Knowledge use became a major economic component in the twentieth century. Even so: in many instances, it wasn't sufficiently clear, how knowledge and skill actually contributed to discernible progress. All too often, specific forms of knowledge use have become a judgement call, which governments attempt to provide on behalf of their citizens. Yet the process mostly makes populations less certain over time, what they've actually gained. Perhaps it would be easier to convince societies the worth of knowledge, should its use become more closely connected to personal time value. After all, a direct time/knowledge economic connection, would allow the use of knowledge to be measured - hence accounted for - in increments of reciprocal time.
Granted, it's easier on a number of levels, for institutions to make note of time use patterns after the fact. Which also allows everyone to gradually sort out the bill, well after the dealing's done. But this approach - flexible though it is - gradually plays havoc with long term budgets, the services needs of lower income levels and finally, populations as a whole. And given what we know about Adam Smith's attitudes toward wealth creation, chances are he would not have considered these open ended and knowledge based service patterns, capable of moving society forward. This is no small matter, given the dominance of time based service formation as a part of today's economies.
Fortunately, knowledge use in conjunction with tradable product, gains measurable value through recognizable output which is accounted for at the source. Whereas non tradable sector time product often expects citizens to take on faith, the ways knowledge are monetarily compensated in the process. Even though non tradable sector private institutions may be more accountable than their public counterparts: if the knowledge they utilize is purposely limited at the outset, even responsible accounting can't detract from the diminished monetary velocity - however small - which is likely to result from captured wealth. In other words, both public and private approaches to the coordination of time based product, can gradually subtract from incremental and reliable wealth creation.
The dominant sectors of our most complex economies, are heavily dependent on time based product - much of which is secondary market activity. In the last year or so, I began to more closely consider how the dependence of secondary markets on primary markets, affects overall equilibrium structure. As secondary markets continue to crowd primary markets, political pressure grows to dismiss knowledge based activity, where possible. If some of this pressure appears indiscriminate, it's reached a point where political constituents aren't necessarily rational about the process. Yet people are right to worry about slashed budgets, when many normal means of knowledge use preservation are also being threatened. By way of example, is this recent announcement of layoffs at M.D. Anderson, indicative of what might become a growing trend?
Ultimately, secondary market activity should not have to be diminished, in relation to what already exists in this regard. Instead, it would be better to supplement secondary markets with a greater degree of primary market activity for knowledge use. Even though Obamacare may soon be a thing of the past, the fact neither public or private interests are prepared to preserve valuable marketplace output, could nonetheless mean further difficulties for hospital budgets. By bringing more knowledge use into primary market roles, one might also hope for fewer hospital layoffs in the future.
How might a restoration of knowledge based wealth, take place on primary market terms? Time value can be organized to function much as any other valuable commodity in primary markets. In order to do so, a time continuum would be internally generated for a broad range of time linked services and knowledge use. What allows for recognizable wealth to be formed at the outset, are coordinated services patterns which allow matched reciprocity to become immediately possible, instead of at some point in an undefinable - hence not always accountable - future.
Wealth creation at the outset, would result from matched time value with individuals who already live and work in close proximity with one another. In a sense this process can appear as bartered time, which has been reasoned away because "it's hard". But barter did not take place in a coordinated time use continuum. Thankfully, we have money to provide the coordination roles which supplanted earlier forms of barter, especially for the tradable goods which existed well beyond local resource capacity. Nevertheless, money works best, as a signal for product which is separate from time. As a coordination signal for time based product, money begins to suffer distortions early in the process, because time is a fixed scarcity, in relation to the random scarcities of other resource capacity.
Consequently, government efforts to assist the coordination of time based product, have carried substantial trade offs. Even though government debt for fiscal transmission is reasonably secure (government debt represents someone's asset), each declared asset is subject to countervailing forces. Consequently, fiscal transmission cannot always contribute to a full range of knowledge use preservation.
While a time based continuum for organizational capacity includes trade offs much as anything else, the equal starting value this approach utilizes, makes it possible for local groups to eventually provide reliable signals for the production and consumption of desired services. Since these groups organize for internal reciprocity and immediate time based wealth, they don't have to wait - and hope - for broader sets of equilibrium factors to give a green light to their productive pursuits.
Establishing new productive routines and habits, of course includes inevitable adjustments for the changing wants, needs and challenges of participating groups. Yet the real value consists in being able to maintain normal economic routines which are not constantly broken down, just because some product formations are only temporary for the participants involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment