Read on Twitter
@jilltreanor Struck by division of the proposals into two camps. One camp @FrancesOGrady @shjfrench @DrGerardLyons are proposing practical policies that improve situation for individual people & firms. What might be called supply-side Keynesianism. @OliverKamm @dsmitheconomics https://twitter.com/olivershah/status/1267004286325661698
Other camp looked more like and old-fashioned Establishment top down paternalistic Keynesianism based on a hope that the money will trickle down to individuals & firms. With @Gus_ODonnell & Liv Garfield 'picking winners'; @PJTheEconomist picking a potential winner @tonywilsonIES
...and Sir Howard Davies suggesting a variant of Project Birch - 'picking losers' - or pickling the past in aspic with echoes of TES/STWCS & Meriden.
[ @yaelselfin 's proposal was a combination of vaccine & Brexit so was difficult to categorise.]
[ @yaelselfin 's proposal was a combination of vaccine & Brexit so was difficult to categorise.]
As someone involved in the successful labour market response to the 2008-09 recession I am firmly in the supply-side Keynesianism camp.
Would again, as then, follow the best practice approach of the 2006 @oecd Job Study Reassessment with 'activation' & welfare to work central.
Would again, as then, follow the best practice approach of the 2006 @oecd Job Study Reassessment with 'activation' & welfare to work central.
@JobsEconomist @tonywilsonIES Might be worth commenting on this debate. Parable of the Talents, feed the flows approach you advocated seems to be losing out in the debate. Project Birch; complicated exits from JRS which focus on top down prescription etc @shjfrench @janecolechin
