An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
“Lewellyn-Smith gives no evidence that he understands what an MMT government job guarantee would be and to what extent it has worked in other countries.”
Government job guarantees have worked in other countries? This is news to me. I’d like to see an example.
I’m not talking about government-created jobs. I’m not talking about the military, or forced prison labor. I’m talking about formally and legally guaranteed jobs for every citizen. The government can create jobs without having to “guarantee” anything.
I support MMT, but I think the “guarantee” part of the proposed “jobs guarantee” is unworkable and unnecessary. It distracts attention from the fact that “How will you pay for it?” is a meaningless question when applied to the US, UK, Australian, or Canadian governments.
Why do so many MMT people think that life would be better if everyone was formally guaranteed a chance to toil for the rich?
This belief is so entrenched in some people that it forms a cult. If you have doubts about the “jobs guarantee,” then cult members falsely claim that you don’t understand MMT.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regarding Michael Janda and David Llewellyn-Smith, these two clowns are toadies for neoliberalism.
Government job guarantees have worked in other countries? This is news to me. I’d like to see an example.
They worked spectacularly well basically everywhere. Bill Mitchell's first book was "Full Employment Abandoned". Grosso modo, full employment = guaranteed jobs. During the full employment era governments explicitly or implicitly guaranteed that mass unemployment was not going to occur. Of course the usual examples, sometimes more explicit - the New Deal, programs in Argentina, India etc are examples too. FDR & the New Dealers wanted to guarantee jobs, and the idea was very popular. There was just too much opposition from the rich and powerful.
I support MMT, but I think the “guarantee” part of the proposed “jobs guarantee” is unworkable and unnecessary.
From what I've read - I don't think I posted a long reply I made to you - but I may have - you just misinterpret what MMTers mean when they say "guarantee". It is just a job OFFER. If you show up and do the work at a job that respects your particular abilities and inclinations, you'll get paid. That's it.
Job guarantees are common sense and necessary for minimal decency and justice. The idea of not having a Job Guarantee is what is unworkable and absurd.
Why do so many MMT people think that life would be better if everyone was formally guaranteed a chance to toil for the rich?
They don't. This reverses things.
A job guarantee amounts to people toiling for themselves for a better life.
Not having a job guarantee amounts to "toiling for the rich" as the only alternative.
I still say that people who don't support the job guarantee - and understand tax-driven money, which is related - don't understand the creditary nature of money - do not fully understand MMT. Judging from comments, I think people who fully understand MMT can reproduce the non-supporters arguments, but not vice versa. That's an objective test for the understanding of anything.
“I think people who fully understand MMT can reproduce the non-supporters arguments, but not vice versa.”
Good point... all they can do is exclusively spew figurative language... never are seen describing operations in proper professional/technical language... all metaphors, etc...
"Janda (in the second article) also makes the mistake of saying that MMT proponents believe that budget deficits “don’t matter”, as if the Government can spend like a drunken sailor. Of course they matter...."
4 comments:
“Lewellyn-Smith gives no evidence that he understands what an MMT government job guarantee would be and to what extent it has worked in other countries.”
Government job guarantees have worked in other countries? This is news to me. I’d like to see an example.
I’m not talking about government-created jobs. I’m not talking about the military, or forced prison labor. I’m talking about formally and legally guaranteed jobs for every citizen. The government can create jobs without having to “guarantee” anything.
I support MMT, but I think the “guarantee” part of the proposed “jobs guarantee” is unworkable and unnecessary. It distracts attention from the fact that “How will you pay for it?” is a meaningless question when applied to the US, UK, Australian, or Canadian governments.
Why do so many MMT people think that life would be better if everyone was formally guaranteed a chance to toil for the rich?
This belief is so entrenched in some people that it forms a cult. If you have doubts about the “jobs guarantee,” then cult members falsely claim that you don’t understand MMT.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Regarding Michael Janda and David Llewellyn-Smith, these two clowns are toadies for neoliberalism.
Government job guarantees have worked in other countries? This is news to me. I’d like to see an example.
They worked spectacularly well basically everywhere. Bill Mitchell's first book was "Full Employment Abandoned". Grosso modo, full employment = guaranteed jobs. During the full employment era governments explicitly or implicitly guaranteed that mass unemployment was not going to occur. Of course the usual examples, sometimes more explicit - the New Deal, programs in Argentina, India etc are examples too. FDR & the New Dealers wanted to guarantee jobs, and the idea was very popular. There was just too much opposition from the rich and powerful.
I support MMT, but I think the “guarantee” part of the proposed “jobs guarantee” is unworkable and unnecessary.
From what I've read - I don't think I posted a long reply I made to you - but I may have - you just misinterpret what MMTers mean when they say "guarantee". It is just a job OFFER. If you show up and do the work at a job that respects your particular abilities and inclinations, you'll get paid. That's it.
Job guarantees are common sense and necessary for minimal decency and justice. The idea of not having a Job Guarantee is what is unworkable and absurd.
Why do so many MMT people think that life would be better if everyone was formally guaranteed a chance to toil for the rich?
They don't. This reverses things.
A job guarantee amounts to people toiling for themselves for a better life.
Not having a job guarantee amounts to "toiling for the rich" as the only alternative.
I still say that people who don't support the job guarantee - and understand tax-driven money, which is related - don't understand the creditary nature of money - do not fully understand MMT. Judging from comments, I think people who fully understand MMT can reproduce the non-supporters arguments, but not vice versa. That's an objective test for the understanding of anything.
“I think people who fully understand MMT can reproduce the non-supporters arguments, but not vice versa.”
Good point... all they can do is exclusively spew figurative language... never are seen describing operations in proper professional/technical language... all metaphors, etc...
This is womanish:
"Janda (in the second article) also makes the mistake of saying that MMT proponents believe that budget deficits “don’t matter”, as if the Government can spend like a drunken sailor. Of course they matter...."
Plenty of estrogen here...
Post a Comment