Response to Blog 50: Conclusion – Minsky and the Job Guarantee

By L. Randall Wray

As I said I am not going to provide responses to comments on the final blogs of the primer. In any case, the commentary has degenerated into a chat room utilized largely by aging retirees who do not understand that we’ve got at least 25 million people in the US who want full-time jobs but cannot obtain them. The JG is a program designed to offer jobs to those who want to work. If our aged retirees are correct, we’ll offer the JG at and no one will show up to claim the job. I cannot see what all the fuss is about.

The bigger problem is that most of this discussion fails to deal with the dynamics of our actual real-world economy. In my view, Hyman Minsky understood these dynamics better than any economist of the second half of 20th century. He is best known for his work on financial instability, of course. But he wrote almost as much-at least in his early years-on unemployment and poverty. He formulated the ELR / JG proposal that I have described in recent weeks.

I thought it might therefore be useful to provide a link to a paper I wrote that summarizes many of his papers on the ELR proposal, and to paste here the outline I use in class for a lecture on Minsky’s writings. Take a look at the outline, then go to my paper, then use the reference section of my paper to locate Minsky’s actual writings on the topic. This is only for those who are serious about trying to understand the argument that we need jobs to solve the “disease” of poverty, and that welfare will not be sufficient because of the perverse dynamics created. My paper is titled “Minsky’s Approach to Employment Policy and Poverty, Employer of Last Resort, and the War on Poverty,” Levy Working Paper September 2007.

Next up: A blog on inflation and efficiency.

L. Randall Wray

1. GENERAL APPROACH: Analytical Institutionalism
a. Structure of economy affects performance: emp, growth, inflation
b. Institutions of real world affect how policies impact economy
c. Policy change must act through individuals (must change their behavior) and through institutions (which constrain or empower)
d. In a dynamic and complex economy, growth and policy have differential impacts across sectors: leading sectors, merely expanding sectors, and lagging sectors; diverse growth across sectors means prices rise before full emp.—even in sectors with excess capacity
e. This alters the “trade-off”, such as Phillips Curve; Prices rise w/o necessarily reducing Unemp; and Emp can rise w/o inducing inflation
f. Financial factors matter, affect market processes and the efficacy of policy; Need to include how the mix of govt debt and private debt implied by policy mix affects private behavior
g. Higher growth, alone, is not an appropriate goal; need to consider how it affects allocation and distribution;
h. Policy cannot really be general: it has differential allocational and distributional impacts

a. Cannot rely on human capital investment—takes too long; gestational period = 18 yrs or longer
b. Cannot rely on growth
i. Growth doesn’t necessarily reduce poverty; wage dispersion actually increased 1948-66 (hrly wage dispersion fell in 1960s but offset by overtime pay in high W jobs and lay-offs in low W jobs); geographic and sectoral lagging
ii. Growth actually tends to favor the leading sectorsrewards the better-off; not much trickles down
iii. Growth is not necessarily sustainable; creates instability: high growth raises expectations, encourages high investment, shifts distribution toward profits, fuels explosive growth policy to restrain growth, generates bust
iv. Policy to promote growth usually relies on investment; 4 flaws: financial fragility; inflationary; increases capital’s share; increases inequality of wage. Favors heavily monopolized, unionized sectors; increases private debts and thus interest payments and rentier income; can fuel stock mkt boom; promotes consumption of luxuries and emulative consumption
c. Can we use redistribution?
i. Radical Income Equalization: Redistribute gains from growth toward poor to move large proportion of population close to today’s median income, by taking from rich; arithmetically possible, but requires rate of growth of incomes above the mean would fall by 90%; and the cost of redistribution would grow over time
ii. Negative Income Tax, or Social Dividend (BIG): Has 3 effects: incentive effect on labor supply (likely discourage women and others); inflationary impact through wealth effect (it is like a free insurance policy; even if budget is balanced, the benefits exceed the taxes); and inflationary impact thru reduction of uncertainty (lower liquidity preference, raises AggD). NIT cannot improve situation of poor because the excess AggD is inflated away.
iii. Baumol’s Disease: constrains “share the wealth” feasibility; as productivity growth reduces inputs in leading sectors, relatively more are in lagging sectors; but competition tends to equalize W. If economy achieves balanced growth (ratio of the outputs of the 2 sectors remains constant) then rate of growth of economy falls toward zero (ever larger portion of resources are in low productivity sector).
iv. Anti-poverty program must be consistent with underlying behavioral rules of a capitalist economy. Taxpayers don’t benefit much from welfare.

