Neil Wilson-en eta Bill Mitchell-en iruzkinak, lan bermea dela eta

Sarrera gisa, ikus Zergak eta DTM


(i) Immigrazioaz

N. Wilson-en iruzkinak (In Bill Mitchell-en Video of my public lecture in Helsinki, February 27, 2018 (

Neil Wilson says:

Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 2:57

Immigration is a political question.

The Beveridge condition is that there is always more work than people that want it in all local areas. That suits the ‘somewheres’ who like to live in a place. In this political set up the work goes to the people, or the work doesn’t get done.

Neoliberalism believes that there should fewer jobs than people and that people should be factors of production, moving from place to place in search of their next ‘gig’. People follow the work and everybody must be part of a travelling circus. That appeals to middle class liberals who, trained for the professions, wander from job to job. It’s also the life of your average academic. These are the ‘anywheres’ – intellectual travellers – networked to each other, not to a place and its people. It is the Norman Tebbit “On your bike” attitude. And it is the one currently adopted by the UK Labour party.

Net immigration is not required. Japan bumbles along quite happily with net zero migration – increasing GDP per head via automation and innovation.

So we have a political choice. Are we in hock to capital and people move to where the capital wants them. Or do we serve the people and move the capital where the people are.

The Job Guarantee makes the work go where the people are, and serves the ‘somewheres’. That makes them content and increases their capacity to handle the ‘anywheres’ that move amongst them. The political challenge is to get the anywheres to realise that they ‘crowd surf’ on the shoulders of the ‘somewheres’.


Neil Wilson says:

Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 4:40

I’d make one further point on immigration. One nation’s immigration is another nation’s brain drain. The brain drain to London has hardly helped places like Rochdale. Those effects don’t stop at country boundaries.

How is taking medical professionals from third world countries where they have endemic rickets a progressive act? It isn’t. It is pure imperialism and colonial appropriation. The hypocrisy of a set of people crying ‘freedom’ when really they want cheap servants is sickening. Let them, instead, go to the source nations and correct the political problems there.

Fix Greece rather than championing the forced transportation of Greeks.


(ii) Lan bermea, ez dago beste aukerarik

Neil Wilson says:

Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 6:04

There are other alternatives and other agendas that a MMTer could support.”

There isn’t Andre. If you do not support the Job Guarantee, then you are just a pump priming Keynesian that will cause a wage price spiral and collapse just like in the 1970s.

In other words that approach has been tried and has already failed – leading to Monetarism and neoliberalism.

Mark Blyth calls this the ‘bug’ in Keynesian thinking. The Job Guarantee fixes the bug – and it is the only thing that will do – because it is automatic, instant and spatial in nature. It is an automatic stabiliser that stabilises the monetary circuit *and* the real circuit – leading to price stability *and* full employment.

Bill has been very clear about the centrality of the Job Guarantee

The reality is that the JG is a central aspect of MMT because it is much more than a job creation program. It is an essential aspect of the MMT framework for full employment and price stability.”

Every generation that discovers MMT seems to think they can do without the Job Guarantee for some reason. Quite why that is I don’t know.

(iii) Inflazioa dela eta

Neil Wilson says:

Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 6:17

I don’t agree with Neil on the necessity of having taxes high enough to have a JG pool operating everywhere. That it be substantial over the whole country should be enough.”

If you exhaust the buffer you cause inflation. Given the relative immobility of labour how is the anchor going to work when you have run out of people in a location that has several competing businesses chasing the labour? Instead you get a wage price spiral which then starts to leak out.

The mechanism by which the Job Guarantee constrains wages is that at the lower end there is always somebody on the Job Guarantee a private sector firm could hire instead of you if you ask for a pay increase.

Eta orain Bill Mitchell-ek:

(iv) Bi akats

bill says:

Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 10:20

Dear All (and Some Guy at 2018/03/11 at 3:37 am)

The following interchange contained two errors:

Well, MMT was a term invented by Bill Mitchell
No, I believe it was invented by a blog commenter, at Warren Mosler’s site IIRC.

The term Job Guarantee to describe public employment creation initiatives goes back a long way and was not ‘invented’ by me nor a blog commentator on Warren’s WWW site.

The resurrection and inclusion of the term in the MMT literature does indeed relate to my work.

When we started to develop what has become known as Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) around 1994 and 1995, my US MMT colleagues (Warren, Randy, Stephanie etc) used the term Employer of Last Resort (ELR) whereas I originally called the concept – which I developed in my Honours year at University (1978) – the Buffer Stock Employment (BSE) framework. The BSE terminology followed directly from the concept of buffer stocks of employment being used to stabilise the price and exhaust the quantity supplied (that is, create full employment).

Early on in MMT history, the two terms were interchangeable. I used BSE, the US colleagues used ELR.

Two things happened. First, I objected to the use of the term ELR because it was derived from the central bank’s capacity as Lender of Last Resort and I considered applying a term that was about the provision of inanimate reserves to human labour was not appropriate.

Second, Britain experienced the outbreak of mad cow disease (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE) in 1996, which rendered my BSE acronym somewhat dubious.

There was some usage (by Randy for example) of the term Public Employment policy, but I decided to use replace the BSE terminology with the Job Guarantee terminology and I started using that language in public presentations and academic papers from then on.

