By Neil Wilson

I think this is interesting — certainly clever — and similar in its way to proposals by Bob Hockett and Saule Omarova where they try to squeeze their ideal US financial sector reforms into a shape that requires as little new legislation or disruption to existing agencies as possible. For my money, I think it's essential to establish the MMT Job Guarantee as a clear model for other public provision of essential goods and services, rather than trying to smuggle it in. I mean, neoliberals are not averse to imposing "shock therapy"; why shouldn't we implement our own bold "pleasant surprise therapy"?

The Minimum Wage Jobs (MWJ) Framework is the most operationally efficient version of a Job Guarantee for the United Kingdom. It achieves the dual objective of a modern stabilisation system: eliminating involuntary unemployment while providing a permanent anchor for inflation.

[…]

The framework is a fully distributed policy that requires no new agencies, committees, or open-ended ministerial powers. It functions as a seamless extension of the existing tax and benefit architecture, operating automatically across every region and nation of the UK. The system is designed to be “light-touch,” integrating seamlessly with the distinct tax policies of devolved governments. By processing payments through the established PAYE and RTI frameworks, the policy scales to local needs rather than through central command.

Implementation is pragmatic and low-risk. One-off implementation costs are conservatively estimated at £100 million, with annual running costs under £50 million: less than the current cost of operating the Monetary Policy Committee and the Debt Management Office.

This paper constitutes a first detailed institutional analysis of the UK Government’s expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance processes. We find, first, that the UK Government creates new money and purchasing power when it undertakes expenditure, rather than spending being financed by taxation from, or debt issuance to, the private sector. The spending process is initiated by the government drawing on a sovereign line of credit from the core legal and accounting structure known as the Consolidated Fund (CF). Under directions from the UK finance ministry, the Bank of England debits the CF’s account at the Bank and credits other accounts at the Bank held by government entities; a practice mandated in law. This creates new public deposits which are used to settle spending by government departments into the economy via the commercial banking sector. Parliament, rather than the Treasury or central bank, is the sole authority under which expenditures from the Consolidated Fund arise. Revenue collection, including taxation, involves the reverse process, crediting the CF’s account at the Bank. With regard to debt issuance, under the current conditions of excess reserve liquidity, the function of debt issuance is best understood as a way of providing safe assets and a reliable source of collateral to the non-bank private sector, insofar as these are not withdrawn by the state via quantitative easing by the Bank of England. The findings support neo-chartalist accounts of the workings of sovereign currency-issuing nations and provide additional institutional detail regarding the apex of the monetary hierarchy in the UK case. The findings also suggest recent debates in the UK around monetary financing and central bank independence need to be reconsidered given the central role of the Consolidated Fund.