a. Conservative rebuttal: attempt to end poverty by changing people
b. Cannot end poverty, can only give existing poor a better chance
c. Accepts Unemp=5% as interim goal on way to 4%; too slack. Okun’s Law: every 1% point reduction increase GDP by 3% points; means lowering Unemp to 2.5% would create 3-5 times the GDP required to raise all above poverty line
d. Must transfer from those who work to those who don’t; policy cannot rely on altruism; benefits to worker/taxpayer is small
e. It is an admission that we cannot make the productive process work to provide factor payments to lift people out of poverty
f. It puts the cart before the horse: if the poor change their character, then they won’t be poor
g. Creates dependent class, not conducive to social cohesion or democracy

a. Keynes: 2 outstanding faults = arbitrary and inequitable distribution of income; and unemployment. Better econ performance since WWII has not resolved these.
b. Can be resolved only thru euthanasia of rentier + modest bias of taxes and transfers in favor of poor + tight full employment
c. Tight full emp = over broad range of occupations and industries, employers would like to employ more workers than they do
d. Jobs, not welfare. Tight full emp helps poor in 3 ways: some move from Unemp to Emp; eliminates involuntary unemp; increases relative wages for the poor; Works to reduce poverty by increasing # of workers per family and by increasing growth of low-end wages relative to high wage jobs
e. Need for low-W jobs to have faster W growth than high-W jobs; this means at low end, W growth > productivity growth; at high end, productivity growth >W growth. Pwill grow in low-W sectors; to prevent inflation overall requires some kind of constraint on P,W in high W sectors. Can be justified: previously low W workers “subsidized” high W workers thru unemp.
f. Even the poorly designed War on Poverty did reduce poverty. It was designed to resolve insufficient Effective Demand, biased toward War, gave tax relief to rich, relied on trickle down. Still, by raising AggD it did tighten labor mkts, reducing poverty.
g. Problem: the WOP/pump priming led to inflation and instability. Tended to favor oligopolistic industries; unionized workers; public sector workers in labor-intensive (Baumol disease) sectors
h. Tight full employment was ultimately constrained by B-W—inconsistent with fixed exchange rate; cross of gold borne by the poor
i. High Govt spending and welfare sets floor to AggD, encourages investment, profits, capital share, etc, so is destabilizing
j. Promotes stop/go policy, that tends to increase W in leading sectors
k. Only a jobs program can resolve the problem; directed demand, not general demand/pump priming

a. Need “bubble up” policy not trickle down; targeted spending
b. Take workers as they are and provide jobs that fit
c. Provide jobs where workers live; slow down urban migration
d. ELR wage becomes effective minimum wage; raises the floor; should increase over time faster than high wages to reduce spread; may need to constrain high wage growth
e. Include part-time work; child maintenance; discounted youth wage
f. Would work on projects with readily visible public benefits
g. Probably need a permanent cadre to provide critical services
h. Would partially euthanize rentier; expansion of these jobs doesn’t require private debt; won’t require speculative finance; doesn’t foster speculative boom
i. Should set tax to balance budget when ELR employment = 4.5%  automatic stabilizing budget
j. Would use progressive tax, and distribute benefits of publicly produced goods and services progressively; taxpayers would get something for their taxes, but program would redistribute. Taxpayers would benefit from parks, safety, clean streets, education, etc.
k. Will provide jobs and public goods and services where most needed; urban ghettos, quell unrest
l. A return to pre-WWII New Deal, which emphasized public employment; reduces investment, reduces capital’s share, reduces financial instability, favors consumption and pubic investment
m. Won’t be inflationary; maintaining full emp does not have same inflation impact as moving to full emp. Raising AggD to move to full emp will be inflationary. But it hasn’t been shown that holding Unemp low is inflationary. Esp if full emp maintained thru price floor
n. Need to drop gold standard; within a short time, the US dollar standard will arise based on ability of $ to buy US goods and services
o. Make labor more homogenous thru education and training; but do not make this a reqmt for getting a job
p. Jobs for all, available at min wage; govt agencies can bid for workers
q. Will need some programs for those who lose high W jobs and fall into the ELR program
r. Will still need welfare; children’s allowance; medical care for all
s. But will solve most poverty problem; of the poor 30% work part-time, 40% don’t work at all.
t. Not utopian; will not solve econ problems for all time. Will need adjustment, evolution.
u. An alternative to the dole. Unemp compensation just institutionalizes unemp. Jobs affirm the dignity of labor
v. Other policies: reduce bigness; restrain construction wage; need W&P controls for things govt buys (utilities, defense, health)
w. Must change the system, not the people

