Often, there are individuals who - because of their aversion to either business or labor interests in general - don't find it useful to seek solutions which consider greater economic integration or inclusion. However, both business and labor formations are in a state of absolute transformation. The very idea of labor could be changed, as well as business formation, before all is settled. Nothing about our economic present exists in the absolute forms of labor and capital, which opponents on the left and right still imagine.
Political bottlenecks present more problems for growth and continued progress, than it may seem. Tactics born of obstinacy mostly lead to the same exclusionary outcomes, regardless of political bent. As a result, sound monetary policy may appear to both groups as accruing to those who don't "deserve" it, rather than as a natural representation of aggregate spending capacity. Wherever dialogue is simplified to the point that imagined differences are highlighted, the greater good gets diminished in the process.
Some commenters on the left - for instance - repeatedly refer to Say's Law as vulgar. Someone please tell me - how is it even possible for balance in supply and demand, to be considered vulgar? Granted, my view of Say's Law may be more simplistic than that of either economists or everyday individuals. Just the same: the wish to give Say's Law a chance, is generally based on a desire for inclusive and positive outcomes.
To be sure, Say's Law has been abandoned in the present. Economies of scale have had some bearing on this, in that they are still expected to work for services formations and centralized settings. What gets missed in all the political posturing, is that some economies of scale as they are now recognized, are long overdue for change and adaptation. Some are more effective than others: a fact which neither business or government interests has yet faced. For instance, economies of scale don't apply for (time use) services as they do for separate product formation. Say's Law particularly needs to be utilized for service formations, in order for redistribution of any kind to remain possible.
Thankfully, there are voices of reason in spite of today's political bottlenecks. After watching this video at Digitopoly, I thought about what Joshua Gans was trying to accomplish. People like him do not want exclusionary outcomes; they want to rebuild and redefine a future which includes as many individuals on the economic stage as humanly possible. Before any leap of faith is possible however, the moralizing and distracting noise of Marxists and internet Austrians both need to take a break. Change is already here, and denying that can hardly lead to good outcomes.
By the same token: when anyone stops to think about why one percenters have so much wealth in the present, most of the answers have little to do with moral reasoning. Many imbalances are about a world which attempted to utilize centralization and large economies of scale, well beyond their natural capacities.
Thus the challenge is not to figure out how to "siphon" from the one percenters (which is impossible anyway) but to look more closely to find the economies of scale which actually fulfill productive roles. For instance, where economies of scale still work well for physical transport of goods, they no longer perform as well for the work of the mind - particularly in cities - as they once did. Digital roles now need to partially supplant cities in terms of economic scale, if knowledge use dispersion is to continue and grow.
Just as important: some economies of scale for physical product could change as well, if local economies are to take charge of their own destinies. In particular, local 3D printing capacity could turn building components and recycling options into high value local economies. People on the political left and right need to get past old ideas of capital and labor, which have little relevance for the present. Labor markets are now murky to a degree that in many instances, this concept does not even have substantial bearing on local economic outcomes. Both labor and capital formations need to move beyond centralized settings, before economic engagement and resource use can find more inclusive outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment