Fiscal Sustainability Conference 2010 (Part 10) モズラー バッファーストック
https://youtu.be/1wFJ6XWTEus@carlitosmmt ♬ original sound - CarlitosMMT
14:00
every monetary system uses a buffer stock policy.
a gold standard is a gold buffer stock.
unemployed it unemployment is an unemployed buffer stock.
what we're saying is an employed buffer stock is far superior into an unemployed buffer stock in far superior to a gold buffer stock.
its larger deeper more flexible and most important whatever your buffer stock is is always fully employed.
there's always a bid for the buffer stock.
on a gold standard gold is always fully employed you can always take an ounce of gold and sell it to the government and get money you can always monetize it in a wool buffer stock.
where bill started there's always a bid for wool okay sheep we're fully employed.
and so uh no it's true so right now we as unemployment as a buffer stock this is like clearly shows we don't have any idea what we're doing not only do not understand a monetary system.
we don't understand that wow it's part of it we don't understand a buffer stock always anchors a monetary system.
so we should be using an employed buffer stock.
すべての通貨制度は、バッファーストックポリシーを採用している。
金本位制は金のバッファーストックである。
失業者は失業者用のバッファーストックです。
私たちが言っているのは、雇用されたバッファストックは、金のバッファストックより失業したバッファストックの方がはるかに優れているということです。
より大きく、より深く、より柔軟で、最も重要なのは、バッファストックが何であれ、常に完全に雇用されているということです。
バッファーストックには常に入札があります。
金本位制では、金は常に完全に使用されています。金1オンスを取って、政府に売ってお金を得ることもできますし、ウールのバッファストックで常に貨幣化することができます。
ビルが始めたところでは、羊毛は常に入札されているのです。
だから......いや、それは本当だ。だから今、我々は失業者を緩衝在庫にしている。これは、我々が何をしているのか全く分かっていないだけでなく、貨幣システムを理解していないことを明確に示している。
バッファストックは常に通貨制度を安定させるということが分かっていないのです。
だから、雇用されたバッファストックを使うべきなのです。
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS8Fc5nT7/
two things and i'm not sure if you wanted to talk about it but an hour i think our friends at the Cato Institute would appreciate this a job guarantee would eliminate the need for a minimum wage correct i mean federal mental wager would do away with it because you're the government's is basically based setting the base wage i think they would love that the other thing is a curious i advocate a universal living wage it's a wage that is based on since we have this insane policy of waiting 10 12 years to increase minimum wage there is a theory of movement that says let's pass a universal living wage that says you know what instead of having to deal with this issue you know every 7 10 12 years let's just say we will pass you you a lot of things you can do you can introduce benefits from the bottom up you could say two weeks vacation and then private sector would have to have two weeks vacation to compete okay you could say childcare you could put anything in it you want and introduce benefits from the bottom up right health care and so the and then competitive market forces would move those benefits up the scale so what it does is allows us to use competitive market forces to achieve goals gives us a tool for that which is the American approach to things so it hits a you know it's a hybrid type of approach that gets rid of all the moral hazard aspects of other approaches we've had a really big debate about because one of the things I've been doing was designing a minimum wage framework for them which would embed into the public works program that we've been working on and over there of course you've got the approach that I used to help help out that process was to use poverty poverty lines and nutrition rates and things like that and of course then you then you find out that there's objections from the government all year but you know thirty percent of private employers are paying well below what you've suggested as your minimum wage and the and I said this to the the treasurer the the of the country that what you've got to decide in any nation is that aims to be a sophisticated civilized country is what's the minimum price you won't want people to be able to do business that and that minimum price has to be the the wage that provides people with an inclusive capacity to interact in society and if your private sector applying below that then you don't want them in your country that's the reality otherwise you have got no aspirations to be a sophisticated civilized country and so the job guarantee wage is you don't do away with the minimum wage it becomes the minimum wage and then you can add on whatever as lauren says in political terms you can add on whatever in Australia we call them social wage benefits childcare and you know access to all sorts of other benefits that are outside of the the direct employment contract but it is the minimum wage and you've got to set it at a level that you aspire to be the actual living minimum not some penurious sort of penalty right our Roger Erickson again listen to this I'm reminded of again something out in a different field and the question is about policy what we've heard described here is options for how we could be doing things differently but that's not how we can get this group or this population currently in this country to start exploring or select another some of these other options so there's two ways to look at this one is historically and we have lots to go on if you look at small group theory all these things get worked out through affinity bonds because the group is small enough to everybody's aware of group options as well as individual ones the problem is scaling up to large populations the only thing we've learned I've learned today about how we've addressed this is when we either have a war or a severe depression we have to find a mechanism that a population can become self-aware enough to address this kind of what is leaving on the table short of having a major depression or a war and the only example i can think of the groups that have done this at very large scale are large military groups and they do what you'd expect from any systems theory they drive interaction and awareness through absolutely political or operational decisions by minister pavlina said india's got a bigger population in the US and india has introduced the rural job guarantee as a national employment guarantee it's employed millions of people already they did it because they did it because the the the growth in the indian economy which was urban based in in in technology and construct brief it's not what they did but how whoever became aware first got the attention of politicians I'm just explaining how they did that though they they were faced with their motivation was they were faced with an urban crisis because the rural poor had no option but to try to flood into the cities to enjoy the the graph that was appearing there and they knew that wasn't sustainable for housing and other regions and so they suddenly realized that the reason this migration is occurring is the lack of jobs in the rural sector solution create jobs who's going to do it private sectors I'm going to do it we've got to do it they did it millions of jobs have been created in the second largest popular you know population in the world good question little question I in you know it is it's going to take a grassroots effort it's going to have to come from the grassroots because of you know we're talking about you know our political system is seriously dysfunctional to get anything something like this out of our current political system it's just unrealistic you know so it will be incredibly difficult endeavor to do something like this but you know it doesn't mean that we don't undertake the effort to do it and to start advocating this on several meets in several levels you know the Conservatives right wing's have have an incredible noise machine that they have used for for many meant for several decades now there's no reason why you know people on the Left cannot ended don't have to do the same thing and particularly do it at a grassroots level you know we could do it it's possible you know we there are certain think tanks out there progressive think tanks that are hopefully we'll get on board with something such as this soon but it's going to take a long time I you know I I probably you know I don't know if I'll see to my life I disagree actually I funnily enough Warren and I both talked about this idea he's been on the campaign trail so he's had probably more immediate interaction but whenever I presented this idea and I presented at a number of conferences a lot of foot speech that I I presented it once when I was in a debate with the former governor of the Bank of Canada and actually it got a surprising degree what i would call call bipartisan support um i think is randy said a lot of people on the right like the idea that you you even them legitimize government expenditure via work and actually especially when you sell them on the idea it makes it so that we want to eliminate welfare but if say that it makes welfare redundant because you have this program in place but it does actually tend to command a lot more appeal finally not the model a lot of times I get the I've had objections from unions rather they're not on the right because the unions think that what you're trying to do is create as a slave class of flavors that's going to undercut their wages a what you have to try to explain your try to fill the gap and then create a full employment pull the Chelton when they enhance asset pricing powers so in the first instance sometimes it can be a little bit deflationary because if you have someone that's been paid you know say forty dollars an hour and also these losses Java knee has to go to something data there is a once-off adjustment but then the the adjustment mechanism the other way is much you so I actually think this is one of our wedding ideas which actually could get a much greater political acceptance than you think yes so again this obviously is coming to a lot of political questions and I think you know big difference between United States and basically every other country especially in DM is there's just so much number one there's so much noise and right mean America is like genetically averse to anything that sounds socialist right this is a socialist idea how dare you right we believe in private industry so regardless of the merits of the argument there's all the the noise but kind of falling on what you just said how do you stop if this becomes the minimum wage what stops every minimum-wage worker saying why should I work in private industry why don't I just go work for the government I can't be fired and effectively that's kind of the argument probably you'll get from industry is you know you're going to compete against private industry and and that's going to drive wages down we're sorry not drive wait just on this gonna support wages and therefore we're not going to be competitive with government where's the argument.
