Thanks for the challenge, to "to speak meaningfully without uttering the words MMT" and to use other words instead. Those words are still within the MMT concept, things like Guaranteed Government Jobs, which is a program that doesn't work.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept that challenge at this time. My reputation has been slandered (by those purporting to believe in a false, disproven economic theory). I'm done trying to defend myself, though, with MMTers. Those people are free to believe in an illusion.
Instead, my next paper will attack the Green New Deal that Canada seems to think will solve problems in our economy. Sorry folks; it didn't work for FDR and it won't work for any politician in Canada. Back in the 30s the plan to combat the Great Depression didn't work; what worked, in the 40s, was going to war. I believe that we can get the same economic effect, using a UBI, that the US got in the 40's. Canada already proved that Basic Income (in the form of CERB payments) will stop a recession in its tracks.
So, keep your eyes out for my next bit of research. Providing real economic theory is what I do - debunking things like "trickle down theory" and "Federal Jobs Guarantee" is how I do it. Please look at my previous research paper, discussing Wealth Taxes.
That's why I said "provide examples of X such that a Job Guarantee (Federal or otherwise) is not as good as X as a means of producing full employment, by this definition."
No amount of 'bad results' from FDR will prove a UBI wouldn't be WORSE. You have to be COMPARATIVE to make the argument and avoid THE PARADOX OF ABSOLUTISM
If a UBI is possible, but adding instructions onto the UBI in the form of a government job has effectively the same cost, but less nihilism, I have proven that a jobs guarantee BEATS a UBI using your own claims as my premises. Try formalizing the argument, I offer free help with my formal logic syllabus if you haven't delved into mathematically formalizing your arguments in economics:
https://x.com/Tori_TLCR/status/1826005401969766647
Thanks for the challenge, to "to speak meaningfully without uttering the words MMT" and to use other words instead. Those words are still within the MMT concept, things like Guaranteed Government Jobs, which is a program that doesn't work.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept that challenge at this time. My reputation has been slandered (by those purporting to believe in a false, disproven economic theory). I'm done trying to defend myself, though, with MMTers. Those people are free to believe in an illusion.
Instead, my next paper will attack the Green New Deal that Canada seems to think will solve problems in our economy. Sorry folks; it didn't work for FDR and it won't work for any politician in Canada. Back in the 30s the plan to combat the Great Depression didn't work; what worked, in the 40s, was going to war. I believe that we can get the same economic effect, using a UBI, that the US got in the 40's. Canada already proved that Basic Income (in the form of CERB payments) will stop a recession in its tracks.
So, keep your eyes out for my next bit of research. Providing real economic theory is what I do - debunking things like "trickle down theory" and "Federal Jobs Guarantee" is how I do it. Please look at my previous research paper, discussing Wealth Taxes.
"Didn't work" is NOT COMPARATIVE and hence does not avoid THE PARADOX OF ABSOLUTISM:
https://adamgolding.substack.com/p/compared-to-what?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
That's why I said "provide examples of X such that a Job Guarantee (Federal or otherwise) is not as good as X as a means of producing full employment, by this definition."
No amount of 'bad results' from FDR will prove a UBI wouldn't be WORSE. You have to be COMPARATIVE to make the argument and avoid THE PARADOX OF ABSOLUTISM
If a UBI is possible, but adding instructions onto the UBI in the form of a government job has effectively the same cost, but less nihilism, I have proven that a jobs guarantee BEATS a UBI using your own claims as my premises. Try formalizing the argument, I offer free help with my formal logic syllabus if you haven't delved into mathematically formalizing your arguments in economics:
https://www.facebook.com/adamgolding/posts/pfbid033Q59ym8P7dmrKaqAmTVq62JtRvza6VWkCHhaNqkasuULFdU7tvs9yKmdadkxmYenl