Social media networks can't provide this, neither can one's friends or neighbors. And despite their vital roles in society; families, religious organizations, governments, voluntary groups, schools and other institutions, are simply not positioned to function as direct economic relationships. Firms and corporations are possibilities, but only up to a point and increasingly, only in certain places. Indeed, the desire of firms and/or employees for "permanence" as highly specific forms of economic engagement, can undermine the potential of sustainability. Paradoxically, society's need for economic continuity, may also undermine other business objectives.
Yet economic continuity is necessary in a modern world, for individuals and communities alike to "stay the course". Continuity is especially important for the long term contractual obligations so often associated with ownership of traditional assets. Businesses may come and go, but financial obligations are here to stay, for practically everyone in advanced economies. And whenever economic dynamism begins to falter at local levels, many who get caught in the crosshairs have few ways to effectively respond.
When local economic conditions go south; both the individuals and communities involved, may have to abandon their hoped for long term commitments - both economic and personal. Some individuals lose the ability to start over yet again, especially if they've already done so half a dozen times. Sadly: If societal expectations weren't so rigid re the "necessary" environments for living and working, the inevitable falls from economic grace might not be so closely associated with loss of pride and self respect. Why make it inevitable that more fail, by setting every conceivable living standard beyond the reach of actual incomes? Why force millions to become dependent on others, when so many would gladly hold tight to personal identity and integrity, if every bar weren't set so damn high? In all of this, advanced nations have struggled to come to grips with the reality of lost dynamism, all too often uncomfortably close to the places where success still beckons.
One reason it is difficult to face the problems of areas becoming left behind, is that some sort of social planning, even if distasteful, almost seems necessary. What is public policy, if not the latest round of social planning? Even organizations which are skeptical of government "solutions", advocate their own solution sets for public policy just the same. Yet who is really positioned or motivated for finding relevant solutions, if not the ones who - due to an actual need to start anew - are extremely motivated to do so? Clearly, private enterprise has also stood in the way of production reform, and its structural contributions to the city country divide, still stand in the way of effective decentralization as well. Perhaps the best that can be said of all this is, at least no one is so blindly foolish as to attempt the horrendous social policy mistakes of the twentieth century.
Even though most individuals know the dangers of excessive central controls, it has been difficult to impart decentralized patterns which could effectively create more economic freedom for lower income levels. It's the lack of recognizable economic options for these groups which is creating new sets of problems. Hopefully, a new institution might be created which holds economic continuity as integral to its primary mission, especially for lower income levels. What might the framework of such an institution, actually consist of?
For one, ownership would be structured so that everything need not fall apart every time circumstance change. Flexible ownership options are all the more important, during times such as now when change appears as though the only reliable constant. Even though simple relationships between revenue flows need to be highlighted for non tradable sector activity, still, the fact remains no one will be able to predict when resource use patterns change. Hence the challenge is to respond via local production shifts, infrastructure and time commitment realignments on the part of relevant groups, instead of additional debts and bankruptcies.
Also: Simplify basic income relationships via defined non tradable sector requirements, wherever possible. Granted, in general equilibrium conditions, it's not feasible to directly observe the intricate and interdependent patterns of tradable sector and non tradable sector activity. New start up communities which begin with a knowledge base prior, would isolate basic non tradable sector requirements so that each start up community can create its own unique income consumption ratio. Importantly, this ratio would serve as a starting point from which more complex relationships of tradable sector activity, could gradually follow.
Normally, a decentralized approach has required tradable sector activity as a starting point or economic base, which makes sense since this created discretionary revenue flows. The resulting income gains have also provided a tax base for communities to work with. Since many aspects of non tradable sector activity are time and placed based, non tradable sector start ups would need to approach discretionary activities more specifically, so that economic time value can substitute for taxation, and citizens won't be burdened with hidden tax burdens that are impossible to decipher. At a later point, once non tradable start ups become better established, communities might reconsider traditional taxation sources, once tradable sector activity contributes to local income and revenue.
It will take time to build new forms of non tradable sector activity with sufficient connections to other economic activities which go beyond non discretionary needs. For this reason, non tradable sector start ups will need extensive innovation in infrastructure, so that those with limited incomes are able to contribute to community ownership. For economic continuity to be truly feasible, society needs more ways to reduce risk for lower income levels, which allow their "failures" to transition into successes wherever possible. Fortunately, 3D manufacture will eventually bring building component manufacture to local communities. Likewise, AI could make it feasible for many with mid range levels of skill to function in high skill capacities - only without the now necessary extensive human capital costs.
Where would AI be most useful? There's a simple way to answer the question. When human capital contributes to product, and that product scales in ways which augment output, high human capital costs are generally reasonable, because increased output can cover those costs without budgetary burdens being passed to future generations. Conversely, when output scales via participation instead of product output, high human capital costs eventually become extensive social costs. Hence AI could become part of the division of labour where specialization doesn't actually pay in terms of increased output. These are just a few considerations, how economic continuity might eventually, hopefully, transpire, on more certain terms.
No comments:
Post a Comment