モズラー
look we're going to have active fiscal policy that keeps forgiven sighs government keeps taxes low enough so that the private sector will be able to have the means to hire everybody which means they're going to have to have the means to pay a higher way so if we start off at say an eight dollar an hour first of all that's not going to be disruptive I don't think anybody quits their private sector jobs that are very few people well it's full-time work there's still people going to work part-time babysitting and whatever so but you get a few okay and and then we conduct discretionary fiscal policy so that this pool private sector hires these people away now maybe they'll have to pay ten or eleven or twelve dollars will be some spread but then that spread will stabilize and then that'll be the stabilized private-sector wage let's say unless we over stimulate or what you know over we had too much aggregate demand we allow too much aggregate demand and then our pool of buffer stock workers shrinks to zero then of course it's no longer a buffer stock and then then you lose control of prices on the upside just like with any other buffer stock but if we keep it if we conduct policy to keep it to three percent whereas before we had unemployment at four five percent we've actually reduced the public sector because the unemployed are in the public sector.
モズラー
政府は税金を十分に低く抑えて、民間部門が全員を雇用する手段を持てるようにするため、積極的な財政政策を実施する予定です。 ですから、まず時給8ドルから始めたとしても、それは破壊的ではないと思います.非常に少数の人々である民間部門の仕事を辞める人はいないと思います.フルタイムの仕事です.まだ働く人がいます. パートタイムのベビーシッターなど何でもいいですが、いくつかは大丈夫です。その後、このプールの民間部門がこれらの人々を雇うように、裁量的な財政政策を実施します。 その場合、そのスプレッドは安定し、それが安定した民間部門の賃金になるとしましょう もちろん、それはもはや緩衝在庫ではなく、その後、他の緩衝在庫と同じように、価格の上昇を制御できなくなりますが、それを維持する場合、失業率が発生する前とは異なり、それを3％に維持する政策を実施する場合 失業者は公共部門にいるため、実際には公共部門を 45% 削減しました。
okay look the thing is and don't forget like when I tell you about my cards and creating okay if there's a tax to get out of this room and of whatever.
and then I don't hire enough I don't offer enough jobs so you can get the money to get out of the room.
why did I do it there's something really wrong with my policy I should be like lowering the tax or giving you more work right I should be increasing my spending or cutting my taxes so we've gotta get discretionary fiscal policy to the point where this these people we've taken out of the private sector is not used in the public sector because either we don't want them we don't want to spend whatever is it's got to be minimized okay we want to minimize it but we want to have a we also want to have a buffer stock as a price acura now every every monetary system uses a buffer stock policy a gold standard is a gold buffer stock unemployed it unemployment is an unemployed buffer stock what we're saying is an employed buffer stock is far superior into an unemployed buffer stock in far superior to a gold buffer stock its larger deeper more flexible and most important whatever your buffer stock is is always fully employed there's always a bid for the buffer stock on a gold standard gold is always fully employed you can always take an ounce of gold and sell it to the government and get money you can always monetize it in a wool buffer stock where bill started there's always a bid for wool okay sheep we're fully employed and so uh no it's true so right now we as unemployment as a buffer stock this is like clearly shows we don't have any idea what we're doing not only do not understand a monetary system we don't understand that wow it's part of it we don't understand a buffer stock always anchors a monetary system so we should be using an employed buffer stock.
さて、私がカードについて話し、この部屋から出るための税金があれば大丈夫だと言うときのように忘れないでください。
そして、私は十分な数の雇用を提供していません。
なぜ私はそれをしたのですか私の政策には本当に間違ったことがあります私は税金を下げるか、あなたにもっと適切な仕事を与えるべきです私は支出を増やすか減税すべきなので、これがこれらの 私たちが民間部門から連れ出した人々は、公共部門では使用されません. 私たちはまた、
and then I don't hire enough I don't offer enough jobs so you can get the money to get out of the room why did I do it there's something really wrong with my policy I should be like lowering the tax or giving you more work right I should be increasing my spending or cutting my taxes so we've gotta get discretionary fiscal policy to the point where this these people we've taken out of the private sector is not used in the public sector because either we don't want them we don't want to spend whatever is it's got to be minimized okay we want to minimize it but we want to have a we also want to have a buffer stock as a price acura now every
every monetary system uses a buffer stock policy.
a gold standard is a gold buffer stock.
unemployed it unemployment is an unemployed buffer stock.
what we're saying is an employed buffer stock is far superior into an unemployed buffer stock in far superior to a gold buffer stock.
its larger deeper more flexible and most important whatever your buffer stock is is always fully employed.
there's always a bid for the buffer stock on a gold standard gold is always fully employed you can always take an ounce of gold and sell it to the government and get money you can always monetize it in a wool buffer stock.
where bill started there's always a bid for wool okay sheep we're fully employed and so uh no it's true so right now we as unemployment as a buffer stock this is like clearly shows we don't have any idea what we're doing not only do not understand a monetary system.
we don't understand that wow it's part of it we don't understand a buffer stock always anchors a monetary system.
so we should be using an employed buffer stock.
すべての通貨制度は、バッファーストックポリシーを採用している。
金本位制は金のバッファーストックである。
失業者は失業者用のバッファーストックです。
私たちが言っているのは、雇用されたバッファストックは、金のバッファストックより失業したバッファストックの方がはるかに優れているということです。
より大きく、より深く、より柔軟で、最も重要なのは、バッファストックが何であれ、常に完全に雇用されているということです。
金本位制では、バッファーストックには常に入札があります。金は常に完全雇用で、金1オンスを取って政府に売ってお金を得ることができ、ウールのバッファーストックで常にマネタイズできます。
ビルが始めたところでは、羊毛は常に入札されているのですから、羊は完全に雇用されています。
バッファストックは常に通貨制度を安定させるということが分かっていないのです。
だから、雇用されたバッファストックを使うべきなのです。
質問者
I get that point I just think once again from someone who said before I think you you kind of assume that everyone does because they don't understand it as opposed to they do understand they just don't care and it serves their interests well it's just giving them the benefit of the rack sure you tend to do that a lot privately I could say a lot of other things that you don't really want to hear it.
