Thanks but I think the WW2 assertion is too broad as I state it here to claim credit for. I am interested in looking at how today’s military industrial complex actually acts as de facto jobs program that conservatives accept because it’s ostensibly for national security, one of the few things they still believe deserves public funds.

WW2 was an investment, same as the F-18. Why are we only willing to make an investment if it offers the chance to rain death on our enemies?

I think one of the biggest challenges is to find effective arguments for government involvement in the economy. When unions became irrelevant, we lost one of the few private sector checks on rampant corporate power. The only way to pressure corporations to share the wealth and provide benefits is government regulation that tilt the balance towards employees. Which is why President Obama was pushing for an overhaul for overtime rules, which is getting scrapped now.

My attraction to a basic income is that it still allows the free market to operate, and ensures there are consumers left to purchase goods and services. When Instagram sells for billions, it disrupts an entire industry’s worth of jobs while spreading the bulk of the wealth to its few founders.

I don’t care about the morality of that. I want to know how people expect that kind of economy to operate in the long term. The sluggish recovery has everything to do lackluster demand aka purchasing power.

Which Esquire’s great Charles Pierce boils down to a beautiful, bluesy chorus, “People don’t got no jobs, people don’t got no money…” And as you pointed out, that song never ends well.