Knowledge use is particularly important as a stock management option. All the more so, since much knowledge use exists as a secondary marketplace, where discretionary income and government redistribution limit the knowledge applications which can be compensated. By treating time value as a basic commodity, a primary market would gradually become possible for time and knowledge based product - one that would consequently be available to multiple skill levels. Even as a marketplace for time value would help restore economic freedom, it would also help to restore the civility which in some respects has been lost to automation.
When time value is assigned an internal economic relation for mutual coordination, group time value becomes capable of stock management. Since time arbitrage need not rely on outside revenue in order to take place, human capital becomes capable of directly generated wealth. By far one of the best benefits of a time based marketplace as well, would be renewed local economic activity, which would help to stem the present political backlash against the benefits of globalized tradable sectors.
Many forms of knowledge and skill can be likened to fertile "soil" that could generate a wide variety of time based services product. Unfortunately, too much knowledge use is now associated with controlled flows (via patents, etc.) of specific knowledge sets, which take little notice of the much larger pools of individually and mutually held knowledge stock. Controlled knowledge flows can also translate into limits for total economic output. For instance, Tim Worstall, in speaking of trade offs, writes:
We can, for example, promote primary innovation by giving strong intellectual property rights to it, but at the cost of, the stronger such right, the derivative innovation that we've just banned.Indeed, Worstall was speaking of the potential for new knowledge applications from recently acquired knowledge sets. Today's arbitrary knowledge use limits contribute to a sustained loss of knowledge and time value in aggregate, particularly for tried and proven stock knowledge applications in the marketplace.
Loss of potential for innovation, is just one of the ways wealth capture endangers total output and inhibits long term growth. One reason why public and private interests alike appear to "double down" on forced flow strategies for knowledge value, is that other revenue sources don't always provide what is needed, for budgets that are just as demanding as ever.
Why did a preponderance of earlier stock management organizational patterns, give way to present day reliance on resource flow patterns? Some of this shift came about in the process of settling the New World. Often, settlers did not need to tend to a specific set of resources for long. This ability to steadily move forward to the next set of options, established resource use patterns which extended well beyond the land use most associated with this phenomenon. Institutions of all kinds became dependent on short term resource maximization, in part because of the ways system responsibilities were consequently established. For instance, preferences for extraction flow patterns in the photos of a recent Market Urbanism post, come through loud and clear.
Ironically, many incentives exist to continue knowledge suppression, since stock management of time value (and other resource capacity) generates less revenue flow in the short run. Hence stock management is yet another difficult first mover position for general equilibrium conditions - all the more reason to begin these formats via alternative equilibrium. For instance, consider a general equilibrium circumstance: Who can be expected to argue against any specific institutional extraction based flow approach, if that approach has become the primary redeeming component of one's 401K?
Healthcare is an apt example, how populations have gradually lost stock management approaches (which include personal time value and common knowledge pools) to flow structures which specifically emphasize new technique and specialty skill. All the more unsettling, when physicians are expected to bear responsibility for all potentially relevant health knowledge stock, even though they need to maintain lifetime learning, simply to stay relevant in their field.
Often patients would benefit from already existing knowledge stock, which does not necessarily have suitable replacements in today's marketplace. This escapes notice, since the issue at hand is not always economically rewarding in an environment of optimized knowledge revenue flow. Hence, 1) one's doctor may only be partially aware of suitable alternative approaches, and 2) the doctor's time is not optimized to apply what he does know, in terms of stock knowledge that is specific to the unique circumstance of the patient. While other healthcare providers can sometimes provide assistance in this regard, more often they need to follow through a physician's directives.
Even though healthcare is one of the more obvious contenders for additional wealth creation in the form of stock management, it is simply one of many examples. Time arbitrage would make it possible for populations to discover both pragmatic and experiential forms of product which are not widely utilized in the present. Equally important, are physical stock management options in the environment. One reason recycling benefits are somewhat mixed, is that they tend to be approached in a revenue flow construct, which makes it difficult for specific groups to adapt unique (local) recycling strategies.
3D printing is one of the best examples of stock management potential, given the fact it is especially well suited for local and decentralized group activity, in contrast to the scaling up processes associated with centralized organizational capacity. So long as local populations are able to maintain future balance between tradable and non tradable sector production (one can only hope), 3D printing would eventually be able to provide on site local augmentation, for mass produced building and physical infrastructure components.