Time as Commodity: Taking "Redundancy" out of Knowledge Use

A quote from Jane Jacobs provided the inspiration for this post:

Redundancy is expensive but indispensable.

As things currently stand, though, it's becoming more difficult to maintain many vital components of knowledge based work, during a time of growing budgetary debts. Indeed, many important knowledge sets become imperiled when special interests limit their marketplace capacity, as well. Ironically, knowledge hoarding as a stand in for knowledge preservation, is being funded via exorbitant taxpayer expense.

And while various groups believe in certain "indispensable" knowledge, it comes down to the knowledge sets in question. Consequently, knowledge does not necessarily function as a reliable continuum among system networks. And when vital knowledge sets are held in a politically centralized capacity, the party in power is becoming more likely to discard what they don't consider useful, even as they remain willing to create more taxpayer burdens for the knowledge use means they prefer. Today's asymmetrically compensated knowledge is increasingly endangered, by current political realities.

In all of this, the paradox is that knowledge use "redundancies" are how we rely on the dispersal of knowledge through society, for progress and economic stability. What can be done, when important forms of knowledge become too expensive to preserve and maintain? Especially since no one is particularly fond of government redundancies?

There's two considerations at work here:

1) Jobs are a cost. Fortunately for tradable sector activity, costs can be settled at the outset via reciprocal resource measures (coordination) which leave no residual debt or societal burden. Even though each job is an additional cost, decision making processes need not be held up for hiring, because the responsibility for job costs is internal. Hence it's a simpler process, for tradable sectors to maintain a long term continuum for knowledge advancement and maintenance.

2) On the other hand, when time based (non tradable) product has to rely on existing revenue flows, general equilibrium capacity acts as a relative constant on the knowledge generation that can take place via secondary market terms. The problem of job as cost becomes externalized, which means permission for non tradable sector knowledge use can be both sporadic and uncertain.

This is all the more problematic, given the desires of today's knowledge based non tradable sectors to serve as reliable repositories for knowledge preservation and dispersal. Since budgetary burdens have begun to skyrocket, the political maintenance of vital aspects of knowledge use has become less certain. Citizens are ironically finding themselves ever more reluctant as taxpayers, to fund the very time centered activities that some groups consider vitally important.

Time arbitrage could gradually reverse this cycle of diminished knowledge maintenance, by allowing knowledge to more readily function in a direct or primary market context. With time unit value as a single price commodity (time purchases time) there would be no debt residual. Since the groups involved would be creating wealth at the outset and internally accounting for costs, this organizational capacity need not wait for uncertain political "permissions" processes. All individuals, not just professionals and the elite, would be able to take part in the origination and preservation of knowledge in an ongoing continuum.

When knowledge and time function as wealth origination, knowledge and human capital no longer appear as though redundancies which society can ill afford. Finally, the average citizen would be able to take part in the knowledge based economies of the 21st century. Only consider how different this would feel for so many, to be a part of the game. Especially since so many of us have been on the outside looking in, at the prosperous economy which our taxpayer dollars made possible. Even though our present institutions can't afford the costs of hiring us all, we can readily afford what would be the limited costs of mutual employment.

Mutual employment would handily take the "redundancy" out of knowledge use. Just think. By utilizing knowledge on wealth creating terms, our knowledge preferences would no longer have to suffer the brutality of polarizing debate. As tradable sector commodities, apples and oranges never had to wait for expert or taxpayer approval! Fortunately they will keep right on producing on their own accord, whether or not moral debate ensues as to whether they have a right to exist. If no moral debate is needed for the choice of apples or oranges, why do we demean those who "foolishly" invest in experiential knowledge, rather than practical knowledge?  One can only hope that - given a stronger link to wealth creation - knowledge in all its variety and abundance, would finally be freed from the harsh judgments it is constantly exposed to, in its organizational capacity as a dependent marketplace.