...Aaahhh, such an assertion matters in any number of ways. Even so, it is somewhat of a "surface" assertion, i.e. one of those measurement reflections that doesn't quite tell the tale of what lies underneath. For instance, might internal coordination on the same timeline also represent a kind of "liquidation" in some instances? That's a perfectly reasonable question, which needs plenty of consideration. For the purposes of this post, I want to highlight examples of long term growth (wealth) management potentialities in an overall sense. However, before I reference some of the more recent debates regarding coordination of greater economic access, a general extrapolation is in order as to what immediately comes to mind by the use of this title, a subject which I also plan to return to in eventual posts.
Much of the so called "inflation" which has already occurred in a gradual long term trajectory (of ever decreasing access), is a result of frictions between both opposing interests, and special interests which seek to limit access into their own territory and institutions. I occasionally get "bent out of shape" (i.e. angry) when all of the above conveniently use the Fed as an excuse, to take attention off what they do to one another in this regard. However one reason such imaginary (in money printing terms) inflation exists is the fact that people have taken external forms of coordination for granted, as the only means by which it is supposedly possible to get anything done.
Clearly, the rationale of these ever rising external costs of coordination, is that some people aren't smart enough to tend responsibly to their own affairs, so we either have to pay or be taxed whatever is necessary to keep them in line, even if that stifles real growth. Consequently, since people can see that the costs of said "necessary" and "for your own good" external coordination have in fact become outrageous, central banks around the world want to turn the spigot off to stop the rising trajectory for the growing category of "whatever" (love that double meaning). Unfortunately though, when we take such austerity "stop our own insanity" arguments to their logical conclusions, even something as basic as the idea of education for all, starts to break down (public education for a McJob, as example).
To a degree, arguments over innate intelligence and common sense hold water: some individuals clearly have societal adaptation and negotiation skills superior to others. But let's not go over the falls of that "logical" conclusion, for those falls are a very long drop to the bottom. The problem for us now is twofold: the frictional costs of external coordination have disrupted middle class formation NOT just for developing countries but also younger generations of the developed world. And, societal stratification is hardening in ways that are really lousy for both economic and personal life in general. For example, even as the Fed sought to recover economic growth, the seeming "permanent" loss of faith in important aspects of previous wealth formation is indicated, in the lack of desire to offset the monetary drop of the 2008-2009 losses.
Implied in those offsets were fire sales of various kinds - be it "superfluous" capital, labor, or whatever else could no longer pay the bills this month. Even beyond the rapid NGDP loss that was the onset of the Great Recession, how to think about the wealth that didn't "catch up"? Does that not imply greater liquidation of existing resources which has yet to be resolved? On the one hand, it is possible to look at the coordinated pools suggested here as liquidation. That's true in the sense that monetary systems cannot readily provide everyone a job "sticky wage" style, i.e. enough to buy present day inefficient goods offerings of all non tradable kinds.
In that sense of monetary compensation, internal coordination still can't rise above the offerings of guaranteed income with continued external coordination, in nominal targeting terms. However, it is in the far more flexible definition of product (internal coordination could allow), that such income deficiencies and appearances of "liquidation" can be readily overcome. What's more, internal coordination allows over time a return of both velocity and growth potential that would otherwise not be possible through the limits of guaranteed income or wage. In other words, even though the nominal target (also based on time considerations) is a Market Monetarist position, the actual agreed upon growth trajectory is very much a societal function: one based on continued belief in prosperity,
With this in mind, how to think about recent discussion as to economic inclusion? The forms of economic coordination that society utilizes for wealth, could also affect the long term growth trajectory. Just one of the problems for the MMT idea (or related) of a basic wage is the fact that any set amount still gets demolished in the ongoing external coordination frictions at local levels, constant austerity efforts notwithstanding. If there is a humane aspect to a guaranteed wage, it lies in the belief that people deserve a chance at survival, job or no. However any variant on guaranteed wages would still harden stratification for the long run. That is no small factor, in that the success of recent historical economic circumstance was largely based on the potential of mobility and individual aspiration.
Clearly, stratification will always be a given, to some degree (Let's face it, I went far too long not being able to use my own mind in many areas of work and it doubtless shows). The societal question for the 21st century in terms of stratification of course is...by how much? When I speak of starting from the same coordinated time base of hour valuations, I intend that as a point where people in whatever strata they reside can nonetheless find others within their relative strata to match economic potential - not the one size fits all that people of all walks of life still struggle to somehow "fit" into before it breaks down. In other words, I suggest internal coordination points (which also don't impose false inflation) that allow all strata to find their own unique, across the board economic ways to help one another, and yet still allow relative mobility potential within the strata for all areas of economic activity. When people are free to do this, suddenly, all the education one takes on fulfills its purpose: both for value in use and value in exchange, whatever "strata" one resides in.
Allowing coordination such as this within strata allows space for individual initiative: something generally impossible through any guaranteed income effort, which has to impose some general limit or ceiling. In other words, the main limits imposed on coordinating strata are those that happen when an individual does not take up the service offer of another individual. By deciding those economic "limits" individually and with voting "suggestive" allocations, we allow each of us greater potential to succeed. Plus, we would no longer have to struggle under the weight of being born into a world which supposedly "does not have room" for us. Believing the world still has a place for us if we try hard enough, makes all the difference. That's what capitalism used to be able to provide, and it still can. Capitalism only fails us if we set hard limits, and consequently, guaranteed incomes reside among some of the more difficult limitations of the present.
No comments:
Post a Comment