Twitter | Search | |
Emma Dawson Jul 27
If I may: our proposal is a “Youth Guarantee”. It’s modelled after the Nordic approach, not the MMT Job Guarantee. I am as appalled as David is by the Pearson-Mitchell proposal which is basically WFTD on steroids, and exactly what many of us warned would happen to Mitchell’s JG.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Miller Jul 27
Totally, completely disagree with bills proposed model to the extent it removes additional welfare support. I don’t think other gaps between your models (as far as I can tell) are that large insofar as you’re actually committed to delivering the “guarantee” bit.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Miller Jul 27
Should say this work more important than ever! Getting a workable progressive model of full employment for the Australian political economy is something that Bill & co clearly cant deliver - we need alternatives!
Reply Retweet Like
Jayne Flanagan Jul 27
This is a ridiculous claim. Come on , you’re better than that. A similar discussion is going on elsewhere & someone who has as good a grasp as any MMT academic, , has clearly refuted these bogus claims about Bill’s work ...
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Miller Jul 27
Bill signed his name to two articles which call for the abolition of “passive welfare” and “welfare dependency”. There are a lot of people campaigning for full employment - you’ll be hard pressed to find one who thinks it’s been a useful contribution.
Reply Retweet Like
Jayne Flanagan Jul 27
I think you may interpreting ‘passive welfare’ and ‘dependency’ in the least generous way and in the context of Bill’s broader body of work, you know full well he cares about our collective wellbeing and has spent decades fighting for progressive aims.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Miller Jul 27
Bill put his name to an article that calls for the abolition of unemployment benefits as part of a full employment agenda. Couldn’t be clearer. I think he is very smart, and genuinely progressive. I think the policy he has put his name against in a national newspaper is not.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Miller Jul 27
Bill is not one to allow himself to be misrepresented in a paper - if he didn’t agree with what was written he wouldn’t have let it gone uncorrected. I’m sure instead I’ll read about this thread on a blog post 🙄
Reply Retweet Like
Jayne Flanagan Jul 27
Let’s look at what he might mean by ‘passive welfare’ and ‘welfare dependency’ in the context of his broader body of work. Twitter may not be the best place to tease out this nuance, but if you’re interested in what’s true then I’d be interested in doing that.
Reply Retweet Like
Ed Miller Jul 27
But also, Bill’s written that many posts about the importance of language and framing. I’m pretty suspicious of an approach that seeks to contextualise/interpret the meaning of fairly well understood terms deployed multiple times across multiple articles.
Reply Retweet Like
Rohan Grey
There is a clear and explicit difference of opinion among MMT scholars on the question of whether to remove UI benefits when implementing a JG. As far as I know Bill is the only one two support doing so - Randy, Stephanie, Pavlina, Fadhel and others are on the record saying they
Reply Retweet Like More
Rohan Grey Jul 28
Think UI should remain alongside a JG. That difference is non-trivial especially when others accuse MMTers and the JG of being at the very least indifferent to the risks of a JG devolving into workfare. I don't think it makes sense to pretend that difference of opinion doesn't
Reply Retweet Like
Rohan Grey Jul 28
Exist. In my view, based on Bill's own preferred taxonomy, the Mitchell-Pearson proposal is MMT consistent but to the extent it includes removal of UI, that is not a "MMT position" or a core part of the "MMT JG", just Bill's personal preference. But in the same way as Bill has
Reply Retweet Like
Aaron B 🦉🌹🚴 Jul 29
has explicitly said UI (cash) should not be given to those who choose not to participate in a Job Guarantee.
Reply Retweet Like