レイ
I I wanted to correct a misunderstanding because a lot of people do jump to this that we're going to guarantee that a job offer for anyone who's ready and willing to work and then they say oh so they'll never get fired no we never said that they don't show up they show up drunk they don't do their work they're fired okay anything that a private employer can do to the legally do to their employees the employers in this program will do okay and I just socialize I think if you tell most Americans what we're going to do is we're going to require that I people who ought to be working okay define disabilities I think very narrowly they're gonna have to work instead of welfare and you ask them what would you call that system all Americans are going to call that oh that's capitalism they wouldn't call it socialism didn't they already say we converted from welfare to work fair I don't know exactly what that meant boys in that game speaking well but without the jobs but to add a minimum at a minimum you have to sell your time and that has value and look so we're not talking about the government owning the means of production we're talking about the government providing for public infrastructure public infrastructure is all the things you hire people for and then you've got this transition pool where you facilitate the transition from back to the private sector back to the private sector that's what this does have what it was 750,000 an Argentine I think how the two million Argentina 750,000 what the private sector employment within two years people who who never would have done this before was it more than that mark mark half ok Millis its enormous these are people who'd never been in a private sector never all the private sector job the biggest services did to the economy well one was aa all direct things but secondarily it allowed the economy to expand at very high rates without labor bottlenecks ok so it's it's it it's a extreme facilitation of private sector where right now privacy labor does not flow from unemployment to private sector very well at all it takes a lot of demand pull to get that died which is to everyone's disappear it to detriment of ours did just in terms of your concern about the business sector often I've been on about this firm what is it thirty-two years now since I was over in heaven I'm undergraduates since the second grade
2つのこと、それについて話したいかどうかはわかりませんが、1時間、Cato Instituteの友人はこれを喜んでくれると思います.仕事の保証は最低賃金の必要性をなくします.連邦政府の精神的な賭けはなくなります.それはあなたが政府だから基本的に基本給の設定に基づいています.彼らは他のことは好奇心旺盛であることを気に入ると思います.私は普遍的な生活賃金を提唱します.最低賃金を引き上げるためには、7 10 12 年ごとに知っているこの問題に対処する代わりに、何を知っているかを知っているという普遍的な生活賃金を渡しましょうという動きの理論があります。私たちがあなたにできることはたくさんあります。ボトムアップから利益をもたらすことができます.2週間の休暇と言うことができます.民間部門は競争するために2週間の休暇を取らなければなりません.その中にあなたが望むものは何でもあり、ボトムアップの正しいヘルスケアから利益をもたらします。そして、競争市場の力がこれらの利益をスケールアップさせ、それが行うことは、競争市場の力を使用して目標を達成することを可能にし、私たちにツールを提供しますそれは物事に対するアメリカのアプローチなので、私たちが本当に大きな議論をしてきた他のアプローチのすべてのモラルハザードの側面を取り除くハイブリッドタイプのアプローチであることを知っています.私たちが取り組んできたのは、私たちが取り組んできた公共事業プログラムに組み込まれる最低賃金の枠組みを設計することでした。もちろん、そのプロセスを支援するために私が使用したアプローチは、貧困を利用することでした.貧困線や栄養率など、そしてもちろん、政府から一年中反対されていることがわかりますが、民間雇用主の30％が、あなたが提案した最低賃金よりもはるかに低い賃金を支払っていることを知っています。私はその国の財務官にこう言いました.どの国でもあなたが決定しなければならないことは、洗練された文明国を目指す国であり、あなたが得る最低価格はいくらかということです.最低価格は、人々が社会で相互作用する包括的な能力を提供する賃金でなければなりません。もしあなたの民間部門がそれ以下で適用するなら、あなたの国では彼らを望んでいません。現実はそうでなければあなたは洗練された文明国になるという願望を持っていないので、雇用保証賃金はあなたが最低賃金を廃止しないということです.オーストラリアでは社会賃金給付チャイルドケアと呼ばれるものを追加することができ、直接雇用契約の外にあるあらゆる種類の他の給付へのアクセスを知っていますが、それは最低賃金であり、あなたは'あなたが実際の最低限の生活を望むレベルにそれを設定する必要があります.私たちのロジャー・エリクソンはもう一度これを聞いてください.別の分野で何かが出てきたことをもう一度思い出しました.問題は政策についてです.ここで説明されているのは、私たちがどのように異なる方法で物事を行うかのオプションであると聞いていますが、それは、現在この国にいるこのグループまたはこの人口に、これらの他のオプションの別のいくつかを探索または選択させる方法ではないため、2つの方法で見ることができますこれは歴史的なものであり、小群理論を見ると、これらすべてのことはアフィニティ結合によって解決されます。なぜなら、グループは十分に小さいため、問題がスケールアップしている個々のオプションだけでなく、グループのオプションも誰もが認識できるからです。大規模な人口が私たちの唯一のものです私たちがこれにどのように対処してきたかについて今日学んだことは、私たちが戦争や深刻な不況に見舞われたときに、この種の世界に残されたものに対処するのに十分なほど人々が自己認識できるメカニズムを見つけなければならないということです。大恐慌や戦争にまでは至らず、私が考えることができる唯一の例は、非常に大規模にこれを行ったグループは大規模な軍事グループであり、システム理論から期待されることを行い、相互作用と認識を促進しますパヴリナ大臣による絶対的な政治的または運営上の決定は、インドは米国でより多くの人口を獲得しており、インドは地方の雇用保証を全国的な雇用保証として導入したと述べた.すでに何百万人もの人々を雇用している彼らはそれを行ったので、彼らはそれを行ったので、技術と構造に基づいた都市であったインド経済の成長は彼らがしたことではなく、最初に気づいた人がどのようにして政治家の注目を集めたかです私は彼らがどのようにそれを行ったかを説明しているだけですが、彼らは動機に直面していましたが、都市の危機に直面していました。なぜなら、地方の貧しい人々は、そこに現れているグラフを楽しむために都市に殺到しようとする以外に選択肢がなかったからです。それは住宅や他の地域にとって持続可能ではないことを知っていたので、彼らは突然、この移住が起こっている理由は農村部での仕事の不足であることに気付きました。 '私たちはそれをしなければなりません 彼らはそれをやりました 世界で2番目に大きな人気のある人口で何百万もの仕事が生み出されました私たちが話しているのは草の根だからです。現在の政治システムからこのようなものを引き出すには、私たちの政治システムが深刻に機能不全に陥っていることを知っているからです。それは、私たちがそれを行う努力をしないという意味ではなく、いくつかのレベルでのいくつかの会議でこれを提唱し始めることを意味するものではありません。今そこに」左派の人々が終わらせることができないことをあなたが知っている理由はありません 同じことをする必要はなく、特に草の根レベルでそれを行う必要はありません 私たちができることを知っている可能性があります 進歩的なシンクタンクうまくいけば、私たちはこのようなものにすぐに乗り出すことができますが、それには長い時間がかかるでしょう.私はあなたが知っているIIおそらくあなたが知っている.私は両方とも、彼が選挙運動を続けているこのアイデアについて話しました。おそらくもっと直接的なやり取りがあったでしょうが、私がこのアイデアを発表するたびに、多くの会議で多くのフットスピーチを発表しました。私がカナダ銀行の前総裁との討論の際にそれを発表したとき、実際にそれは私が超党派の支持を呼ぶと私が呼ぶ驚くべき程度は、ええと、私が思うにランディだと思います。多くの人が右派の考えのように言いました。私たちは福祉を廃止したいのですが、このプログラムが整っているために福祉が冗長になると言うと、実際にはモデルではなく、より多くのアピールを命じる傾向があります。労働組合はあなたが私がやろうとしているのは、彼らの賃金を引き下げるフレーバーの奴隷クラスとして作成することです.ギャップを埋め、完全な雇用を創出しようとするあなたの試みを説明しなければならないこと.最初の例では、少しデフレになることもあります。あなたが知っているように、時給40ドルとこれらの損失は支払われています.Javaの膝は何かに行かなければなりません.データには1回限りの調整がありますが、その後の調整メカニズムはあなた次第です.結婚式のアイデアは、実際にはあなたが思っているよりもはるかに政治的に受け入れられる可能性があるので、これも明らかに多くの政治的問題に直面しています.米国と基本的に他のすべての国、特にDMの大きな違いを知っていると思います.第一に、非常に多くの騒音があり、アメリカは社会主義者に聞こえるものを遺伝的に嫌うようなものです.これは社会主義者の考えです.私たちは民間産業を信じています.それはすべての騒ぎですが、あなたが言ったことに一種の落ち込みがあります これが最低賃金になったらどうやってやめますか すべての最低賃金労働者がなぜ私は民間企業で働かなければならないのかと言うのをやめさせます なぜ私は政府のために働かないのですか私は解雇されることはできません。事実上、業界から得られる議論のようなものです。民間業界と競争することになることを知っているため、それが賃金を引き下げることになります。申し訳ありませんが、これだけで待つことはできません。賃金を下支えするため、政府との競争力を維持することはできません。議論の余地はありますが、積極的な財政政策を実施して、ため息をつくことを許し続けます。政府は税金を十分に低く抑えているため、民間部門は全員を雇うということは、彼らが」より高い方法で支払う手段が必要になるので、まず時給8ドルから始めれば、それは混乱を招くことにはなりません.非常に少数の人々である民間部門の仕事を辞める人はいないと思います.それはフルタイムの仕事です.パートタイムのベビーシッターなどで働く人はまだいますが、あなたは何人かは大丈夫です. 10 ドル、11 ドル、または 12 ドルを支払うと、ある程度のスプレッドになりますが、そのスプレッドは安定し、それが安定した民間部門の賃金になります。つまり、刺激しすぎたり、総需要が多すぎたりしない限り、過剰な総需要を許容し、バッファー在庫労働者のプールがゼロに縮小すると、もちろんそれはもはやバッファー在庫ではなくなり、制御を失うことになります。他の緩衝在庫と同じように価格は上向きですが、それを維持する場合、それを3％に維持する政策を実施するのに対し、以前は失業率が45％だったのに対し、失業者は一般に公開されているため、実際には公共部門を削減しましたセクターは大丈夫です。カードと作成について話すときのように忘れないでください。この部屋から出るための税金があり、それから私は十分な雇用を提供していません。十分な仕事を提供していません。部屋から出るためにお金を稼ぐことができるように、なぜ私はそこでそれをしたのですか？私の政策は本当に間違っている 税金を引き下げるか、あなたにもっと適切な仕事を与えるべきだ 支出を増やすか、減税するべきだ だから、私たちが取ったこれらの人々が民間部門の外は、公共部門では使用されません。なぜなら、私たちはそれらを望んでいないので、支出したくないからです。最小化する必要があります。価格アキュラとして緩衝在庫を持っている現在、すべての通貨システムは緩衝在庫ポリシーを使用しています。