An Interesting Idea From a Dubious Source

Much of the talk on the econ blogs I follow revolves around the idea of a Job Guarantee (JG). This is an idea deeply imbedded into the MMT macro view. Some say its a necessary component and that "You are not an MMTer if you dont endorse the idea". Others are less dogmatic about it but it cant be denied that full employment, defined as anyone who wishes to earn an income is able to, is a primary goal of the MMT macro view. The other part of the trick is price stability though and the macroeconomists within the MMT school argue that price stability is best achieved by a wage anchor. The design of a JG can run anywhere from a fully federally controlled "make work" type program to a subsidy of private businesses at whatever level is necessary to "hire" everyone.  The common denominator in both ends of the spectrum is recognizing the reality that the govt, as currency issuer, can fully fund a full employment economy. There are tradeoffs in every system but there is no saying "we dont have the money to do this". Thats a huge hurdle for a large portion of the population. Many believe the govt would run out of money if such a venture were tried.


 One idea that has been offered involves an income guarantee, payable through a paypal debit card account. Here is the originator of the idea (as far as we know, the originator) Morgan Warstler;

  Using a clone of Paypal and Ebay platforms, the US govt. should establish a Guaranteed Wage of $240 per week. Anyone who wants to work registers, receives a Debit Card,and each Friday has their GI deposited. All recipients have their labor weeks auctioned online. Bidding begins at $40 per week ($1 per hour). Bid increases by .50 cents per hour ($20 increments). Recipients keep 50% of the top bid, if they take it. If they opt for a lesser bid outside certain boundaries there are penalties (fraud measure). Recipients cannot be made to work outside a radius of a couple miles. Bidders must deposit money into system before they bid. They must accurately describe the job. Feedback will be given both ways. If you are familiar with Ebay, you understand what this accomplishes. There are no taxes paid, there are basic workplace protection requirments. Umbrella insurance is sold on site for folks bringing labor into their home. Expect 30M to register so approx $345B is our cost assuming 30M are auctioned at $1 (The govt. is picking up $5.50 and bidders are in for $1) At an avg. bid of $4 per hour, avg. worker is making $8, and the govt. is spending $250B a year. There is no more UI. There is no more minimum wage. That’s why there are 30M in program.



I would have to say that normally I would be 75-100% behind the idea. Its simple, it allows choices, there is a lot of bottom up thinking to it, the framework for it is in place already and I do think many people on both sides of the spectrum could get behind it. My primary reservation is knowing who came up with it. Not that I really KNOW Mr Warstler. He's as anonymous to me as Arthur Shipman or Mike Sax, guys on the internet I talk to with my keyboard. I wouldnt know any of these three if they walked in my house but I have read a lot of what they have to say on the sites I visit. I feel like I know them and know what kind of people they are. Mr Warstler is NOT good people, as they say.

First off Morgan is a fan of and I think a contributor to the late (yea!!) Andrew Breitbarts site. I'm not sure who is (was) a more despicable person, Breitbart or Limbaugh. Its close. So anyone who contributes to anything that guy did is only making the world worse. Not that bad people cant come up with good ideas, and vice versa, but in general I prefer ideas that come from people who at least seem to not be psychopaths.

 Turns out Im not the only one who thinks Morgan Warstler reads like a toxic personality. Here is Raul Groom at "The Vanishing Dollar":

  As many who read this blog (if any section of this blog's readership can be usefully called "many") probably already know, there is a person out in Internet-land who calls himself Morgan Warstler. He's a blogger for the odd, ugly, and mostly useless righty politics site Big Government (full name: "Andrew Breitbart presents Big Government featuring editor in chief Mike Flynn," and no I am not making that up). He's a gadfly on several well-known economics blogs including Scott Sumner's The Money Illusion, but most of my dealings with him have been at Yglesias' place over at ThinkProgress. All in all, the guy is a nutcase, and I really don't recommend listening to him, reading him, or talking to him at all. It will just make you angry and confused. That said, the Warstler may well be a genius. He's fallen in with the wrong people and has couched his policy recommendations in politically toxic, morally bankrupt packages. But the man is onto something. I know, I know. Forty-two loyal Yglesias fans (the entire readership of this blog, sadly) just threw up a little in their mouths. But Morgan's Guaranteed Income plan is sort of on to something. I'll explain later. Just wanted to warn you, sort of an econ version of the "trigger warnings" on sites that focus on social issues. I will be taking up a lukewarm defense of Warstler this week. Consider yourself on notice.



Dan Kervick, one of my favorite posters of late says; "I call Morgan Warstler a "Darth Vadar Marxist". Those are folks who seem to accept a whole bunch of Marx's theorizing about class warfare, but who then try to encourage everyone to join the dark side of the greedy capitalists"


 Obviously Ive made the point that I think he's a terrible guy, but he's also afflicted with some really poor economic thinking. He thinks the whole problem with our unemployment problem is simply too high of wages (Yes if we all made even less more of us would default at the debt levels we've achieved..... making the banks really happy then). He views the economy as a zero sum game where the only way someone who doesnt have something can get it is by depriving someone else of that thing (which would mean in his world the only way the "haves" got it was by getting it at the expense of the "have nots"....... try making the argument that the US is rich only because theyve made Africa, Mexico and Central America poor... I dare ya!). He also in one of his comments at someones site made the statement that consumption was "bad".  Bad? Tell that to the worlds manufacturers who are just looking for someone to consume their  product  How can something which is the other side of the coin from production be bad?  Putting a label on an economic variable like that strikes me as religious zealotry. Puritanic.

 Now all of this, again,is not to say that he hasnt hit on something quite good. He may very well have. I dont have large objections to it but whenever someone who thinks like an Austrian economist, is friendly to the likes of Andrew Breitbart and is smart (cunning may be a more appropriate description) I think one should look real hard at ANYTHING he proposes.


 Im pretty sure that over 90% of the time if Morgan Warstler likes it........ I wont.