From WZZM TV:
West Michigan in a ‘shallow recession,’ GVSU economist says
How shallow it might be is of course wild guesswork, but such is the tightrope walked by financial journalism given the realities of mass psychology. I for one accept that it is in the nature of economies (capitalist and otherwise) to behave cyclically, and that there will never be a last recession. What I can’t forgive is an economic policy framework that insists on reacting to economic conditions instead of planning for them, for example, with countercyclical policies. We allow ourselves a few (but too few) countercyclical tools for financial markets, such as floater bonds, but what we really need badly is some countercyclical tools for labor markets. I would suggest a “floater pool” of civil service employees. Maybe these would be assigned to make-work tasks, and I really don’t care, but dog knows there’s plenty work actually needed by society, that is destined to be undersupplied by the market b/c merit goods or what have you. The floater pool would hire massively during recessions, and (frankly) do mass layoffs during rare times of “labor shortage” such as the (present?/recent past?).
“What I can’t forgive is an economic policy framework that insists on reacting to economic conditions instead of planning for them, for example, with countercyclical policies. We allow ourselves a few (but too few) …”
[ I am just reading, not reacting.]
You suggest a “floater pool” of civil service employees. To my mind this goes into the category with the Universal Basic Income and the Jobs Guarantee of MMT. I don’t know a lot of details about such policies but my guess is they would (all, including yours) be expensive, and the guys on the other side of the aisle would object and raise a red-state ruckus. This would make any of these plans difficult to implement.
I look at things a different way. We have had unemployment insurance benefits for many years now. I’d file that one under “a few (but too few)” tools. The other guys still think it is too expensive, no doubt. You seem to be calling for something that would be even more expensive: more expensive because it would be more comprehensive.
I’m not objecting to any of this; so far, I’m just laying out what I think you are talking about.
Now if we need a more comprehensive system, I think it must be because conditions got worse. And that is what I object to: economic conditions getting worse.
To replace an expensive unemployment policy with a more expensive unemployment policy is likely to open the door to cries of “socialism” from across the aisle. If we already support such a change in policy, the cries will not bother us. But I believe they will bother the people we want to come over to our side. I don’t believe we are doing ourselves any favors by doing things that alienate those people. And I do believe we are alienating them — the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
(I’m using what I think is called “the editorial we”.)
What we need, really, is to address the problem of conditions getting worse. Frankly, I think this is what every red-state voter really wants, from somebody. They just need to be convinced that economic policy is up to the task.
I don’t object to expensive policies to tide people over until economic conditions improve. I know they are needed. But I do object to political strategies that treat coping mechanisms as sufficient policy in an age when economic conditions are accelerating downhill.