32 responses to “Response to Blog 50: Conclusion – Minsky and the Job Guarantee

  1. WHERAS the federal government belongs to all the people, and WHERAS the federal government creates all of the dollar currency used by all the people, and WHERAS all of the dollar currency so created belongs to the public commons until it is deposited in a commercial bank, and WHERAS the federal government can provide funding to employ the unemployed in productive work, and WHERAS all the people benefit from being gainfully employed in a highly productive economy, and WHERAS the federal government can control currency inflation by raising federal taxes if needed; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the federal government will create for deposit in state treasuries the amount of public commons currency dollars needed to fully support state job programs that provide productive employment at a living wage to all citizens willing and able to work, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said federal job program will be utilized whenever the national unemployment rate is over 5%, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that whenever the national consumer price index (CPI) rises above 5%, a 1% surtax on adjusted gross income will be paid by all citizens until the CPI returns to 5% or less.

    • what does “wheras” mean?

    • Imposing an automatic deflationary measure like increased income tax when inflation goes above 5% or any other limit is not too clever because the inflation might be cost push. Where the latter is the case, the deflationary measure is pointless because it won’t significantly reduce inflation.

      This situation has actually obtained in the UK over the last two years or so. That is inflation has at times been over 5%, but the Bank of England (quite rightly) didn’t do much about it because it reckoned the main drivers of inflation were cost push and temporary. The bank turned out to be pretty well right.

      I.e. the Bank of England is what some have called a “closet Nominal Gross National Product targeter”.

      • you mean like higher cost in the defense or financial industry? Isn’t that the sort of costs that promotes inequality of income?

      • Ralph ~ I agree, and have seen some arguments put forth that nearly all inflation over the past few decades was caused by commodity price increases. Nevertheless, a nod must be given to inflation fears for any fully funded permanent job program to be accepted. Much tweaking needed. Please offer any ideas you may have about another way to alleviate inflation concerns among those who would oppose a permanent job program on the grounds that the funding would dangerously inflate the currency. ~ Chris

        • Chris, If you want to read a full exposition of my thoughts on JG, inflation, and related matters, see here:

          You seem to suggest that any inflationary effects of JG can be dealt with by raising taxes (and presumably doing nothing with the money collected). The problem with that is that it nullifies, to a greater or lesser extent, the whole objective of JG, namely creating jobs.

          A better approach I suggest, is the one I adopt in the paper linked to above. This is: assuming unemployment is at the minimum possible without excess inflation (using conventional policies), how do we get a JG system to create extra jobs without exacerbating inflation? And that is a problem that CAN BE solved, or partially solved, I think.

  2. Prof. Wray:
    I am retired and I agree with you and Bill Mitchell completely about a jobs guarantee. I really don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t like the idea. Anyway, I think you are doing a great job and keep it up. By the way, great call on the collapse in oil prices. And, when people criticize you remember that no one ever kicks a dead dog.

  3. Prof Wray:

    Your class notes were very helpful to me, mostly enriching my understanding through the small asides.

    One overriding help: Aim to change the system, not the people. Change of individuals may come from that, in time.

    Over the weeks of reading comments, I think that some underestimate the importance to all of us of giving everyone a chance to make contributions to our common good. As well, many seem to underestimate the value to an individual of being able to work. As just one commentator mentioned, for many of us work is a major, if not the major social and constructive venue in our lives–a place in which we are not islands unto ourselves.

    One of the great values of MMT as economics is that it looks at these larger questions of “What is an economy for?”, trying to restore human values and purpose to the discussion in addition to giving first-rate and clear analysis of economic mechanisms where such are available.

    I am greatful to you and the handful of others who work in this area and spend so much of your time trying to educate us.

  4. I am taking your advice and reading through the bibliography of your 2007 paper, specifically, Minsky’s works. This morning, I took a read of the 1957 paper re: the federal funds market. This bit jumped out at me:
    “If, during a long prosperity, monetary policy is used to restrain inflation, a number of such velocity-increasing and liquidity-decreasing money-market innovations will take place.· As a result, the decrease in liquidity is compounded. In time, these compounded changes will result in an inherently unstable money market so that a slight reversal of prosperity can trigger a financial crisis.”