つまり、使用済みの緩衝在庫は、失業中の緩衝在庫よりもはるかに優れている、金の緩衝在庫よりもはるかに優れている、より大きく、より柔軟で、最も重要なのは、緩衝在庫が何であれ、常に完全に使用されているということです。ゴールド スタンダード ゴールドは常に完全に雇用されています いつでも 1 オンスのゴールドを政府に売却してお金を得ることができます 法案が始まった羊毛緩衝在庫でいつでも収益化できますええと、それは本当です。現在、私たちは緩衝在庫としての失業を明確に示しています。これは、私たちが何をしているのかわからないことを明確に示しています。通貨システムを理解していないだけでなく、それが一部であることを理解していませんそれの私たちはありません緩衝在庫は常に金融システムを固定することを理解していないので、雇用された緩衝在庫を使用する必要があります.彼らが気にしないことを理解しているのとは対照的に、それは彼らの利益に十分に役立ちます。それは彼らにラックの利点を与えるだけです.あなたは個人的にそれをする傾向があります.私はあなたが本当にしない他の多くのことを言うことができます聞きたいです 誤解を正したいと思います 多くの人がこれに飛びつきます 準備ができていて働く意欲のある人なら誰にでも仕事を提供することを保証します そして彼らは決してクビにならないように言いますいいえ、私たちは彼らが現れないと言ったことはありません 彼らは酔っ払って現れます 彼らは仕事をしません民間の雇用主が従業員に対して合法的に行うことができるものは何でも問題なく解雇されます。このプログラムの雇用主は問題なく行います。私はただ社交します。ほとんどのアメリカ人に私たちが何をしようとしているのかを伝えるとしたら、私は問題なく働かなければならない人々が障害を定義する非常に狭い範囲で彼らは福祉の代わりに働かなければならないと思います.あなたは彼らにそのシステムを何と呼ぶか尋ねます.すべてのアメリカ人はそれを資本主義とは呼びません.それは社会主義であり、彼らは私たちが福祉から公正な労働に転換したとは言いませんでした.それがそのゲームの男の子がうまく話すことを意味するのか正確にはわかりませんが、仕事はありませんが、少なくとも少なくとも追加するには、時間を売らなければなりません価値と見た目があるので、政府が生産手段を所有していることについて話しているのではなく、政府が公共インフラストラクチャを提供していることについて話している 公共インフラストラクチャは、人を雇うすべてのものであり、この移行プールがあり、元の状態から元の状態への移行を容易にします。民間部門に戻って民間部門に戻ってこれが何をしているのか 750,000 だったアルゼンチン人 200 万人のアルゼンチン 750,000 人が 2 年以内に民間部門で雇用されたのは、これまでにこれをやったことがなかった人々がそのマーク マーク以上だったと思います半分わかりました ミリス その巨大なこれらは人々です'dは民間部門にいたことはありません.最大のサービスが経済に行ったすべての民間部門の仕事はありません.1つはすべて直接的なものでしたが、二次的には労働のボトルネックなしで非常に高い率で経済を拡大することができました.現在、プライバシー労働が失業から民間部門に十分に流れていない民間部門の促進は、それを死なせるには多くの需要が必要です。私はこの会社についてよくビジネス部門に携わってきました 天国にいってから32年になります 私は2年生から大学生です現在、プライバシー労働が失業から民間部門にうまく流れていない民間部門の極端な促進は、それを死なせるには多くの需要の引き寄せが必要であり、それはすべての人にとって消え、私たちに損害を与えることになります。私はこの会社について頻繁に関心を持ってきました 天国にいってから 32 年になります 私は 2 年生から大学生です現在、プライバシー労働が失業から民間部門にうまく流れていない民間部門の極端な促進は、それを死なせるには多くの需要の引き寄せが必要であり、それはすべての人にとって消え、私たちに損害を与え
3two things and i'm not sure if you wanted to talk about it but an hour i
0:19think our friends at the Cato Institute would appreciate this a job guarantee would eliminate the need for a minimum
0:27wage correct i mean federal mental wager would do away with it because you're the government's is basically based setting
0:33the base wage i think they would love that the other thing is a curious i
0:43advocate a universal living wage it's a wage that is based on since we have this
0:50insane policy of waiting 10 12 years to
0:55increase minimum wage there is a theory
1:02of movement that says let's pass a universal living wage that says you know what instead of having to deal with this
1:08issue you know every 7 10 12 years let's just say we will pass
1:51you
2:01you
2:34a lot of things you can do you can introduce benefits from the bottom up
2:40you could say two weeks vacation and then private sector would have to have
2:45two weeks vacation to compete okay you could say childcare you could put anything in it you want and introduce
2:51benefits from the bottom up right health care and so the and then competitive
2:56market forces would move those benefits up the scale so what it does is allows us to use competitive market forces to
3:02achieve goals gives us a tool for that which is the American approach to things
3:08so it hits a you know it's a hybrid type of approach that gets rid of all the
3:14moral hazard aspects of other approaches
3:24we've had a really big debate about because one of the things I've been doing was designing a minimum wage
3:29framework for them which would embed into the public works program that we've
3:35been working on and over there of course you've got the approach that I used to
3:41help help out that process was to use poverty poverty lines and nutrition
3:47rates and things like that and of course then you then you find out that there's
3:54objections from the government all year but you know thirty percent of private employers are paying well below what
4:00you've suggested as your minimum wage and the and I said this to the the
4:06treasurer the the of the country that what you've got to decide in any nation
4:11is that aims to be a sophisticated civilized country is what's the minimum
4:18price you won't want people to be able to do business that and that minimum
4:23price has to be the the wage that provides people with an inclusive
4:29capacity to interact in society and if your private sector applying below that
4:35then you don't want them in your country that's the reality otherwise you have got no aspirations to be a sophisticated
4:42civilized country and so the job guarantee wage is you don't do away with
4:48the minimum wage it becomes the minimum wage and then you can add on whatever as
4:53lauren says in political terms you can add on whatever in Australia we call them social wage benefits childcare and
5:00you know access to all sorts of other benefits that are outside of the the
5:06direct employment contract but it is the minimum wage and you've got to set it at
5:12a level that you aspire to be the actual living minimum not some penurious sort
5:19of penalty right
5:27our Roger Erickson again listen to this I'm reminded of again something out in a
5:33different field and the question is about policy what we've heard described
5:39here is options for how we could be doing things differently but that's not how we can get this group or this
5:45population currently in this country to start exploring or select another some
5:51of these other options so there's two ways to look at this one is historically and we have lots to go on if you look at
5:59small group theory all these things get worked out through affinity bonds because the group is small enough to
6:05everybody's aware of group options as well as individual ones the problem is scaling up to large populations the only
6:12thing we've learned I've learned today about how we've addressed this is when we either have a war or a severe
6:19depression we have to find a mechanism that a population can become self-aware
6:24enough to address this kind of what is leaving on the table short of having a
6:30major depression or a war and the only example i can think of the groups that have done this at very large scale are
6:37large military groups and they do what you'd expect from any systems theory they drive interaction and awareness
6:44through absolutely political or
6:49operational decisions by minister pavlina said india's got a bigger
6:55population in the US and india has introduced the rural job guarantee as a
7:01national employment guarantee it's employed millions of people already they
7:08did it because they did it because the the the growth in the indian economy
7:13which was urban based in in in technology and construct
7:22brief it's not what they did but how whoever became aware first got the
7:27attention of politicians I'm just explaining how they did that though they they were faced with their motivation
