In a world without commitments there would be no money, no financial assets, no markets, no trade, no property rights; and the life of man would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.Today I mostly want to jot down some thoughts, regarding the commitments which knowledge use systems would need to honor, in order to provide a recognizable or unique equilibrium. Such promises would be necessary: not just for compensated time value which doesn't compete with time value assessments in primary equilibrium, but also to provide clarity for the expectations of monetary transmission.
Even though knowledge use systems would not be closed to outside systems, their non tradable elements are managed locally, to discern how decentralization can work in conjunction with the greater centralization of state and national governments. Centralization works quite well for many tradable goods, but stumbles badly whenever it is applied to non tradable goods - particularly given some financial settings. Knowledge use systems remain open in the sense that knowledge, individuals, and commodities from elsewhere are readily integrated in local settings. Just the same, they all become a part of local time value and resource adaptation, as defined in local wealth generation.
Internal infrastructure formation would be shared through investment options beginning in youth, and holdings on the part of earlier citizens would eventually be made available for circulation. This would allow individuals to pursue personal and intellectual challenges - particularly those life challenges which can't always gain (ongoing) monetary compensation through matched time use. Also, local investment portfolios would substitute for government provided social security. This lack of international monetary flow at local levels, makes it possible to discern income/consumption ratios, alongside the local matched time use averages which are needed to maintain them.
While time value - with its associated sticky wages - is randomly assigned and limited in primary equilibrium, time use value in alternative equilibrium would be based on total aggregates in unique settings. As a result, time aggregate values would grow in a gradual continuum. This would allow human capital to become a larger and better recognized component of today's wealth structures.
Contractual commitments would be necessary, for the compensated time use base of knowledge based systems. Otherwise, the gains and sacrifices of a no compete clause between equilibrium, would not be clear. For instance, the primary gain for highly compensated skills in primary equilibrium with this arrangement, is that the sticky wages of a protected high skill labor market would be less problematic for government budgets, well into the foreseeable future.
Anyone who eventually hopes for monetary gains from a college degree, might need to stand firm in their desire to gain access to primary equilibrium, for instance. Another consideration: recent arguments for a college education tend to emphasize that one often needs additional wealth sources, to gain the economic access which college degrees can sometimes provide. Hence those who don't have additional resources and are uncertain about the advisability of heavy college debt loads, would want to consider the advantages of knowledge based systems for skills use.
Some skills capacity in knowledge use systems, might eventually appear similar to capacity in the professional settings of primary equilibrium. However, the use, intent and identification of knowledge specialties would be quite different. For instance, one would not open a professional office for clients, in knowledge use systems. Nor would anyone educated in a knowledge use system, attempt to go into a primary equilibrium setting to do so, either. In primary equilibrium, the same job or career qualifications that are currently expected for many institutions, would still apply.
Instead, applied knowledge systems recognize skills as part of a flexible package or portfolio, for local coordination patterns. Both time use and knowledge, while voluntarily provided, are nonetheless like interchangeable factory components - with the same "just in time" benefits. Hence the most important right for the individual, is being able to offer the use of one's time as one sees fit. This needs to be distinguished from any "right" to diminish time use capacity (or skills potential) on the part of others. That is not a given right in knowledge use systems, unless someone quite clearly intends to harm others.
As we age, there is often a greater need to shift towards knowledge use work and away from physical labor, depending on one's abilities. Where needed skills or knowledge sets are in short supply, local educational efforts in this regard would be ongoing. Older citizens in particular, could be tapped for these new responsibilities. More robots are needed for heavy lifting and routine tasks for elderly, whereas older citizens are needed to engage with older patients in terms of intellectual challenge.
Regarding contractual arrangements with government: national backing for this endeavor would be necessary, particularly because of the monetary compensation involved. What individuals match locally in time use, would be matched by national government as a point of new wealth origination. In order to be able to fulfill this role, governments would need access to the same information and recorded history of time use and investment which is also utilized at local levels.
Part of these agreements would also mean no other dependence on government for services or subsidies (after a certain agreed upon point of skills gains), other than ongoing maintenance of infrastructure which exists in these regions. These purposeful separations of monetary flow, are what make the unique equilibrium possible to ascertain. Likewise, the same rationale exists regarding internal investment, and an almost complete lack of taxation. This natural experiment would make it possible to determine over time, how resource use transformation can be understood, in direct relation to base or given income.
No comments:
Post a Comment