Knowledge And Mobility As Value In Use

Interesting, how history books tend to portray aspects of past "mobile" populations as barbarous indeed. And yet, progress in capitalistic terms continues to rely on new definitions of mobility and dynamism, even as overall growth slows around the world. Unfortunately, few ideas have been forthcoming as of late. What gives? Have the purveyors of capital thrown up their hands in agreement with the intellectuals that it's time for the ladder of progress to be pulled up and destroyed? What's more, how did the titling of property, only a decade ago associated with human progress and achievement, come to appear as though a noose around the necks of the middle class and - inexplicably - a primary wealth option mostly intended for the fortunate?

This post picks up on the thoughts of my previous one in that both harvest and knowledge commons are value in use structures, and so my readers might want to read it first if they haven't already. Some of what is considered here, in terms of value in use and exchange, is also important for my own thought processes in general. First, given my mention (yet again) of "The Mystery of Capital" (first paragraph link), it would be also be helpful to explain a primary purpose of the quest for titling property in the developing world: to turn value in use into value in exchange.

In a developing world context; greater mobility, flexibility and dynamism are implied for the property owner (and others) by the titling process itself, just as these elements previously "held" (i.e. not so much now) for the developed world. My point is not to negate the immense gain which can still be a result of value in exchange for titling: rather, to point out the circumstance in which property as wealth has bogged down in the developed world through excessive dependence on static formations, leading to further distortions in turn. GDP for instance is a dynamic measure whereas property in and of itself is not dynamic. Unfortunately that has also lead to developed nations pulling back on further GDP formation in monetary terms, at the expense of younger generations.

Some of what we think of as informal economies, in any nation, also involve value in use. And, certainly, earlier tribal formations were strengthened by value in use association both for knowledge and scarce resources. Some of the more (supposedly) barbarous hordes one recalls must have operated primarily by value in use terms. Of course, there's a lot to be said for value in exchange, or governments would not attempt to rely on monetary means exclusively. Thinking along value in exchange lines, particularly as captured by institutions, also makes scarcity appear as a greater part of life than it otherwise might. What's more, the value in exchange so amenable to tax capture, allows a nation to focus on fiscal activity in far more substantial ways.

But the same value in exchange that can be so conducive to economic activity for nations and citizens, can eventually lead to threadbare economic and social linkages. Particularly in the present, when the only real value in use institutions left are family and religion (in the U.S.) and they never should have been expected to carry such a heavy load by themselves. Why has this happened?

In order to turn knowledge use into value in exchange, institutions have to utilize knowledge and skills in highly distilled forms, which means not only do a lot of knowledge and skills sets go untapped, but important social functions are increasingly scaled back. What amounts to monetary convenience for governments and institutions, unfortunately creates artificial scarcities that become far more noticeable over time. Consequently, the institutional wealth capture processes which begin as a source of strength for nations and individuals, slowly turn instead into economic fragility for all concerned.

Knowledge use as value in exchange requires arbitrary cutting off points, a problem which has finally become evident in the increasingly arbitrary cutting off measures of inflation by central banks around the world. However governments didn't remove the numerous value in use measures people once relied upon, out of spite. Governments made a series of promises to citizens in the 20th century they sincerely believed could be upheld. Is it possible to move towards value in use settings which - instead of completely undermining the entire contractual arrangement between governments and citizens - make it more flexible in nature?

Let's now consider the mobility elements introduced in yesterday's post, of localized knowledge use in coordination with other planned commons settings for city and country alike, so that no one need give up their hunter gatherer instincts. Yes I know, the American Indian was doing a really good job of the harvest commons once and people weren't paying a lot of attention. That said...

The above linked book is extremely helpful for thinking about ideas for publicly managed commons. Like so many books, it sat in my library for years before I finally read it. However in this post, I especially need to focus on aspects of knowledge capture which are capable both of providing monetary links between value in use and exchange, as well as better definition for a monetary anchor. Previously I spoke of a knowledge prior, or defined value in use knowledge.

An interesting thing about knowledge as priority: it represents all points along a scale in terms of both practicality and experiential, whereas knowledge use as a monetary prior (value in exchange) is generally forced to select a single attribute, one not necessarily applicable to given locations or situations. Tribes, for instance, were able to capture knowledge as value in use, for they could apply it to their own specific localized circumstance and time arrangements - as opposed to generalized knowledge definition and the strictly defined time setting of institutions.

Most important for value in use settings is that they allow the individual a productive role in various processes and enterprises - be they skills or knowledge related - that may not exist otherwise. One good example is a revival of heirloom seeds, which allows people to continue growing fruits and vegetables which otherwise might have disappeared, as value in exchange encourages some companies to move towards seedless varieties for the marketplace. The biggest problem of course is that when everything becomes value in exchange, people lose both their monetary and skills links, which ultimately separates them from the process itself. Herein lies the real issue for future work prospects: not one of robots and automation, but making certain that adequate measures for value in use also exist along standard monetary economic spectrums, so that people do not lose their economic links over time.

Aspects of the experiential factor especially need to be taken into consideration, before many Luddite arguments can actually be understood for their relevance. For instance, equal time use coordination between participants allows the "slow" food experience, along with numerous production elements which may no longer work well in a value in exchange capacity. Plus, they can readily be coordinated into local economic settings as a "part of the mix" for all who prefer convenience some days (value in exchange) over coordinated experiential settings when there's time to do so.

Such orchestrated environments (of all kinds) can provide tremendous added value, for portions of society who don't have the money to experience something similar in a normal value in exchange convenience setting. Luddite situations become problematic mostly when they are presented as the only societal choice to buy with one's time, such as today's building and construction definitions. So, before we decry lack of efficiency or productivity in any element of economic life, or too much efficiency a few things one might consider:

1. What is the experiential element that would be lost to efficiency, and how necessary is it to remove that element in a monetary context? If it is an element that people would miss, can it be societally replaced in a value in use context  people want to coordinate?
2. Can we create adequate context for participation, so that people can understand how they could replace the missing element through value in use means?
3. Do we make the experiential element a valid societal choice, have we presented some as forced elements, or has an arbitrary decision already been made not to offer the element at all?

There is a whole new world that could be created through value in use settings, which can still be connected to the coordinating efforts of government, albeit in far more flexible terms than presently exist. If governments no longer have to struggle with providing basic needs and provisions for their citizens, perhaps they would not be the backstabbing and hateful beasts which they so often seem in the present! One can only hope.