7:33was they were faced with an urban crisis because the rural poor had no option but to try to flood into the cities to enjoy
7:40the the graph that was appearing there and they knew that wasn't sustainable for housing and other regions and so
7:46they suddenly realized that the reason this migration is occurring is the lack of jobs in the rural sector solution
7:53create jobs who's going to do it private sectors I'm going to do it we've got to do it they did it millions of jobs have
7:59been created in the second largest popular you know population in the world
8:12good question little question I in you
8:19know it is it's going to take a grassroots effort it's going to have to come from the grassroots because of you
8:26know we're talking about you know our political system is seriously dysfunctional to get anything something
8:34like this out of our current political system it's just unrealistic you know so
8:41it will be incredibly difficult endeavor to do something like this but you know
8:48it doesn't mean that we don't undertake the effort to do it and to start
8:53advocating this on several meets in several levels you know the Conservatives right wing's have have an
9:01incredible noise machine that they have used for for many meant for several
9:06decades now there's no reason why you know people on the Left cannot ended
9:11don't have to do the same thing and particularly do it at a grassroots level you know we could do it it's possible
9:18you know we there are certain think tanks out there progressive think tanks
9:23that are hopefully we'll get on board with something such as this soon but
9:29it's going to take a long time I you know I I probably you know I don't know
9:34if I'll see to my life I disagree actually I funnily enough Warren and I
9:40both talked about this idea he's been on the campaign trail so he's had probably more immediate interaction but whenever
9:47I presented this idea and I presented at a number of conferences a lot of foot speech that I I presented it once when I
9:53was in a debate with the former governor of the Bank of Canada and actually it got a surprising degree what i would
10:01call call bipartisan support um i think is randy said a lot of people on the
10:06right like the idea that you you even them legitimize government expenditure via work and actually especially when
10:16you sell them on the idea it makes it so that we want to eliminate welfare but if say that it makes welfare redundant
10:21because you have this program in place but it does actually tend to command a lot more appeal finally not the model a
10:27lot of times I get the I've had objections from unions rather they're not on the right because the unions
10:33think that what you're trying to do is create as a slave class of flavors that's going to undercut their wages a what you have to try to explain
10:39your try to fill the gap and then create a full employment pull the Chelton when they enhance asset pricing powers so in
10:45the first instance sometimes it can be a little bit deflationary because if you have someone that's been paid you know
10:51say forty dollars an hour and also these losses Java knee has to go to something data there is a once-off adjustment but
10:56then the the adjustment mechanism the other way is much you so I actually think this is one of our wedding ideas which actually could get a much greater
11:04political acceptance than you think
11:10yes so again this obviously is coming to
11:16a lot of political questions and I think you know big difference between United States and basically every other country
11:21especially in DM is there's just so much number one there's so much noise and
11:27right mean America is like genetically averse to anything that sounds socialist
11:34right this is a socialist idea how dare you right we believe in private industry so regardless of the merits of the
11:41argument there's all the the noise but kind of falling on what you just said
11:46how do you stop if this becomes the minimum wage what stops every
11:53minimum-wage worker saying why should I work in private industry why don't I just go work for the government I can't be fired and effectively that's kind of
12:01the argument probably you'll get from industry is you know you're going to compete against private industry and and
12:06that's going to drive wages down we're sorry not drive wait just on this gonna support wages and therefore we're not
12:13going to be competitive with government where's the argument.
2つのこと、それについて話したいかどうかはわかりませんが、1時間、Cato Instituteの友人はこれを喜んでくれると思います.仕事の保証は最低賃金の必要性をなくします.連邦政府の精神的な賭けはなくなります.それはあなたが政府だから基本的に基本給の設定に基づいています.彼らは他のことは好奇心旺盛であることを気に入ると思います.私は普遍的な生活賃金を提唱します.最低賃金を引き上げるためには、7 10 12 年ごとに知っているこの問題に対処する代わりに、何を知っているかを知っているという普遍的な生活賃金を渡しましょうという動きの理論があります。私たちがあなたにできることはたくさんあります。ボトムアップから利益をもたらすことができます.2週間の休暇と言うことができます.民間部門は競争するために2週間の休暇を取らなければなりません.その中にあなたが望むものは何でもあり、ボトムアップの正しいヘルスケアから利益をもたらします。そして、競争市場の力がこれらの利益をスケールアップさせ、それが行うことは、競争市場の力を使用して目標を達成することを可能にし、私たちにツールを提供しますそれは物事に対するアメリカのアプローチなので、私たちが本当に大きな議論をしてきた他のアプローチのすべてのモラルハザードの側面を取り除くハイブリッドタイプのアプローチであることを知っています.私たちが取り組んできたのは、私たちが取り組んできた公共事業プログラムに組み込まれる最低賃金の枠組みを設計することでした。もちろん、そのプロセスを支援するために私が使用したアプローチは、貧困を利用することでした.貧困線や栄養率など、そしてもちろん、政府から一年中反対されていることがわかりますが、民間雇用主の30％が、あなたが提案した最低賃金よりもはるかに低い賃金を支払っていることを知っています。私はその国の財務官にこう言いました.どの国でもあなたが決定しなければならないことは、洗練された文明国を目指す国であり、あなたが得る最低価格はいくらかということです.最低価格は、人々が社会で相互作用する包括的な能力を提供する賃金でなければなりません。もしあなたの民間部門がそれ以下で適用するなら、あなたの国では彼らを望んでいません。現実はそうでなければあなたは洗練された文明国になるという願望を持っていないので、雇用保証賃金はあなたが最低賃金を廃止しないということです.オーストラリアでは社会賃金給付チャイルドケアと呼ばれるものを追加することができ、直接雇用契約の外にあるあらゆる種類の他の給付へのアクセスを知っていますが、それは最低賃金であり、あなたは'あなたが実際の最低限の生活を望むレベルにそれを設定する必要があります.私たちのロジャー・エリクソンはもう一度これを聞いてください.別の分野で何かが出てきたことをもう一度思い出しました.問題は政策についてです.ここで説明されているのは、私たちがどのように異なる方法で物事を行うかのオプションであると聞いていますが、それは、現在この国にいるこのグループまたはこの人口に、これらの他のオプションの別のいくつかを探索または選択させる方法ではないため、2つの方法で見ることができますこれは歴史的なものであり、小群理論を見ると、これらすべてのことはアフィニティ結合によって解決されます。なぜなら、グループは十分に小さいため、問題がスケールアップしている個々のオプションだけでなく、グループのオプションも誰もが認識できるからです。大規模な人口が私たちの唯一のものです私たちがこれにどのように対処してきたかについて今日学んだことは、私たちが戦争や深刻な不況に見舞われたときに、この種の世界に残されたものに対処するのに十分なほど人々が自己認識できるメカニズムを見つけなければならないということです。大恐慌や戦争にまでは至らず、私が考えることができる唯一の例は、非常に大規模にこれを行ったグループは大規模な軍事グループであり、システム理論から期待されることを行い、相互作用と認識を促進しますパヴリナ大臣による絶対的な政治的または運営上の決定は、インドは米国でより多くの人口を獲得しており、インドは地方の雇用保証を全国的な雇用保証として導入したと述べた.すでに何百万人もの人々を雇用している彼らはそれを行ったので、彼らはそれを行ったので、技術と構造に基づいた都市であったインド経済の成長は彼らがしたことではなく、最初に気づいた人がどのようにして政治家の注目を集めたかです私は彼らがどのようにそれを行ったかを説明しているだけですが、彼らは動機に直面していましたが、都市の危機に直面していました。なぜなら、地方の貧しい人々は、そこに現れているグラフを楽しむために都市に殺到しようとする以外に選択肢がなかったからです。それは住宅や他の地域にとって持続可能ではないことを知っていたので、彼らは突然、この移住が起こっている理由は農村部での仕事の不足であることに気付きました。 '私たちはそれをしなければなりません 彼らはそれをやりました 世界で2番目に大きな人気のある人口で何百万もの仕事が生み出されました私たちが話しているのは草の根だからです。