Jamie Smith

@Mario_Macis Is it very different? Or is it a further matter of degree? Their belief is market liberalism in its current mixed form is too destructive given current and expected material throughput. Hence states must more actively shape direction and composition of production this century.

I'm not the extremist you're making me out to be, and there's no contradiction in what I wrote. Our societies already run on a mix of markets and government, and people can reasonably disagree on whether we need more or less government in different parts of the economy. That's a normal, healthy debate. But what this proposal does is something very different, and I've stated my objections to that.

My 2 cents: I find none of these responses convincing, particularly on points 1 and 3. The agenda is based on a drastic degrowth program, which I find deeply problematic because, to be achieved, it would need to violate fundamental liberties and suppress important traits of human nature. And not only that, it's exactly the opposite of what's needed to achieve the proposal's purported goals. Far from utopian , the proposal feels highly dystopian to me: a technocratic attempt by an elite to impose its preferences on people, and that is the opposite of what expanding democracy should do. We absolutely should be doing more to invest in health and education in low-income countries. Many of us, across disciplines, are already working on this. But this proposal is unconvincing and problematic on many levels. I don't think it should ever be on the table.

@joseph_gellman Why does the debate never ever question the sustainability of private pension income? Why don't we start by curtailing consumption facilitated by private retirement wealth?

If we were a serious country, scrapping the triple lock on pensions would be a consensus position and there would be a serious discussion about means testing the state pension And Labour backbenchers wouldn’t oppose any and all welfare reform

@joachim_voth I completely reject that the "latter has worked" though. This might be the issue. Climate breakdown and multiple planetary boundaries breached is not "working". Billions still impoverished and development goals suffering. Only China has had wild success cutting destitution.

@JGS952 Yes. It can continue. And yes i have preferences and so does everyone else. The key q here is - do i get to impose mine? Does stiglitz? Or do we let people all express theirs thru purchases, work, prices? The latter has worked. Nothing else has.

Found it. All u need to know to think about the Piketty, Stiglitz et al. proposals:

One week after the launch of the #GlobalJusticeReport, we've received a wide range of reactions. We're grateful for the many comments, critiques, and questions we've received so far, and we hope the discussions continue in the weeks ahead. We see the report as a contribution to a broader public debate. Here are three common criticisms we'd like to address: 1) “The report proposes a radical de-growth agenda” 2) "The report uses an unrealistically pessimistic 4.5°C warming scenario." 3) "The report is a utopian dream." 🧵

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Yes, *anchored*, not fixed or centrally controlled. Buffer stocks help stabilise the price of the commodity. For a JG, that's labour. And prices are heavily influenced by the price of labour as a cost+ mark up. Doesn't solve everything (e.g. supply side) but better than today.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation you mentioned prices and wages anchored

The Government should call time on the Triple Lock. The policy has been far too expensive, failed to reduce poverty, and is unhelpfully arbitrary. Read the full report here➡️ buff.ly/FY93tV6

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Huh? I only mentioned the fixed JG wage.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation So if you influence prices and wages economy wide you can fund your JG in other words price controls thus reducing real resources in the private sector

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation That's just not inherently true though. Especially when it's fully implemented and wages and prices are continuously anchored by the JG fixed wage. The long run real cost of unemployment is unbelievably large, you're simply ignoring the savings.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation You can argue for a jobs guarantee and say it's good but it would require higher taxes or higher interest rates

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Boosting supply requires investment, both public and private, in productivity-enhancing capital. And hiring 1m currently unemployed people across the country to devote ~1.5bn collective work-hours a year to support care, education, health, flood defence, community food is good.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation socially useful output will just cause higher inflation and paying more people to worn doesn't boost the supply side boosting the supply side means labor market reforms, welfare reforms, changing licensing, etc... of al which will have some trade offs

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation You wouldn't at all. Direct and indirect lifting of the supply side would occur via direct socially useful output and its knock on effects as well as indirect boost from a structurally more resilient labour market and demand levels providing certainty and boost for firms

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Yes a jobs guarantee would reduce unemployment to 0 but you'd have to increase taxes to pay for it because underlying potential output

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Nope, you misunderstand. The NAIRU is replaced by a NAIBER (.. buffer employment ratio) under a JG. Rather than the level of employment changing over the cycle both endogenously and induced by CB policy to guard against inflation, the *composition* of employment changes.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation The NAIRU even if you don't believe in it is not 0 you can't just deficit spend to reduce unemployment to 0. You'd have to pay for that JG via more taxes.

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Which are equally real costs my friend. But even if we just take that £38bn direct lost output. £30bn to hire them to improve local communities and increase resilience in care, environment, and anything else socially useful is still a no brainer.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Of this only €38 billion is direct economic potential loss others are long term effects or welfare

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Based on what? Vibes? Recent gov report puts it at £125bn a year.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation I don't believe youth unemployment is that costly(it might be long term loses not actual current loses in output)

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation I agree that consumption of non-working population should fall, but I want to compress private pension income not more progressive state pension income.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Spending on the triple lock means an opportunity cost of not doing public investment but only one will grow the economy long term

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation There is an extremely real and lasting cost to high youth unemployment actually. We could solve it tomorrow if we had a JG. 1m 16-24 hired at total comp of £30k is only £30bn a year. Subtract additional output and saving as a result and it quickly becomes a huge net benefit

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Youth unemployment will go down in a few years the only cost is politics of waiting. Both a JG and investment would be inflationary lest you reinvent slavery. Besides I'm not talking about investment via deficit spending I'm talking about it via replacing the triple lock

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Even gov's own report costs current youth unemployment at £125bn a year... what's the *net* cost/benefit? I think overall it's far better than the status quo. And you do both JG and investment. Investment alone will eventually be inflationary or you have to keep NAIRU.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation You have to pay for a job guarantee it's not free lunch and very complex way easier to just do public investment

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Or adopt a Job Guarantee as a flexible labour buffer stock, achieving price stable full employment. Far better structural starting point to then deploy needed state investment

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation In the short term there is probably somewhat of an output gap but it'll be gone in a couple years by at which point you'd need to raise taxes.

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Output gap is defined by consensus frameworks that treat NAIRU as unavoidable. You can't use that measure to critique heterodox ideas that reject NAIRU. You either have to robustly defend NAIRU and provide reasons why capacity utilisation can't be sustainably higher or not.

@JGS952 @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Industrial capacity utilization is not an indicative of the output gap nor is labor force participation rate falling because if austerity.

@MakeUSAVAT @Odin2001iom @resfoundation Unemployment is over 5% with significant underemployment and casualised work. Labour force participation is also falling, not all due to demographic evolution but austerity and policy settings. Industrial capacity utilisation also sits at ~74%, well below potential.

@Odin2001iom @resfoundation The UK economy is close to being at full employment so yes. Money is a proxy for resources even if it isn't directly a resource. I don't care about the fiscal multiplier of pension spending you can spend on other better things like investment or even have the BOE lower rates