Time Ownership, Not Common Ownership

Some have likened my ideas to those of a participatory economy, and when I checked the definition in Wikipedia, I did note a number of similarities. Therefore, the title of this post is an initial response. There are subtle distinctions between the ownership and management of one's time use, versus the organizational structures of common ownership involving resources separate from time. Common ownership often focuses on existing production patterns and what has already transpired. Whereas, time ownership would seek to benefit from flexible production patterns, in services as well as resources other than time use.

Because rights to knowledge use would (locally) exist across institutional norms, it becomes possible to optimize knowledge and skills use patterns across institutional constructs. Fortunately, that would be true in both an individual and aggregate sense. Even though one's time use is voluntary, it could gain the organizational capacity to function as a master key or interchangeable tool.

While common ownership tries to solve for equality of outcome, time ownership attempts to solve for equality of opportunity, through the equal time already available to us. Time ownership is important because it is the basic resource starting point which we have already received. Hence, it is the only constant that we have available, for arbitrage and negotiation with others. Because our time is so limited, time use potential quickly becomes unbalanced when it is not taken into consideration with other economic factors. Without the ability to manage our time in relation with others, no one ever knows if the resources available to replace time constraints, can actually gain the chance to do so.

Even though unequal distribution of resources can be problematic, common resource ownership is not well situated to overcome those problems - at least in a broad or centralized sense. While it is possible to optimize time use better than others would in our stead, it is not possible for any individual to know the best optimization of other resources. By their very nature, resources separate from time respond best to diverse input which goes well beyond local boundaries. On the other hand, no one really knows the best use of our time, better than we do.

Problems arise when our time use is externally managed to such an extent, that our health also becomes compromised. However, the greatest problem for time capacity is harsh definition of both product and service formations. No amount of time adjustment can suffice, when individuals of low to medium income are not allowed to contribute to ongoing service or product roles. Indeed, it's not really possible to own time potential, if numerous options are automatically ruled out. When this occurs, no amount of resource capacity can salvage the ensuing time imbalances, even when resource windfalls have become quite substantial.

In order to be economically viable, time ownership and the knowledge use systems it makes possible, need to be closely aligned with capitalism - albeit with renewed focus on small business formation and decentralization. Services would be self supporting as matched time use product, and locally coordinated through calendared skills arbitrage. Also, local investment pools would be a part of work and educational structures, so that no monetary constraints would result from the equally compensated time use base.

Understandably, the idea of (once again) becoming responsible for our time use has been unsettling. After all, cultural and economic conditions have completely changed, since the use of one's time for economic purpose has played a central role. Till recently, labor had been externally defined to such an extent, that it did not seem necessary to be responsible in this capacity. Yet now the process of automation has brought time use considerations full circle.

However, there are any number of silver linings in this cloud. Time ownership brings the possibilities of utility and public choice back into the economic equation. Direct democracy in services would be possible. And through the measurement and compensation of self directed time, something else will also have the chance to make an appearance in GDP as well: happiness.