General Equilibrium and the "Closed Trail"

Recently, Tim Worstall, in a post titled "Governments Really Just Aren't Good at Maintenance," notes the $11 billion backlog of maintenance work which is accruing in national parks, here in the U.S. One issue in particular stands out: Why focus on the uninterrupted support of well paid administration in headquarters, while the average worker could more effectively tend to areas in need of personal attention?

While the "closed trails" of general equilibrium in this post are a reference to limited societal options in general, sometimes the real world provides apt literal examples. Zion is among my favorite national parks, and one of its popular trails has remained closed since 2010. Worstall sums up:

The truth being just that the long term provision of goods and services, the maintenance necessary to make that happen, isn't a process well dealt with by government.

That said, what gives us the confidence that private enterprise is always capable of keeping more consumer options on the table for the public as a whole? Healthcare in the U.S. is just one glaring example, of the problems in this regard.

Nevertheless, the ways in which private enterprise are presently structured, means firms often have little choice but to quickly respond by shutting down not just "trails" but their entire edifices, should profits be insufficient to keep desirable goods, services or amenities available. While governments often have the option of waiting for further revenue before they elect to close off options entirely, private enterprise lacks the ability to do so. By way of example, many who have traveled across the U.S. remember privately owned areas of natural beauty which proved too difficult to keep open to the public. One noteworthy example I recall is Diamond Cave, located near Jasper, Arkansas.

Why has it proven so difficult for society to provide maintenance capacity, as continuity for valued resources and assets? In some respects, before money began to substitute for other cultural functions, populations had more incentive to dedicate personal time management (and labour) to mutually valued maintenance. One reason it is now difficult to prioritize maintenance, is that productivity gains are sought in both private and public endeavour by minimizing labour, wherever possible to do so. Indeed, incentives to minimize labour are quite similar for both. Perhaps the main difference is simply that governments are slower to respond, before removing desirable public services and amenities.

How to think about these circumstance in terms of general equilibrium capacity? Private enterprise focuses the extent to which profit can be derived from partial equilibrium, to preserve institutional viability. Hence some forms of private enterprise - especially the non tradable sector activity which has led to disequilibrium - tend to seek only a limited portion of any potential consumer base. Governments lack the ability to generate additional marketplace capacity as well, given their own reliance on asymmetric organization and compensation. When production capacity (and its consequent employment) is limited, so too the closed trails of consumption capacity.

Are there ways to gain additional general equilibrium potential, for economic activity beyond the bounds of present day institutions? Given the extensive algorithm capacity now in use, algorithms could also assist individuals in the optimal coordination of symmetric, or mutual time capacity. When time value is matched at the outset to generate new wealth, producers and consumers alike would be able to focus on marketplace capacity which is difficult to provide via the asymmetric means of specific skills compensation. In other words, some of today's more desirable closed trails, could be reopened through the defined equilibrium settings that time arbitrage makes possible.

Even though every trail (all the goods, services and amenities that populations desire) can't remain open, societies could still create better organizational patterns for the ones they deem most valuable - particularly those which our present institutions have become ill equipped to provide. As we go through life, certain goods, services and amenities become more important to us. Specifically designed (or defined) non tradable sector equilibrium settings, would focus on one or else a few essential categories in this regard. These specifically highlighted group preferences, would provide unique frameworks for an overarching structure of local and mutual time management. Time arbitrage would make it possible to prioritize a full range of maintenance functions, via the wealth building capacity of time as an economic unit of measure.

However, the priorities of natural beauty and other environmental maintenance, are but a starting point. There's also the mutual care and related asset maintenance which daily life requires, alongside the practical and experiential uses of knowledge so important as a foundation for life's higher aspirations. By defining specific aspects of non tradable sector activity we find most desirable at different periods, individuals and groups would have the ability to create wealth by coordinating a full range of skills capacity, all the while utilizing the most important time period aspects of the process as unique central coordination points. Even though it is not possible to keep every trail open that we would like to explore or benefit from, it is infinitely possible, to open more trails through mutual employment and time centered wealth generation.