Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Non Rival Time Value in Growth Context

How to think about rival versus non rival time value, in terms of economic input and growth? Is it possible for non rival time value to further contribute to growth, when time value as rival input becomes limited in the marketplace? Non rival - in this instance - refers to symmetric time use coordination at local levels. Consider the summary below, which Dietz Vollrath provides regarding the recent Paul Romer "mathiness" discussions. Oh - and by the way - "pick two" as applicable...not quite as easy as one might think:
1) Output is constant returns to scale in rival output.
2) Non-rival inputs receive some portion of output.
3) Rival outputs receive output equal to their marginal product.
Vollrath's above linked post provides some needed clarity, for recent discussions regarding growth theory. I'm only beginning the process of sorting through a concept comperable to Euler's theorem, or for those of us who realized the importance of math a bit too late in life, principle of least effort. However, much about the use of capital has been shifting in recent decades, which may be affecting how these principles actually play out. Human capital needs a more active role, than the employment of rival time value can provide. In particular, there are reasons why non rival time value needs a more central role, but is not yet aligned for that purpose.

Grey areas as to what actually constitutes rival or non rival input, are also confusing for growth potential. The information or knowledge which gets utilized in the workplace is not always rival for the reasons that one would expect. Market dominance in knowledge use patterns, can sometimes leave populations reliant on inadequate or incomplete methods. What's more, both special interests and governments have been too quick to assign rival definitions for time, skills, and other resources which would gain from non rival knowledge use settings.

Time arbitrage could restore growth capacity for knowledge and skills sets, in services settings devoted to non rival conditions. Not only would human capital take a more active role in the marketplace, but its use would be easier to measure, than the present means of monetary compensation for time value as undefined product.

There is another aspect of time arbitrage as non rival, which would allow it to contribute to output as a freestanding component. In these circumstance, one might not have to pick two from the three possibilities listed above. Matched (or non rival) time would not detract from the product of rival inputs or outputs. Time value becomes its own product, which is "paid" by other new time value and compensated as such.

Whereas group investment structures (for assets, infrastructure, commodities, and product separate from time) would provide settings for product involving rival input and output. Also, knowledge use systems could elect to purchase some time value as a rival good through secondary or traditional monetary compensation, when necessary. This option could assist in generating new growth patterns, whenever outside assistance is needed to contribute to seed formation in knowledge use systems.

No comments:

Post a Comment