    That’s a pretty good description of what happened in 2007/2008, with the various securitized debt instruments, the so-called “financial innovation.” What I really like about Minsky’s approach here is that he looks at the institutional changes that change how a market works , even as we examine it.

    Thanks for this. It’s been a big help in my understanding of economics, and I’m looking forward to the textbook.

    • Hi Tim ~ Greenspan kept the focus on inflation control and seemed to nearly ignore the mandate for full employment. I think the 2008 credit crisis was simply the result of creative people seeking profits in a the post Glass-Steagall economy. Regulation repeal always creates innovation. It wasn’t Greenspan’s inept tenure that caused the problem. It was creative individual profit-seeking after regulation (Glass-Steagall) to protect the commons (investors) was removed. Repeal of Glass-Steagall, and David Li’s math, put the banksters in bed with the Big 3 credit rating companies. What they did together in bed was criminal, but highly profitable for them and hard to prove as a crime in court. After all, they were just giving the CDO’s the rating that Li’s math told them was correct. Li didn’t realize his formula was screwy, he had myside bias. ~ Chris

  5. “If our aged retirees are correct, we’ll offer the JG and no one will show up to claim the job.”

    Exactly. Or, if the MMR/MS crowd are correct, their policy prescriptions alone will create full employment, and there will be no unemployed people who need a JG job.

    “Should set tax to balance budget when ELR employment = 4.5%”

    I don’t understand why we should be balancing the budget while running a trade deficit, but will go read your Minsky paper and try to understand better ?

    Thank you, Randy, for advocating the JG despite the brutal criticism from some quarters. I like it for moral reasons alone. If helps the economy, that’s just a bonus.

  6. Golfer1john

    “Problem: the WOP/pump priming led to inflation”

    Is he talking about the War on Poverty only PRIOR to 1971? And not after? Or does he disagree with MMT that inflation has been caused mainly by oil prices, not by any sort of excessive demand?

  7. The post above with all the bad spelling (wheras) is experimental and a weak stab at building a brief and understandable resolution for presentation to the #OWSNYC GA. Call it the “Prosperity Resolution”. But it needs help. In particular, how can the general idea of a job guarantee that is linked to a small tax increase (if and when the economy overheats because of the increase in national productivity caused by the job guarantee) – be improved? Should the numbers (5% on unemployment and inflation, 1% on the surtax) be tweaked? Would it be better to link a job guarantee to a different deflation tool – not the surtax? How else can it be improved?

  8. . . . “aging retirees who do not understand that we’ve got at least 25 million people in the US who want full-time jobs but cannot obtain them.”

    I am one of those “aging retirees.” Before I was an “aging retiree,” I spent 12 years employed by two large firms (after twice looking for a job), followed by 40 years as an owner and manager of 4 (consecutively) successful companies. I believe I understand employment and unemployment far better than do most academics, but that’s just my opinion.

    Compare my real world experience with that of the often-cited Professor Minsky, who according to Wikipedia:

    In 1941, Minsky received his B.S. in mathematics from the University of Chicago and went on to earn an M.P.A. and a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University, where he studied under Joseph Schumpeter and Wassily Leontief.

    Minsky taught at Brown University from 1949 to 1958, and from 1957 to 1965 was an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1965 he became Professor of Economics of Washington University in St Louis and retired from there in 1990. At the time of his death he was a Distinguished Scholar at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

    Hmmm. . . not one day as an owner or manager of a company, and his only employee experience was as a professor.

    Unfortunately, this entire discussion has devolved to religion, where everyone is absolutely positive, and no one has proof. And as with religion, people get pissed when other people disagree. But the discussion itself is valuable; I hope it provides Randy with some good ideas.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
    (aging retiree)

    • Sean Fernyhough

      So, given we don’t understand someone’s ideas let’s look into someone’s past and reject the ideas we don’t understand because their CV does not measure up to our own CV?

      • Charles Yaker

        Not that he needs defense but I do believe that Roger Malcolm Mitchell believes in MMT. On the other hand I have heard that Minsky was called a “Red Diaper ” baby and wonder whether growing up in an idialogical, probably working class family could have provided him ample opportunity to observe “working class” people up close and intimate.