After a while, we (the original MMT team) all agreed either formally or implicitly to unify the terminology as so it became Job Guarantee – late 1990s. The Americans still occasionally lapse back into ELR but rarely these days.

I hope that helps.

best wishes



(v) DTM eta lan bermea

bill says:

Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 12:35

Dear André (at 2018/03/11 at 11:24 pm)

You are welcome to call anything whatever you like whether there is an existing body of knowledge that calls it something else or not. But that won’t change things much.

Neil Wilson is correct that what the founders of MMT (including myself) have deemed to be the body of theory and practice they advocate includes the concept of an employment buffer stock as an integral component.

As Neil says it ‘fixes the bug’ that the Phillips curve opens up for conventional ‘Keynesian’ (heterodox) theory. You demand to know “Who says so?”. I say so. That has been the core of my work in this area of research and theoretical development for decades. The Job Guarantee solves the ‘missing equation’ problem of macroeconomics and is core to what we call MMT. It is one of the things that separates MMT from other Post Keynesian macroeconomic approaches.

As Neil noted “Every generation that discovers MMT seems to think they can do without the Job Guarantee for some reason.”

Over the 14 years I have been writing a blog and thus presenting my academic work in a more accessible format, this discussion has recycled several times. It has led to some people who in their rush of enthusiasm claim to be devoted MMTers then denouncing the approach a few weeks later once they realise what the body of work involves.

Then the cycle turns as more people ‘discover’ our work.

As I said, you can call something MMT as you see fit. But without the Job Guarantee stability framework embedded, what you think is MMT is not the genuine article.

best wishes



Neil Willson-ek berriz:

(vi) Lan bermea denboraz ari da

Neil Wilson says:

Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 18:15

the thing about a Jobs Guarantee is you have to show up for work and at least put in the time.”

Probably unexpectedly you’ve stumbled across the key point of the system. In crypto-currency terms the Job Guarantee is a ‘proof of burn’ system. You have to give up permanently some of your finite lifespan and in return you will be issued with some currency so you have access to the output of somebody else’s finite lifespan.

It’s putting your own time out of use for yourself that is the key sacrifice required so others will accept that you have contributed as they have.

The Job Guarantee: it’s about time.

Erantzun bat “Neil Wilson-en eta Bill Mitchell-en iruzkinak, lan bermea dela eta” bidalketan

  1. Bill Mitchell-en Now people pay to work for free
    We now pay to work for free!
    The interview was motivated by a report in the Fairax press yesterday (March 13, 2018) – Companies defend charging $1000 for unpaid internships – which documented how:
    Students and graduates are forking out $1000 to undertake unpaid internships with a one in 64 success rate of picking up a full-time job and which don’t even take place at the company’s office.
    … the firms involved insist they are simply providing the training universities have failed to deliver to prepare technology, business and engineering graduates for the real working world.
    This has been a creeping neoliberal disease over the last few decades.
    When there are enough jobs to meet the desires for work of the labour force (vacancies outstripping underutilised workers), firms had to take responsibility for the development of job-specific skills within their workplaces.
    This was the full employment era.
    It was when educational institutions educated – by which I mean, developed critical thinking skills, decision-making skills, and a general awareness of literature – which was meant to prepare people to function and contribute to a sophisticated society.
    Vocational training, inasmuch as it was delivered outside the paid-work environment, was developed within technical colleges.
    There was a clear distinction between education and training.
    It was also understood that the lower productivity of workers during their training period would be matched by a lower wage than they would receive once their period of indenture was completed.
    As the neoliberal grip has tightened, the distinction between education and training has become blurred and universities have become compromised into offering more vocational type courses.
    Corporate pressure on governments and educational authorities has seen increased contamination of educational courses with material designed purely to advance private profit rather than provide general education.
    We now have the absurd situation where university curriculum requires compulsory unpaid work in corporations as part of the educational programs.
    The latest iteration of this creeping disease is that corporations now are charging students for the chance to work for free in the name of ‘work experience’.
    We now have ridiculous situations where universities have taken on vocational training of say nurses, which were formally trained within the hospital system, and the public health authorities demanding universities pay for job placements as part of the work experience requirements in these courses.
    The shift of nursing into universities was reasonable in that it redressed some of the inequities in authority structures between doctors and nurses (the latter now also having university degrees) but has opened the students to abuse in the form of unpaid work and other demands from prospective employers.
    It is clear from the research evidence that this new era of ‘unpaid work’ does not lead to superior outcomes for the students once they graduate and enter the workforce in a more permanent way.
    The so-called internships are nothing more than free labour for profit-seeking corporations and others who should be paying workers who work within their firms.
    Alarmingly, the trade union movement has barely blinked at this creeping disease.
    But with over 15 per cent of the available workforce underutilised (either unemployed or underemployed) the balance of power is firmly in the hands of the employer and they can cost-shift all their training responsibilities to the publicly-funded education system and demand payments from young prospective workers desperate for a foothold into a future job.
    This cost-shifting has also undermined the quality of our educational systems.
    The solution is to ensure government policy creates very tight labour markets (full employment), which will force the training responsibilities back on to the employers.
    The problem is that current government policy deliberately creates this massive wastage of labour and desperation among our youth.

Utzi erantzuna

Zure e-posta helbidea ez da argitaratuko. Beharrezko eremuak * markatuta daude

− 1 = 9