現在の政治システムからこのようなものを引き出すには、私たちの政治システムが深刻に機能不全に陥っていることを知っているからです。それは、私たちがそれを行う努力をしないという意味ではなく、いくつかのレベルでのいくつかの会議でこれを提唱し始めることを意味するものではありません。今そこに」左派の人々が終わらせることができないことをあなたが知っている理由はありません 同じことをする必要はなく、特に草の根レベルでそれを行う必要はありません 私たちができることを知っている可能性があります 進歩的なシンクタンクうまくいけば、私たちはこのようなものにすぐに乗り出すことができますが、それには長い時間がかかるでしょう.私はあなたが知っているIIおそらくあなたが知っている.私は両方とも、彼が選挙運動を続けているこのアイデアについて話しました。おそらくもっと直接的なやり取りがあったでしょうが、私がこのアイデアを発表するたびに、多くの会議で多くのフットスピーチを発表しました。私がカナダ銀行の前総裁との討論の際にそれを発表したとき、実際にそれは私が超党派の支持を呼ぶと私が呼ぶ驚くべき程度は、ええと、私が思うにランディだと思います。多くの人が右派の考えのように言いました。私たちは福祉を廃止したいのですが、このプログラムが整っているために福祉が冗長になると言うと、実際にはモデルではなく、より多くのアピールを命じる傾向があります。労働組合はあなたが私がやろうとしているのは、彼らの賃金を引き下げるフレーバーの奴隷クラスとして作成することです.ギャップを埋め、完全な雇用を創出しようとするあなたの試みを説明しなければならないこと.最初の例では、少しデフレになることもあります。あなたが知っているように、時給40ドルとこれらの損失は支払われています.Javaの膝は何かに行かなければなりません.データには1回限りの調整がありますが、その後の調整メカニズムはあなた次第です.結婚式のアイデアは、実際にはあなたが思っているよりもはるかに政治的に受け入れられる可能性があるので、これも明らかに多くの政治的問題に直面しています.米国と基本的に他のすべての国、特にDMの大きな違いを知っていると思います.第一に、非常に多くの騒音があり、アメリカは社会主義者に聞こえるものを遺伝的に嫌うようなものです.これは社会主義者の考えです.私たちは民間産業を信じています.それはすべての騒ぎですが、あなたが言ったことに一種の落ち込みがあります これが最低賃金になったらどうやってやめますか すべての最低賃金労働者がなぜ私は民間企業で働かなければならないのかと言うのをやめさせます なぜ私は政府のために働かないのですか私は解雇されることはできません。事実上、業界から得られる議論のようなものです。民間業界と競争することになることを知っているため、それが賃金を引き下げることになります。申し訳ありませんが、これだけで待つことはできません。賃金を下支えするため、政府との競争力を維持することはできません。議論の余地はありますが、積極的な財政政策を実施して、ため息をつくことを許し続けます。政府は税金を十分に低く抑えているため、民間部門は全員を雇うということは、彼らが」より高い方法で支払う手段が必要になるので、まず時給8ドルから始めれば、それは混乱を招くことにはなりません.非常に少数の人々である民間部門の仕事を辞める人はいないと思います.それはフルタイムの仕事です.パートタイムのベビーシッターなどで働く人はまだいますが、あなたは何人かは大丈夫です. 10 ドル、11 ドル、または 12 ドルを支払うと、ある程度のスプレッドになりますが、そのスプレッドは安定し、それが安定した民間部門の賃金になります。つまり、刺激しすぎたり、総需要が多すぎたりしない限り、過剰な総需要を許容し、バッファー在庫労働者のプールがゼロに縮小すると、もちろんそれはもはやバッファー在庫ではなくなり、制御を失うことになります。他の緩衝在庫と同じように価格は上向きですが、それを維持する場合、それを3％に維持する政策を実施するのに対し、以前は失業率が45％だったのに対し、失業者は一般に公開されているため、実際には公共部門を削減しましたセクターは大丈夫です。カードと作成について話すときのように忘れないでください。この部屋から出るための税金があり、それから私は十分な雇用を提供していません。十分な仕事を提供していません。部屋から出るためにお金を稼ぐことができるように、なぜ私はそこでそれをしたのですか？私の政策は本当に間違っている 税金を引き下げるか、あなたにもっと適切な仕事を与えるべきだ 支出を増やすか、減税するべきだ だから、私たちが取ったこれらの人々が民間部門の外は、公共部門では使用されません。なぜなら、私たちはそれらを望んでいないので、支出したくないからです。最小化する必要があります。価格アキュラとして緩衝在庫を持っている現在、すべての通貨システムは緩衝在庫ポリシーを使用しています。つまり、使用済みの緩衝在庫は、失業中の緩衝在庫よりもはるかに優れている、金の緩衝在庫よりもはるかに優れている、より大きく、より柔軟で、最も重要なのは、緩衝在庫が何であれ、常に完全に使用されているということです。ゴールド スタンダード ゴールドは常に完全に雇用されています いつでも 1 オンスのゴールドを政府に売却してお金を得ることができます 法案が始まった羊毛緩衝在庫でいつでも収益化できますええと、それは本当です。現在、私たちは緩衝在庫としての失業を明確に示しています。これは、私たちが何をしているのかわからないことを明確に示しています。通貨システムを理解していないだけでなく、それが一部であることを理解していませんそれの私たちはありません緩衝在庫は常に金融システムを固定することを理解していないので、雇用された緩衝在庫を使用する必要があります.彼らが気にしないことを理解しているのとは対照的に、それは彼らの利益に十分に役立ちます。それは彼らにラックの利点を与えるだけです.あなたは個人的にそれをする傾向があります.私はあなたが本当にしない他の多くのことを言うことができます聞きたいです 誤解を正したいと思います 多くの人がこれに飛びつきます 準備ができていて働く意欲のある人なら誰にでも仕事を提供することを保証します そして彼らは決してクビにならないように言いますいいえ、私たちは彼らが現れないと言ったことはありません 彼らは酔っ払って現れます 彼らは仕事をしません民間の雇用主が従業員に対して合法的に行うことができるものは何でも問題なく解雇されます。このプログラムの雇用主は問題なく行います。私はただ社交します。ほとんどのアメリカ人に私たちが何をしようとしているのかを伝えるとしたら、私は問題なく働かなければならない人々が障害を定義する非常に狭い範囲で彼らは福祉の代わりに働かなければならないと思います.あなたは彼らにそのシステムを何と呼ぶか尋ねます.すべてのアメリカ人はそれを資本主義とは呼びません.それは社会主義であり、彼らは私たちが福祉から公正な労働に転換したとは言いませんでした.それがそのゲームの男の子がうまく話すことを意味するのか正確にはわかりませんが、仕事はありませんが、少なくとも少なくとも追加するには、時間を売らなければなりません価値と見た目があるので、政府が生産手段を所有していることについて話しているのではなく、政府が公共インフラストラクチャを提供していることについて話している 公共インフラストラクチャは、人を雇うすべてのものであり、この移行プールがあり、元の状態から元の状態への移行を容易にします。民間部門に戻って民間部門に戻ってこれが何をしているのか 750,000 だったアルゼンチン人 200 万人のアルゼンチン 750,000 人が 2 年以内に民間部門で雇用されたのは、これまでにこれをやったことがなかった人々がそのマーク マーク以上だったと思います半分わかりました ミリス その巨大なこれらは人々です'dは民間部門にいたことはありません.最大のサービスが経済に行ったすべての民間部門の仕事はありません.1つはすべて直接的なものでしたが、二次的には労働のボトルネックなしで非常に高い率で経済を拡大することができました.現在、プライバシー労働が失業から民間部門に十分に流れていない民間部門の促進は、それを死なせるには多くの需要が必要です。私はこの会社についてよくビジネス部門に携わってきました 天国にいってから32年になります 私は2年生から大学生です現在、プライバシー労働が失業から民間部門にうまく流れていない民間部門の極端な促進は、それを死なせるには多くの需要の引き寄せが必要であり、それはすべての人にとって消え、私たちに損害を与えることになります。私はこの会社について頻繁に関心を持ってきました 天国にいってから 32 年になります 私は 2 年生から大学生です現在、プライバシー労働が失業から民間部門にうまく流れていない民間部門の極端な促進は、それを死なせるには多くの需要の引き寄せが必要であり、それはすべての人にとって消え、私たちに損害を与え
3two things and i'm not sure if you wanted to talk about it but an hour i
0:19think our friends at the Cato Institute would appreciate this a job guarantee would eliminate the need for a minimum
0:27wage correct i mean federal mental wager would do away with it because you're the government's is basically based setting
0:33the base wage i think they would love that the other thing is a curious i
0:43advocate a universal living wage it's a wage that is based on since we have this
0:50insane policy of waiting 10 12 years to
0:55increase minimum wage there is a theory
1:02of movement that says let's pass a universal living wage that says you know what instead of having to deal with this
1:08issue you know every 7 10 12 years let's just say we will pass
1:51you
2:01you
2:34a lot of things you can do you can introduce benefits from the bottom up
2:40you could say two weeks vacation and then private sector would have to have
2:45two weeks vacation to compete okay you could say childcare you could put anything in it you want and introduce
2:51benefits from the bottom up right health care and so the and then competitive
2:56market forces would move those benefits up the scale so what it does is allows us to use competitive market forces to
3:02achieve goals gives us a tool for that which is the American approach to things
3:08so it hits a you know it's a hybrid type of approach that gets rid of all the
3:14moral hazard aspects of other approaches
3:24we've had a really big debate about because one of the things I've been doing was designing a minimum wage
3:29framework for them which would embed into the public works program that we've
3:35been working on and over there of course you've got the approach that I used to
3:41help help out that process was to use poverty poverty lines and nutrition
3:47rates and things like that and of course then you then you find out that there's
3:54objections from the government all year but you know thirty percent of private employers are paying well below what
4:00you've suggested as your minimum wage and the and I said this to the the
4:06treasurer the the of the country that what you've got to decide in any nation
4:11is that aims to be a sophisticated civilized country is what's the minimum
4:18price you won't want people to be able to do business that and that minimum
4:23price has to be the the wage that provides people with an inclusive
4:29capacity to interact in society and if your private sector applying below that
4:35then you don't want them in your country that's the reality otherwise you have got no aspirations to be a sophisticated
4:42civilized country and so the job guarantee wage is you don't do away with
4:48the minimum wage it becomes the minimum wage and then you can add on whatever as
