A question to MMT'ers.
Let's ignore the issue of insolvency, inflation, hyperinflation...all that jazz from Krugman/Wray....
My question is:
In this brave new world where the government spends, numbers are added to a bank account and that spending provides income to the under-capacity private sector to indirectly create some jobs [X], or, contrarily, let's assume the idea of a 'full employment' government guaranteed wage/job at $8 an hour or whatever is provided during a moderate recession to maintain employment - that income is provided by the government (labor spending) to hire that worker to do some job X.
Point is: deficits don't 'matter' (given underemployment) because inflation, stability, politics, perception, credit rating... aren't a concern (which I disagree with to a degree from my last post - but this isn't about that). ...
So the question is: what is "some job [X]?" And, why do you suspect, in aggregate, that X people that would be otherwise underemployed / unemployed are better off working in a government created job (indirectly or directly) as opposed to some alternative? I suppose my concern here has a bit of an Austrian tinge to it along the lines of inter-temporal missalocation of capital (and I'll extend that to include labor). Why assume that the government won't create dynamic inefficiencies?
What happens to these jobs when the recession ends? Who determines what these jobs are? Would these jobs create unfair externalities on other private industries? What about the capital investment created to support the public jobs? Could these things and the ability to speculate on them create a different kind of government led bubble? Surely some capital stock would already exist (the under-utilized stock) but certainly not all of it, and that which does exist would need significant retooling - capital purchased from private suppliers. I recognize that Minsky (who I'll admit I was unaware he was a proponent of this) viewed this as not a real problem provided the employment would be in labor-intensive service type public jobs. Though, to me, this 'program' just seems riddled with issues. Though, I'd love your feedback MMT'ers.
But then let us assume that, beyond that question, the employment itself creates a perverse incentive to expect to just work a low-paying, low-skill public works job every recession as opposed to doing what people SHOULD be doing during recessions (re-tooling, continuing education, increasing skill sets, chasing dreams...) Is that not problematic?
I thought that part of the heterodox tradition was not to blindly say, "it's the spending, stupid" but to anticipate outside the box economic concerns. I see no real answers in your literature to these concerns. I understand, from a paper provided to me that Minsky thought that it was 'unfair' to have workers tool to their jobs, rather, particularly in hard times, jobs should tailor to workers - but this strikes me as being a bit one-sided. Is there not room for development and aid of the worker? Maybe it's the heterodox in me, but this almost seems to take it to the opposite extreme from Austrianism. I find that typically, the best policies are those incorporating ideas from numerous fields of thought - which typically means a meeting in the shades of gray.
I await your responses...cordially please....calling me 'sophomoric' is hardly a response.