  9. Geez, I’m not sure how to take Prof Minsky. He made me a little depressed. Probably take awhile to understand what he is saying. But initially it appears solving unemployment and inflation is a losing battle, certainly not simple. I’d always figured growth and productivity was the way out of poverty and unemployment. So the man upset my world beliefs. It does suggest to me though that the JG is the only way to go if there is to be any hope. That in itself is depressing since the naysayers are everywhere. And what is this 5% stuff? Does that include the discouraged and part time unemployed? Even without them it is still a lot of people.

    I am fast believing the only way to fix our problems is to resurrect FDR. My Dad would have liked that.

    Aging, simi retiree

  10. Charles Yaker

    I am an aged retiree and I think people want to work if given the chance. MMT and the JG make sense to me. I may want that to be true because although my diaper wasn’t pink my folks were “fellow travelers “. More importantly however is the fact that all the other things that we tried havn’t worked so why not try the JG. Furthermore the American Society of Civil Engineers rates our infrastructure a “D” and as I like to say I am sure that the people who died when that bridge in Minniapolis collapsed and their families would rate it “F” if they could. We don’t need more reasons then that to have a JG.

  11. Dr. Wray,

    Thanks for all the effort you’ve put into this series. I am NOWHERE near through them, but this blog and Mosler’s interviews (when he’s interviewed by non finance and Econ types and is therefore forced to say more than two sentences) are invaluable.

    What a gift you’ve given all of us.

    It begs the central question: why the hell isn’t this taught in grade school?

  12. Charles Yaker

    Chris I guess you don’t read other articles at this site. Specifically Bill Black and Michael Hudson because Bill puts the lie to the dificulty in prosecuting “control fraud” and lier’s loans. Michael Hudson the man who fired Greenspan has a few choice words about him

  13. If Clinton had understood modern money, he would have advocated large-scale deficit growth in the late 1990s, which would have caused the unemployment rate to go even lower than 3.8 percent.

    Here’s my question: when would unacceptably high inflation have occurred? In my opinion, inflation only becomes unacceptably high when it increases unemployment.

  14. There seems to be a basic error in the Treasury’s accounts. Federal Reserve notes are defined by the Federal Reserve Act as liabilities of the Federal Reserve System and obligations of the United States Government. Yet on the Treasury balance sheet ‘cash’ is counted as an asset. So which one is it, obligation or asset?

    Can it be both – can one store one’s own obligations as assets?

  15. “Perhaps Minsky’s most important recognition is that the structure of the economy
    affects economic performance, including the volume of, and nature of, employment,
    growth, and inflation.”
    The question becomes, how to effect the volume of, and nature of employment
    and at the same time the volume of, and nature of growth,and at the same time the volume of and nature of inflation.
    Employment, growth and inflation vary in different sectors.Whatever remedy is used must be placed in an equal amount as to the degree needed to unequally allow them to gain to a level to where each is at full employment,better growth and withlimited controled inflation. The dose of remedy must be greater in lagging sectors than in leading sectors, and must contain a means for control of quality and quantity.

    The remedy must also contain a cure for perhaps “two outstanding flaws of capitalism”