4:53lauren says in political terms you can add on whatever in Australia we call them social wage benefits childcare and
5:00you know access to all sorts of other benefits that are outside of the the
5:06direct employment contract but it is the minimum wage and you've got to set it at
5:12a level that you aspire to be the actual living minimum not some penurious sort
5:19of penalty right
5:27our Roger Erickson again listen to this I'm reminded of again something out in a
5:33different field and the question is about policy what we've heard described
5:39here is options for how we could be doing things differently but that's not how we can get this group or this
5:45population currently in this country to start exploring or select another some
5:51of these other options so there's two ways to look at this one is historically and we have lots to go on if you look at
5:59small group theory all these things get worked out through affinity bonds because the group is small enough to
6:05everybody's aware of group options as well as individual ones the problem is scaling up to large populations the only
6:12thing we've learned I've learned today about how we've addressed this is when we either have a war or a severe
6:19depression we have to find a mechanism that a population can become self-aware
6:24enough to address this kind of what is leaving on the table short of having a
6:30major depression or a war and the only example i can think of the groups that have done this at very large scale are
6:37large military groups and they do what you'd expect from any systems theory they drive interaction and awareness
6:44through absolutely political or
6:49operational decisions by minister pavlina said india's got a bigger
6:55population in the US and india has introduced the rural job guarantee as a
7:01national employment guarantee it's employed millions of people already they
7:08did it because they did it because the the the growth in the indian economy
7:13which was urban based in in in technology and construct
7:22brief it's not what they did but how whoever became aware first got the
7:27attention of politicians I'm just explaining how they did that though they they were faced with their motivation
7:33was they were faced with an urban crisis because the rural poor had no option but to try to flood into the cities to enjoy
7:40the the graph that was appearing there and they knew that wasn't sustainable for housing and other regions and so
7:46they suddenly realized that the reason this migration is occurring is the lack of jobs in the rural sector solution
7:53create jobs who's going to do it private sectors I'm going to do it we've got to do it they did it millions of jobs have
7:59been created in the second largest popular you know population in the world
8:12good question little question I in you
8:19know it is it's going to take a grassroots effort it's going to have to come from the grassroots because of you
8:26know we're talking about you know our political system is seriously dysfunctional to get anything something
8:34like this out of our current political system it's just unrealistic you know so
8:41it will be incredibly difficult endeavor to do something like this but you know
8:48it doesn't mean that we don't undertake the effort to do it and to start
8:53advocating this on several meets in several levels you know the Conservatives right wing's have have an
9:01incredible noise machine that they have used for for many meant for several
9:06decades now there's no reason why you know people on the Left cannot ended
9:11don't have to do the same thing and particularly do it at a grassroots level you know we could do it it's possible
9:18you know we there are certain think tanks out there progressive think tanks
9:23that are hopefully we'll get on board with something such as this soon but
9:29it's going to take a long time I you know I I probably you know I don't know
9:34if I'll see to my life I disagree actually I funnily enough Warren and I
9:40both talked about this idea he's been on the campaign trail so he's had probably more immediate interaction but whenever
9:47I presented this idea and I presented at a number of conferences a lot of foot speech that I I presented it once when I
9:53was in a debate with the former governor of the Bank of Canada and actually it got a surprising degree what i would
10:01call call bipartisan support um i think is randy said a lot of people on the
10:06right like the idea that you you even them legitimize government expenditure via work and actually especially when
10:16you sell them on the idea it makes it so that we want to eliminate welfare but if say that it makes welfare redundant
10:21because you have this program in place but it does actually tend to command a lot more appeal finally not the model a
10:27lot of times I get the I've had objections from unions rather they're not on the right because the unions
10:33think that what you're trying to do is create as a slave class of flavors that's going to undercut their wages a what you have to try to explain
10:39your try to fill the gap and then create a full employment pull the Chelton when they enhance asset pricing powers so in
10:45the first instance sometimes it can be a little bit deflationary because if you have someone that's been paid you know
10:51say forty dollars an hour and also these losses Java knee has to go to something data there is a once-off adjustment but
10:56then the the adjustment mechanism the other way is much you so I actually think this is one of our wedding ideas which actually could get a much greater
11:04political acceptance than you think
11:10yes so again this obviously is coming to
11:16a lot of political questions and I think you know big difference between United States and basically every other country
11:21especially in DM is there's just so much number one there's so much noise and
11:27right mean America is like genetically averse to anything that sounds socialist
11:34right this is a socialist idea how dare you right we believe in private industry so regardless of the merits of the
11:41argument there's all the the noise but kind of falling on what you just said
11:46how do you stop if this becomes the minimum wage what stops every
11:53minimum-wage worker saying why should I work in private industry why don't I just go work for the government I can't be fired and effectively that's kind of
12:01the argument probably you'll get from industry is you know you're going to compete against private industry and and
12:06that's going to drive wages down we're sorry not drive wait just on this gonna support wages and therefore we're not
12:13going to be competitive with government where's the argument.
