Let’s Deport Poor People! A Modest Proposal for the Unemployment Problem (with apologies to Swift)

Monday, 12/7/2009 - 11:57 am by Marshall Auerback | 9 Comments

ship-150Channeling his inner Swift, Marshall Auerback proposes an elegant solution to the growing problem of global unemployment….

In 1729, Jonathan Swift wrote an essay — “A Modest Proposal” — satirically suggesting that the impoverished Irish ease their economic troubles by selling children as food for rich gentlemen and ladies. In that spirit, we would like to assist all governments who claim to be broke and therefore cannot deal with the persistent problem of unemployment.

Last Friday, President Obama warned his fellow citizens at a jobs summit that the government had “limited resources” to deal with the problem. It now appears that this “problem” is not unique to the US. On Sunday we learned that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer (its Finance Minister), Alastair Darling, has warned UK government departments that the money has run out and they face a three-year cash freeze on spending. The cash freeze will mean a “real” cut of nearly £40 billion in spending over three years, according to the Sunday Times of London.

Don’t you just hate when that happens? Governments running out of things they create out of thin air. Never mind that a sovereign government issues its own currency under monopoly conditions, which means it should never run out of that currency. Our friend Bill Mitchell has a theory about this strange phenomenon:

“Perhaps all electronic cables between the government and non-government sector might have been cut so that the Government keyboard operators couldn’t credit bank accounts any more…I hadn’t read anything about that in the papers. So perhaps, there has been a terrorist attack on the cables and the Government is keeping it quiet to avoid scaring the population. Then again perhaps all the keyboard operators have quit. But then why wouldn’t they just post cheques directly to the non-government sector. Perhaps they have run out of paper to print the cheques on?”

Like Bill, I came to the conclusion that the disease of deficit terrorism has metastasized globally, rendering it virtually impossible for governments with free floating non-convertible fiat currencies to construct adequate demand responses to the mounting crisis of unemployment. Certainly we don’t want any more government spending because, as my critics persistently remind me, that way leads to hyperinflation and Zimbabwe.

Channeling my inner Jonathan Swift, I therefore concluded that our only hope was to devise a sensible supply-side response, so that today’s currently insufficient spending power is more closely aligned to the 85 percent of us who are gainfully employed.

Perhaps we can take a page straight of the UK’s historic playbook. In the old days of the British Empire, many of the country’s criminals were either forcibly press-ganged or deported to Australia. Seeing that Australia today is a vastly more prosperous nation than the UK, it’s highly unlikely that they would readily accept any more convicts. But perhaps we can find some nice island in the South Pacific for the purposes of reducing our national unemployment problems. After all, we’re a civilized people, so we certainly don’t want to resort to the drastic (though cost-effective!) expedient of mass extermination. (Having said that, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s plea for “deeper cuts” in the country’s National Health Service caused me to fear that he might go literal and have the nation’s surgeons make deeper cuts on their patients to ensure that more of them die on the operating table to help reduce health care costs).

In any case, our proposal seems both “modest” and in keeping with the current fiscal aspirations of governments globally. We can start with the long-term unemployed. Then the orphans.  And maybe empty our prisons, if need be, to create huge savings in our criminal justice system. If the government has truly run out of money, best if it starts pursuing a supply side final solution of reducing their citizenry until the ratio of money to citizens is much more appropriate.

And in the meantime, we can “reward” those who are deported by allowing them to construct a sensible policy: they get to create their own new currency. They will soon learn that their new government, as a sovereign issuer of its own currency, will have all the capacity it needs to create jobs and prosperity. Freed from the shackles of their deficit terrorist leaders, hopefully they will soon learn that their government can provide all of the fiscal resources required to create full employment and prosperity.

It’s a “win-win” for both the deporters and deportees. The logic is Swiftian: my modest proposal will help poor people everywhere “from being a burden to their parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public.”

Roosevelt Institute Braintruster Marshall Auerback is a market analyst and commentator.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Netvibes
  • StumbleUpon
  • Tumblr
  • TwitThis
  • Print this article!
  • E-mail this story to a friend!

Join the Discussion

9 Comments

  • Think bigger, Mr. Auerback: Mars! They’ll have to learn capitalism up there!

    Posted by James Call | December 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pm

  • Hasn’t the supply side economy been doing this since Reagan? Pushing more people into poverty to keep the rest of the middle class happy. The income disparity has not only been the rich getting richer than the rest of us, but the poor getting poorer.

    In the late years, the middle class were middle class only because they borrowed their way in. That’s over. (You know, if we made them swim, they would certainly be in better shape when they got there.”

    As for printing money because you can. It is what we’re going to do. I have a feeling the level will be well below optimal, in your estimation, and just above subsistence.

    Posted by Alan Harvey | December 7th, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  • Is there a sign-up sheet someplace?

    Posted by Benedict@Large | December 8th, 2009 at 1:54 am

  • Maybe focus on the earnings/productivity side of the equation…

    Deport the rich people, they have much less potential and tend to get lazy and spend all their time figuring out how to live off the masses. if you are a politician, banker, lawyer, non-producer leech type, then get on the boat.

    Earnings growth would be tremendous and the underserved would feel like they weren’t paying for the overserved all the time!

    Posted by Pete | December 8th, 2009 at 7:58 am

  • I think a realistic way to deal with the problem of systemic unemployment is to implement the idea of a “social dividend” which would initially be made available those who are falling off the unemployment support rolls.
    And there should be no stigma attached to it. These people are victims of a system that dictates that money for the common people is only available by way of employment.
    Then that same system proceeds to take their jobs away.
    Can you blame them if they turn to crime, rather than starve to death?

    Posted by Helge Nome | December 9th, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  • I don’t know how it is in UK but in Sweden they did make the Central Bank “independent” in the mid 90s and the Central Bank law say that if the government needs to borrow it shall do it on the market and can’t demand the Central Bank to buy gov bonds.

    On top of that they have regulations to “save”, have a public surplus over a business cycle by 2% of GDP and have roof on public spending.

    Resulting in that the social democrat gov was beaten from the left by the right-wingers on hidden unemployment, official unemployment figures is sanitized, and handed over av huge accumulated public sector surplus.

    Posted by lasse | December 15th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  • How many people are forced to work just so they can pay property taxes on their payed off homes? Get rid of property taxes, more people will be able to retire early and more jobs will be available for others. People without income should not have to pay tax. Property taxes were designed by the government to keep people working. Trouble is there are not enough jobs to go around. Foreclosure rate will drop if property tax is abolished. Income is the only thing that should be taxed. You should not have to pay tax on a home for the rest of your life. You paid for and maintained the home for years then the government takes it because they can’t make money off you anymore? How the heck did such a law ever go into effect? Many years ago the government gave people land for free. They were required to grow crops, generate taxable income and pay property tax. Nobody gave me my house or land, I paid for it, I maintain it and I should not have to pay tax on it for the rest of my life. I thought slavery was supposed to be abolished years ago.

    Posted by lb | January 15th, 2010 at 8:25 am

  • i belong to sc family. so i need very urgently any govt job. i have done +2th. please

    Posted by vitan | February 4th, 2010 at 3:14 am

  • i need any govt job. i have done +2th please

    Posted by vitan | February 4th, 2010 at 3:15 am

Leave a Comment

Braintrusters

Deal Breakers




George Will
“Before we go into a new New Deal, can we just acknowledge that the first New Deal didn’t work?”

Read more »

New Deal Dictionary

Glass Steagall Act



What is the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933?
The Glass-Steagall Act was introduced during the Great Depression by former Treasury Secretary Sen. Carter Glass (D-VA) and Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D-AL).

Read more »

Archives