    (“Finally, Minsky’s vision of the capitalist economy closely followed that of

    Keynes. He endorsed Keynes’s Chapter 24 claim that the two outstanding faults of
    capitalism are its failure to provide for full employment and its tendency to result in an
    excessively unequal distribution of income.”
    This brings us to a point -Where Minsky Went Wrong.
    ” Promotion of growth through
    investment is subject to four problems: it increases financial fragility; it is inflationary; it
    increases capital’s share of national income; and it increases the inequality of wages
    (Minsky 1964, 1973). Investment must be financed through a combination of internal and
    external funds. According to Minsky, over the course of an expansion, the weight shifts
    toward external finance, as income flows and safe assets are leveraged by debt (Minsky
    1975b, 1992). Because investment generates profits at the aggregate level (as in the
    Kalecki equation, not added to Minsky’s analysis until later), this encourages even more
    investment, external finance, and leveraging—exposing the economy to the possibility of
    a financial crisis (Minsky 1968, 1986). ”
    Yet, he states a solution..”euthanize the rentier; put in place a modest bias of taxes and transfers in favor of the poor.”
    In conclusion, to ameliorate the fundamental faults of capitalism, Minsky would
    euthanize the rentier through lower interest rate policy and—more importantly—by
    reducing the importance of the private financial system (Minsky 1973). This could be
    accomplished by shifting emphasis away from stimulation of private investment, which
    relies on external finance, and thus creates financial assets that become part of the rentier
    economy. Second, he would modestly bias the tax-and-transfer portion of the budget in
    favor of the poor, although he would not make this the major redistributive mechanism to
    eliminate poverty ”
    Right church, wrong pew.
    For the solution, we must end the practice of allowing private financial institutions to charge us compound interest on our own money. A system that deatroys the remedy because it turns a benevolet solution into one that earns them a profit. It takes away
    the re distribution of the currency for the general welfare and turns it to their own uses. They also would as it is in the very nature of private financial institutions, leverage the assets in order to increase profits and eventually cause disastorous inflation.
    “DON’T END THE FED, AMEND THE FED” by justaluckyfool.
    Challenge it !
    Improve it !
    How do you in 90 days or less create 4 million jobs ?(EMPLOYMENT)
    Raise $2 trillion income per year for the next 36 years? (GROWTH)
    Controll the quality and quality of the currency thru re distribution? (INFLATION)
    ,”The answer lies in not how the most powerful force in the universe is used ,rather how you redistribute what it creates !
    “The most powerful force in the universe is compound interest” – Albert Einstein
    For the solution:”We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.Albert Einstein
    Perhaps the answer lies in how you redistribute the wealth of a nation; not in how you acquire it.
    A monetary sovereignty must be the only supplier of its currency.
    All transactions must be on a 100% margin (reserve) basis.
    All new issuance is to be done by interest bearing loans.
    NOW THE SOLUTION:(For details you have to read “Great News !! Zero Income Taxes Solves Worldwide Economic Crises”
    The people owned central bank would purchase all real estate loans that the financial institutions do not have 100% reserve.
    Even if at fair market value plus 10%. Some $36 trillion. Modity all the loans at 2% for 36 years.This would solve the housing market and at the same time create a tremendous need for “housing items and new housing” thereby creating 4 million jobs.As for the needs of that industry “the people owned central bank” would lend that industry $1 trillion at 1% for 6 years with first payment due on the one year anniversity date-get the people working,fast.
    And who said,”You must raise revenue somewher ,if you wish to lower taxes.”?
    How’s this for over $2 trillion a year income (revenue)?.


  16. Minsky, “The financial instability hypothesis takes banking seriously as a profit seeking activity…Bankers (financial institutions) are merchants of debt…” also that profit seeking institutions always try to leverage their assets to the maximum.
    And with Keynes concept of a “veil of money” between what the real assets are and the ultimate owner,they discovered the secret.

    Money = Debt. Money = Credit. Money = debt + credit.
    Private banks exist solely for the purpose of gaining wealth for its owners.
    A central bank should be established to control the currency, quality and quantity as a not for profit, rather as an agency to redistribute its currency , ” in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

    Read : Where we went wrong and how we can fix it.
    Google “justaluckyfool”
    “Great News !! Zero Income Taxes…”
    “Don’t End The Fed, Amend The Fed”
    Challenge it, Improve it, then make it your guide.

  17. Pingback: Total Collaspe ! Minsky,Keynes,MISES, all got it right. | justaluckyfool

  18. “… who do not understand that we’ve got at least 25 million people in the US who want full-time jobs but cannot obtain them.”
    Please, anyone, please a profound answer.
    Is there really 25 million that Want ?
    Does that number include the 1 or 2 million that wish to become employers but cannot get help to start their business?
    Does that number include the 2 or 3 million who have to “go underground, off the books” because of their “debt problems”?
    If “A” is not true then all that results from “A” plus anything is not true.
    Maybe Minsky got it right. We may be in this mess because,”Minsky, “The financial instability hypothesis takes banking seriously as a profit seeking activity…Bankers (financial institutions) are merchants of debt…” also that profit seeking institutions always try to leverage their assets to the maximum.”
    Translation: They are taking so much money out of the economy for their own use, namely not for job growth but to make more wealth (debt to be paid) for themselves. Even taxes do not take money out of circulation for growth since they are all (plus some) put back into the economy.
    Just one more question from a fool who hopes for a profound answer.
    Isn’t it the duty and responsibility of “we the people” to discover what is wrong and to then fix it ?
    We the American people govern this monetary sovereignty. Did we sell out our rights and duty?
    Let’s hope that “We The People” will find the truth and do our duty,-Vote only for those who will join us in working, ” in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”
    I believe the “25 million jobs” would be covered under “promote the general welfare.”

    P.S. Have you read ; what Minsky,Keynes, William Black, and Michael Hudson have said about
    private banks (which includes financial institutions)?
    How about some profound answers ? Should silence be deemed as a failure of duty and responsibility ?