look we're going to have active fiscal policy that keeps
12:18forgiven sighs government keeps taxes low enough so that the private sector will be able to have the means to hire
12:25everybody which means they're going to have to have the means to pay a higher way so if we start off at say an eight
12:31dollar an hour first of all that's not going to be disruptive I don't think anybody quits their private sector jobs that are very few people well it's
12:40full-time work there's still people going to work part-time babysitting and whatever so but you get a few okay and
12:45and then we conduct discretionary fiscal policy so that this pool private sector
12:51hires these people away now maybe they'll have to pay ten or eleven or twelve dollars will be some spread but then that spread will stabilize and then
12:58that'll be the stabilized private-sector wage let's say unless we over stimulate
13:03or what you know over we had too much aggregate demand we allow too much aggregate demand and then our pool of
13:12buffer stock workers shrinks to zero then of course it's no longer a buffer stock and then then you lose control of
13:18prices on the upside just like with any other buffer stock but if we keep it if we conduct policy to keep it
13:23to three percent whereas before we had unemployment at four five percent we've actually reduced the public sector
13:31because the unemployed are in the public sector okay look the thing is and don't
13:36forget like when I tell you about my cards and creating okay if there's a tax to get out of this room and of whatever
13:44and then I don't hire enough I don't offer enough jobs so you can get the money to get out of the room why did I
13:50do it there's something really wrong with my policy I should be like lowering the tax or giving you more work right I
13:57should be increasing my spending or cutting my taxes so we've gotta get discretionary fiscal policy to the point
14:03where this these people we've taken out of the private sector is not used in the
14:09public sector because either we don't want them we don't want to spend whatever is it's got to be minimized
14:15okay we want to minimize it but we want to have a we also want to have a buffer stock as a price acura now every every
14:22monetary system uses a buffer stock policy a gold standard is a gold buffer stock unemployed it unemployment is an
14:28unemployed buffer stock what we're saying is an employed buffer stock is far superior into an unemployed buffer
14:34stock in far superior to a gold buffer stock its larger deeper more flexible and most important whatever your buffer
14:41stock is is always fully employed there's always a bid for the buffer stock on a gold standard gold is always
14:47fully employed you can always take an ounce of gold and sell it to the government and get money you can always monetize it in a wool buffer stock where
14:54bill started there's always a bid for wool okay sheep we're fully employed and
15:00so uh no it's true so right now we as unemployment as a buffer stock this is
15:05like clearly shows we don't have any idea what we're doing not only do not understand a monetary system we don't
15:11understand that wow it's part of it we don't understand a buffer stock always anchors a monetary system so we should
15:16be using an employed buffer stock.
12:18forgiven sighs government keeps taxes low enough so that the private sector will be able to have the means to hire
12:25everybody which means they're going to have to have the means to pay a higher way so if we start off at say an eight
12:31dollar an hour first of all that's not going to be disruptive I don't think anybody quits their private sector jobs that are very few people well it's
12:40full-time work there's still people going to work part-time babysitting and whatever so but you get a few okay and
12:45and then we conduct discretionary fiscal policy so that this pool private sector
12:51hires these people away now maybe they'll have to pay ten or eleven or twelve dollars will be some spread but then that spread will stabilize and then
12:58that'll be the stabilized private-sector wage let's say unless we over stimulate
13:03or what you know over we had too much aggregate demand we allow too much aggregate demand and then our pool of
13:12buffer stock workers shrinks to zero then of course it's no longer a buffer stock and then then you lose control of
13:18prices on the upside just like with any other buffer stock but if we keep it if we conduct policy to keep it
13:23to three percent whereas before we had unemployment at four five percent we've actually reduced the public sector
13:31because the unemployed are in the public sector okay look the thing is and don't
13:36forget like when I tell you about my cards and creating okay if there's a tax to get out of this room and of whatever
13:44and then I don't hire enough I don't offer enough jobs so you can get the money to get out of the room why did I
13:50do it there's something really wrong with my policy I should be like lowering the tax or giving you more work right I
13:57should be increasing my spending or cutting my taxes so we've gotta get discretionary fiscal policy to the point
14:03where this these people we've taken out of the private sector is not used in the
14:09public sector because either we don't want them we don't want to spend whatever is it's got to be minimized
14:15okay we want to minimize it but we want to have a we also want to have a buffer stock as a price acura now every every
14:22monetary system uses a buffer stock policy a gold standard is a gold buffer stock unemployed it unemployment is an
14:28unemployed buffer stock what we're saying is an employed buffer stock is far superior into an unemployed buffer
14:34stock in far superior to a gold buffer stock its larger deeper more flexible and most important whatever your buffer
14:41stock is is always fully employed there's always a bid for the buffer stock on a gold standard gold is always
14:47fully employed you can always take an ounce of gold and sell it to the government and get money you can always monetize it in a wool buffer stock where
14:54bill started there's always a bid for wool okay sheep we're fully employed and
15:00so uh no it's true so right now we as unemployment as a buffer stock this is
15:05like clearly shows we don't have any idea what we're doing not only do not understand a monetary system we don't
15:11understand that wow it's part of it we don't understand a buffer stock always anchors a monetary system so we should
15:16be using an employed buffer stock.
質問者
I get that point I just think once again from
15:22someone who said before I think you you kind of assume that everyone does
15:27because they don't understand it as opposed to they do understand they just don't care and it serves their interests
15:32well it's just giving them the benefit of the rack sure you tend to do that a lot privately
15:37I could say a lot of other things that you don't really want to hear it.
15:22someone who said before I think you you kind of assume that everyone does
15:27because they don't understand it as opposed to they do understand they just don't care and it serves their interests
15:32well it's just giving them the benefit of the rack sure you tend to do that a lot privately
15:37I could say a lot of other things that you don't really want to hear it.
I I wanted to correct a misunderstanding
15:43because a lot of people do jump to this that we're going to guarantee that a job offer for anyone who's ready and willing
15:49to work and then they say oh so they'll never get fired no we never said that they don't show up they show up drunk
15:56they don't do their work they're fired okay anything that a private employer can do to the legally do to their
16:02employees the employers in this program will do okay and I just socialize I
15:43because a lot of people do jump to this that we're going to guarantee that a job offer for anyone who's ready and willing
15:49to work and then they say oh so they'll never get fired no we never said that they don't show up they show up drunk
15:56they don't do their work they're fired okay anything that a private employer can do to the legally do to their
16:02employees the employers in this program will do okay and I just socialize I
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