Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Klassik's avatar

Let me begin by saying that I don’t agree with Steve Hall’s position on the job guarantee. I think Steven Grumbine did well to try to frame the JG in a more accurate way as an employer of last resort program and not the cornerstone of a jobs program. As Grumbine said, Mosler’s politics might be a bit more right-wing than some of the other MMTers, but I think his framing of the JG is about as good as I’ve heard from a prominent MMTer. The public sector will be fully provisioned through regular employment and through increased spending. Since the public sector is fully provisioned, the JG serves to help get people (re-)employed in the private sector.

Where I do have some sympathy with Hall’s position is that I think the framing of the JG is still raw and I think those of us on the MMT side need to work on how we sell the JG. Hey, we all love Bilbo (well, maybe the Europeans and British don’t like him, he’s quite rough on them, lol), but as Mosler points out, the notion of the JG serving to help teach children how to play guitar at the beach, or whatever Bilbo likes to say, really isn’t a convincing message with the general public. Notions of the JG proving WPA-like ‘shovel jobs’ aren’t convincing either and some of the notions about the JG being the backbone of the ‘Green New Deal’ are way off.

Mosler says his current idea of the JG is to have JGers work at existing non-profits. Even that is a bit of a hard sell in my mind. The JG probably, I’m thinking, could be some combination of job seekers working in the community, but then also being paid to engage in training, occupational counseling, and job shadowing...something that will help job seekers network and find private sector employment. I think this might sell better with the public and perhaps it’ll be more convincing to Steve Hall. Maybe even the name ‘job guarantee’ needs work. I think we need to be open-minded about that.

That said, full employment and the use of an employed buffer stock are vitally important and Bilbo is spot-on with that messaging.

Hopefully this rant will be deemed acceptable around here, but I hope Steve Hall doesn’t take Michael Hudson too seriously because I sure don’t. I do like Hudson’s messaging about neoliberalism shifting the debt burden from government (where it isn’t a burden at all) to the public (where it is a burden). It is a catchy and accurate description. Ok, but Hudson was on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour a couple of years ago and someone in the comments, probably a MMTer, rightly corrected Hudson on inaccuracies in the way Hudson described QE. Hudson then came back on a later Ralph Nader Radio Hour episode and said that commenter needed to be banned and accused the commenter of being a troll. What utter nonsense, Hudson seems to be a hot-head who pushes conspiracy theories rather than promoting empirical theory even if he might throw a little praise here and there towards like likes of Randy Wray. Maybe this gets him a lot of attention on podcasts and such, but I don’t have a use for that London. We won’t even get into the inane economic positions pushed by Hudson’s co-host on the podcast Hudson is on regularly.

To put things in a way that perhaps only Steve Hall might understand given where he's from in North East England, Michael Hudson is a lot like eating a parmo in Middlesbrough. It might look appealing at first glance, but it is ultimately lacking in substance.

Expand full comment
Mark Fabian's avatar

There's so much to take away from this discussion! The story of the Goat-herder in Tinyland needs to be repeated. His critcism of economic models struck a chord with me. That need to obfuscate by orthodox economics is what attracts me to the empirical descriptions of MMT. The subtlety of British humor might be an aquired taste for some, but I understood and appreciated it.

Expand full comment

No posts