BTW, I commented on "predistribution" in the Open Democracy article's comments section. I drew once again from my programmatic work.
You must be a good actor, able to become the role you are playing. I've been cynical and sarcastic since I was 13. What do you do for a living? I used to work in a hotel, but that was 15 years ago. My "job" until recently was flipping real estate.
Cheer up, comrade. If it makes you feel better, I've worn the "pragmatist's hat" for more public stuff more comfortably for a number of years. I just put a cynic's spin on it.
"Why is the ELR 'right wing' compared to a JG or a BIG?" I didn't say that at all. There are various incarnations of ELR/JG. The more left-wing ones have it, but perhaps part of a broader attempt to socialize the labour market. The more right-wing ones tend to tackle the unemployment benefits issue. I'm against the BIG because of its downward pressure on wages, among numerous other things. MMR is problematic precisely because it isn't "prescriptive." Even Minsky's lender of last resort is prescriptive, and I'm sure he had a number of non-ELR suggestions, too.
All supporters of MMT agree that the government has a role to play in reducing unemployment. It is also necessary from an academic perspective. What Mitchell terms as the NAIBOR is a challenge to the NAIRU. Why is the ELR 'right wing' compared to a JG or a BIG? Milton Friedman would have been in favor of a BIG or negative income tax, and there are socialists who are in favor of this option. Once you get past the 'work ethic' morality that pervades many western countries, there is a case to be made for moving towards a leisure economy. MMR disagrees with this and refrains from making any prescriptions. I can imagine the 1% embracing this if the current narrative begins to fail. "We are all post-keynesians here" - Tom Hickey. (If that plea doesn't take the cake, I don't know what will.)
That honestly reeks more of the same old Chicago School's monetarism emphasis, or, to put it another way, yet another attempt at maintaining the neoclassical "synthesis" re. the General Theory. However, within MMT there is a right-wing tendency as well. It's typically the ones calling for ELR to replace as much unemployment benefits as possible.
According to MMR supporters like Cullen Roche, an ELR is not needed. They had a fallout a few months ago, and MMR was split from MMT. It is basically Post-Keynesianism for right-wingers and shows that it is compatible with their ideology. From the horse's mouth: http://pragcap.com/does-anyone-know-...tary-theory-is
Why without ELR?
Re. Post-Keynesianism - If it is to enter the public eye, I'm afraid it will be the version without a JG or ELR.
If I were to present these ideas I would prefer to do so on a blog. Talking with people in real life is more of a challenge!
