full employment and price stability an economic goal.
So I guess we now officially have different strains of MMT based on different criteria of effectiveness. I have often said that philosophically there is no positive economics in that the criteria of economics are exogenous to the discipline and are essentially moral, i.e., normative and a value-laden.
In the final analysis, economic argumentation ends in moralizing, and people with different values, norms, and moral principles will have different approaches to life, as we see vividly illustrated in the current political campaign, both between parties and intra-party.
I remember when I was first a graduate student in philosophy I asked one of the profs why they never discussed philosophy and debated with each other, since I thought that would be a good exercise for students to observe. The answer I got was short and to the point. The prof said that they had already done that and had argued each other back to incompatible fundamental principles, and then agreed to disagree. After that, it was all just exchanging pleasantries.