Everywhere one looks, knowledge appears as though in abundance. Yet somehow, not much of it is actually being measured or applied in concrete ways. Even the digital realm suggests better means for economic infrastructure which have yet to materialize. How might these circumstance be changed? For one, both practical and experiential forms of knowledge need to be expressed through more personal means. Over time, pathways for voluntary forms of association, could prove amenable to services growth for the long term.
In primary equilibrium, personal time value is not well represented in any segment of the economy. However the need to explore skills development through individual relationships - and not just existing institutions - is a recent development. For centuries, primary equilibrium evolved through individual relations with specific resource sets. Resources were often personally shaped into product, then presented to others. Gradually, these personal production roles were supplanted by institutions which became intermediary production points. While this process still works to some degree, it is now insufficient for labor force participation as a whole.
Primary equilibrium particularly became dependent on expanding production cycles, in order to fund the knowledge use of high skill services. However, both traditional forms of production and services centralized to a degree it was often not possible to sustain them at local levels. Better targeted forms of wealth creation are now needed, in part because the roles of both Wall Street and governments alike are both increasingly questioned. Main Street has stumbled through its own uncertainties for decades, and many places need to become more directly involved in the wealth creation capacity that is now needed. Fortunately there are possibilities for doing so, through the alternative equilibrium option of knowledge use systems.
Alternative equilibrium would allow groups to individually match time based compensation. This process begins with the degree of local environment that a given group is capable of committing to at the outset. Instead of differences in local hourly pay, income variations would (gradually) arise through local investment options which all participants would commit to at some level. While time based services coordination provides an alternative to income taxation, shared local investment provides a viable alternative for other forms of local taxation. These investments would include everything from production and maintenance of building components, to local municipal grids.
While time coordination is inclusive, focused and ongoing efforts would be required, for local participants to gain the time availability of other locals whose time capacity they value most. Given the fact that all desired skills sets can only go so far, this is taken into account for local educational efforts - an important factor if time arbitrage is to be successful.
The finite nature of time means that competition arises at a personal level, to prove "worthy" of what one desires to match in services and other ongoing activities from others. Given these circumstance, "fairness" becomes less of an economic issue. Why? Constraints are more clearly that of personal and group time use options, as opposed to the institutional and educational barriers that one finds in primary equilibrium. Likewise, constraints for monetary compensation overall are more obvious when local participants are invested in the system itself.
How to think about variation in equilibrium? Many knowledge use systems would seek infrastructure which is capable of generating good deflation through ongoing innovation across a wide spectrum. What's more, these systems would seek to make the most of tradable goods, international trade, and innovation possibilities from international sources. This combination of methods would also provide room - i.e. a form of group support - for the life of the mind, which often lacks settings to manifest in ordinary circumstance.
Most important is the fact that knowledge use systems cannot be built upon either external definitions or controls, because this would take away both freedom and incentive to pursue personal challenges. In other words, any attempts to dictate how individuals divide divisions of labor would only defeat the purpose, because divisions of labor for services need to be arrived at through spontaneous means. Otherwise, it would be difficult to determine the reasons why individuals seek one another for assistance, encouragement and social activity in the first place. This - after all - has been the primary problem with the top down structures of services formations of the 20th century.