Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Some Notes on Equilibrium Corporate Structure

Many of my notes on equilibrium corporate structure fall under one of two groups: how economic activities could be generated, or the broader economic circumstance which an equilibrium corporation (also) seeks to address. This post has examples of both approaches.

Use time value to pay for economic access

In the communities which adopt an equilibrium corporation construct,  participants "pay" for non tradable aspects of economic access (time based services exchange with others and asset formation) through the time which is actually at one's disposal. One's time value is frequently used to compete for the services which are on offer for others.

Since individual and group time value are equally coordinated, actual scarcities in this regard - in which an hour of time is expressed as a commodity unit - benefit from the same one price commodity effect. When commodities exist as a one price mechanism, they also make possible the spontaneous coordination of tradable sector structure, in general equilibrium.

However: when time value cannot be expressed as a single monetary unit, this "direct democracy" form of time coordination for time based service product, is not possible. There is so much variance of skill and income for time based product in general equilibrium conditions, that it is difficult for the time value of lower income levels to "count" in the "normal" definitions of non tradable sector production and consumption. Hence an equilibrium corporate construct would provide an alternate equilibrium, in which time value can once again - eventually - be made effective, for one's personal responsibilities and obligations.

Even though tradable sector formation remains roughly accessible to lower income levels (not so much if and when international trade should contract...), non tradable sector formation has become mostly about one's attempt to purchase economic access in the form of homes, education and healthcare. Even though healthcare is not strictly economic access (some can avoid doctor visits for decades); as one ages, more healthcare is often required to remain active in the workforce. Whereas the more direct economic access component of education (as opposed to healthcare), is reflected in the rising costs of textbooks for instance, which now experiences more inflation than healthcare of late in the U.S.

Land as a fixed or flexible value construct in an open economy

When property ownership is strictly associated with a specific unit of land (as opposed to what would be a flexible or floating unit of land in an equilibrium corporate construct), its value depends on a number of things at a macroeconomic level. First, land value (in open free market economies) is also exposed to the general equilibrium conditions which prevail internationally, alongside the degree of knowledge use management that exists (asymmetrically) in prosperous regions. These factors create a relatively fixed value component, in which the fixed specificity of land ownership corresponds with rationing of resource valuation as it applies according to both tradable sector and non tradable sectors of wealth, in relation to international factors. Consequently, attempts to change valuations in this system - for whatever reason - are at variance with these fixed valuation components as aligned with the international wealth of free markets.

One reason this is important, is that these valuations exists alongside Nimby considerations as well. For instance, it's difficult to "insist" on greater population densities, in regions whose value in part exists because of their experiential and desirable characteristics. It's easier to "go with the flow" for monetary valuation, when land value is highly associated with non neutral factors in land desirability, such as access to international ports, climate and positive land characteristics. Whereas the greatest potential for new wealth, exists when land components exist in a more neutral state. While neutral land is amenable to productive agglomeration, its beauty and experiential value would be due more to the efforts that time value can contribute to purposeful design, rather than solely what money can (already) buy.

Let's briefly consider two factors that can negatively affect otherwise fixed land values at a macroeconomic level, since they are particularly important during periods of economic stagnation. One of these of course occurs, should a nation adopt a stance against free markets which may in turn decrease the value of its land which is strongly associated with international free market activity. Equally possible of course, is the loss of land value which occurs when central bankers adopt tight money policies which - while they may not obviously create immediate bad deflation, can contribute to this form of deflation over time in a stagnant economy. This is of course the most present danger.

The equilibrium corporation would allow a less restrictive interpretation of land values, by assigning incremental ownership (via time value) for specific neutral (non differentiated) property. This approach would allow ownership for active land use as a "holding vessel" for wealth in the form of human capital groupings over time. New wealth occurs within in the coordination construct. While this too may sound oddly like its own form of favoritism (i.e. being born into a serendipitous system), consider: One positive aspect of this approach is that it is entirely replicable, unlike the association of fortuitous group activity which is solely associated with specific sets of highly limited and differentiated land.

What protects the wealth affects of agglomeration in this setting, is the fact that land ownership - while strongly aligned with ongoing economic activity in every way - is nonetheless structured so that landowners are not the final wealth recipients, of purposeful economic activity which accrues over time. The reason this matters is that it allows the entire process to multiply and generate new wealth, where otherwise wealth can only accrue so long as fortuitous arrangements can multiple in fixed land components which cannot themselves be duplicated.

Granted, equilibrium corporate structure would at times be associated with fixed land components which are of themselves non neutral in nature. In other words, they would exist alongside natural beauty, ports, rivers or other components which make them desirable for specific and sometimes fixed purpose. This fixed association is always appropriate for ownership in the open economic structure of general equilibrium, which goes well beyond the incremental ownership that would occur in equilibrium corporation settings (alternative equilibrium. When this is in fact the case, geographically differentiated land is not the land parcels which would be designed for participatory or incremental ownership, but rather, associated with specific owners (as normal) which can continue the usage processes which populations as a whole deem desirable.

Fixed components for skill sets and and land designations, can stand in the way of complete economic access. Yet it is possible to overcome these deficiencies, by locating the ways in which relatively neutral aspects of land and knowledge use are in fact possible, for lower income levels. The fact that wealth can also be non specific in geographic location, provides a broader transmission mechanism for asset formation in relation to services formation than is otherwise possible in general equilibrium conditions.

If it sounds as though an "unfair" advantage to be born into a fortuitous knowledge use circumstance even here (the equilibrium corporation), remember, it is precisely the non-specific land valuations (for neutral geographic property characteristics) and knowledge use (symmetric compensation), that allow knowledge use to further disperse through populations as an active component of long term growth, instead of being limited by government budgets and/or the regional characteristics of private enterprise.

Indeed, it seemed that the digital realm would - in and of itself - be capable of greater knowledge dispersal for economic gain. But the fact that much wealth (and its associated knowledge use) is ultimately stored in fixed forms of land ownership, has also limited both the extent of knowledge use and knowledge dispersal. Fortunately, this fixed land component bottleneck can be overcome, for both the process of wealth building, and extending the potential of knowledge use.

P.S. Possibly the only useful thing I can presently add about the U.S. presidential election results, is the fact that too many in power have ignored the growing economic chasm between city and country for too long - economists included. Hopefully in the near future, this chasm will be addressed. Not only is it a problem in terms of structural efficacy for knowledge based endeavour, but also for employment availability in any area not part of today's prosperous regions.

Like the flapping wings of the butterfly in one nation affecting another, this economic divide will now affect worldwide political alignments. It's difficult for nations to find suitable presidential candidates, when policy makers either exacerbate existing general equilibrium conditions or otherwise attempt to force existing conditions to somehow meet their will. For now, those conditions are what they are. Still, let's hope for the best, especially in terms of making certain worldwide economic circumstances continue to provide the tradable sector benefits of open economies, which have so greatly improved the lives of people such as myself, who have long learned to live with small wages and income.

No comments:

Post a Comment