DTMz eta lan bermeaz, hausnarketak (2)

1 Ikus http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32453#more-32453.

2 Ingelesez: “The fact that the JG wage creates the wage floor for the economy means that private employers who are seeking to invest in new areas as part of a recovery can always attract the labour out of the JG pool.”

3 Ingelesez: “The JG does not lock workers into industries that will never be efficient in some future recovery but rather sustains workers who would otherwise be unemployed.”

4 Ingelesez: “Sure, the fact that the JG attenuates the loss in national income of the private spending collapse does mean that some firms that are on the margin of survival will probably be able to maintain solvency through the recession.

It might be argued that these firms would be better going under as they are less efficient than the most efficient firms in the economy. But if that becomes a benchmark then where do you stop driving firms into bankruptcy.

The emphasis on government should be on protecting the well-being of its citizens using the capacities as the currency-issuer to advantage.”

5 Neil Wilson-ek iruzkinetan dioenez, http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32453#more-32453: “The Job Guarantee is different. It takes the person wanting a job in front of them and tailors a job position for them – something the individual can do that they find worthwhile *and* that the rest of society finds useful. Nothing else in the economy does that. Only the Job Guarantee creates jobs for the people.

The Job Guarantee disciplines the private sector. Because it is open to all people always have an alternative job offer open to them. So if the private sector gets a strange desire for zero-hour contracts, people will leave those jobs and come onto the Job Guarantee.

The Job Guarantee auto-stabilises the economy. Job Guarantee spending stops when people move off the JG into the private sector as the economy starts to move into boom times. That reduces government spending into the economy – and by a relatively large amount because the JG wage is a living wage. The upshot of that is that taxes can be *much lower* than they would otherwise be. And since nobody likes paying taxes (whatever some of the clowns on the left believe) you have a much more marketable approach to macro-stabilisation.

The Job Guarantee is fundamental to the stabilisation proposals that come out of MMT. It’s not some adjunct. It is central. You cannot fix the problems of stabilisation just by ‘doing a bit more government spending’. That approach *always* leads to about 5% unemployment. Millions of people who actually want something to do, denied access to the most basic of human needs – to feel useful.”

6 Ikus http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32502.

7 Ikus DTMz eta lan bermeaz, hausnarketak (1).

8 Ingelesez: “The JG is a buffer stock approach to macroeconomic stability, where employment buffers are used instead of unemployment buffers, the latter which characterises the so-called NAIRU approach of mainstream economics.” NAIRU: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU.

9 Ingelesez: “The JG should not be thought of, exclusively, as a job creation program, although clearly its use of employment buffers accomplishes that end.”

10 Ingelesez: “The JG is the MMT response to Phillips curve equations in the mainstream macroeconomic theoretical frameworks. The Phillips curve proposes a trade-off between unemployment and inflation, and the extent of that trade-off is a topic of considerable debate within the mainstream framework.”

11 Ingelesez: “The advent of Monetarism tried to claim there was no trade-off, which they believed all owed for a categorical rejection of the so-called Keynesian framework.”

12 Ingelesez: “By turning the question of price stability on its head, if you like, the JG, through the use of employment buffers, also shows that there is no trade-off between involuntary unemployment and inflation, but with quite devastating consequences for the Monetarist conclusions.”

13 Ingelesez: “What the JG shows is that a currency-issuing government can maintain stable inflation rates with full employment through the use of appropriately designed employment buffers. I consider that a major theoretical advance in macroeconomics and one of the contributions of MMT to advancing knowledge in this area.”

14 Ingelesez: “The alternative proposed by some Post Keynesians is to rely on so-called incomes policies to suppress income growth in the private sector so that spending grows in line with real capacity.

Apart from the logistical problems of introducing effective incomes policies and the fact that these policies have historically broken down when under strain, there is nothing objectionable to an MMT proponent about the use of incomes policies.”

15 Ingelesez: “But to suggest that the introduction of the JG will face political constraints yet the implementation of an effective incomes policy will not is rather far-fetched.

Further, Keynes’ himself, in his essay – How to Pay for the War – written in 1940, considered the question of inflationary pressures. He had also written extensively about this in the early 1930s (for example, in Essays on Persuasion), but this was before he broke with classical monetary theory and published his General Theory in 1936.

The range of policies proposed all amounted to limiting the spending capacity of the private sector to allow for more spending space by the public sector – all intended to avoid inflation.”

16 Ingelesez: “Abba Lerner, in his theories of functional finance, elaborated more extensively on the way in which inflation control could be accomplished by the government managing total spending.”

17 Ingelesez: “In my early JG writings (…), I examined, in detail, the shift from a NAIRU economy to a JG.

Specifically, I considered the issues that arise when the government seeks to maintain full employment using the JG.”

18 Ingelesez: “While orthodox economists typically attack the JG policy for fiscal reasons, economists on the Left are also critical.

They constantly cite Kalecki’s 1943 article – Political Aspects of Full Employment – to argue that the JG policy is politically naïve.”