Wrap Up for December 2019

Even though there was much to disagree with in David Graeber's essay, David Glasner engages with some of his more meaningful arguments.

Where is low wage work more prevalent? Brookings illustrates how it is found to some extent in all regions. It also helps to be realistic about reskilling.

Banks are subjected to stress tests. Why not the government?

David Beckworth and Claudia discuss her new Sahm rule.

Even though low inflation is important for the credibility of central bankers, it makes them quite unpopular, as if by design.

Sarah Skwire notes how the gender bias of unions has often been missed.

Diane Coyle highlights some of her favourite economics books of the year.

The potato was an important lesson re monoculture.

Tyler Cowen interviews Daron Acemoglu.

"...a new General Purpose Technology might be required to kickstart economic growth once again."
Tyler Cowen posts from some of the above linked paper with Ben Southwood, here and here.

Why would state law be behind a pay wall?

"...fiscal resources are not infinite, and public leaders can't assume every older asset is worth maintaining." I would add, don't just convene the experts to work on this issue, because they may end up with mostly suggestions to build infrastructure that many citizens can't afford.

Tim Harford suggests ways to survive elections with your sanity intact.

Peter Boettke highlights some forgotten and neglected classics.
He also notes important political economy books from the last decade.

Is there a middle ground for "gentle" densities?
"...most single-family lots could accommodate more housing without purchasing adjacent parcels and combining them." Light touch density is a similarly used term, which could affect zoning laws in the near future. And while progressives are often blamed for NIMBYism in exclusive areas, Miles Kimball recently highlighted a conservative response to potential zoning changes.

Government debt carries hidden risks.

There's not many specifics in the 40 AI startups surveyed as of yet which point to greater productivity. 

Many communities will maintain the infrastructure status quo as long as they possibly can.

Greg Mankiw notes a review from Jason Furman, of the recent book from Banerjee and Duflo, Good Economics for Hard Times.

As monetary policy continues to improve, real shocks have become more likely to trigger RGDP slowdowns than recessions. Can the Fed finally engineer a soft landing?

Carnegie Mellon University remembers Marvin Goodfriend. Also Miles Kimball.

Rural flight in Texas started back in the fifties.

Lars Christensen is blogging again. Also, "Revisiting the P-star model"

When it comes to tradeoffs, time is the ultimate scarcity.

Let's be careful not to take the advantages and benefits of the modern world, for granted.
"We certainly don't seem to have as much of a commitment as we did to leaving people to their own devices." We can't arbitrarily stop progress now, we have to keep innovating just to maintain what we already have.

When everything is said and done, might we end up with some version of Medicare for all?

The transition to modernity may have been messier than it seemed.

Frances Coppola questions the role of the repo market, which functions quite differently from the previous interbank market.

How much Chinese tech will have to be replaced?

From David Wessel at Brookings: This study found that minimum wage hikes are causing problems for new small business formation particularly in rural areas.

"Beyond developing conversational skills, the family phone asked its users to be patient and participate in one another's lives."

How accurate is that drug price index?

Gregory Mankiw explains his skepticism regarding modern monetary theory.

"Deafness freed Beethoven as a composer because he no longer had society's soundtrack in his ear."

Some digital stories of shame this year were particularly good!

Do cities suffer from energy imbalances?

Cyril Morong highlights a Minneapolis Fed paper re how changing technology affects inequality.

Gratitude is a complex thing.

Inside Cato's annual monetary conference.

Some historical aspects of migraine. Mine are in that (somewhat) tolerable average range.

Tyler Cowen presents a wish list of worthy projects.

Some of the big economic stories of the decade.

A recent Minneapolis Fed conference discussed potential housing options.
They are certainly needed. For instance, Just having a peaceful night of sleep can make a real difference.

Scott Sumner notes that the new spending bill is a disaster. Someone must be celebrating however, because it's a four hundred billion dollar win for special interests in a repeal of three healthcare taxes alone: the Cadillac tax, a health insurance tax and the medical device tax. Hence Bob Laszewski jokes, "Who says Washington can't get along!" The surprisingly mutual desire to do something about surprise medical bills, went nowhere as well.

Coffee had plenty of detractors when it was the newly introduced product.

For now the economy is strong.

It's not easy to think clearly about the eventual ramifications of excessive debt loads.

"While much of the rest of Mercy Hospital Fort Scott had been underused and patient rooms sat empty, the ER handled nearly 9000 people the year before it closed."

It cost about 9 million for the community to set up their own internet infrastructure.

"If Sapiens were a blog post"

Some personal reminisces from Arnold Kling re Robert Solow.

Post Highlights from 2019

Here are highlights from some of this year's popular posts.

Where is the Educational Upside?  One major issue regarding formal education in general - whether public or private - is a tendency to treat "desirable learning and competence" as "scarce goods for which men and women must compete". Consequently, formal education contributes to artificial skills scarcities and imbalances in time based services markets. While knowledge and skills capture have become deeply embedded in ways which aren't readily remedied at state or national levels, communities could nevertheless start taking local action. Local education has the potential to not only become broader in scope, but more closely connected to the evolving wants and needs of all citizens.

Money Price is Most Relevant for Traditional Scale  An incredible amount of economic time use potential remains untapped. Yet more of our accomplishments could provide value for others, if we were to capture mutual wants and needs in a marketplace for time value. We need to derive value from our scarce time more effectively, especially since time based product does not scale via traditional means.

Monetary pricing is most relevant for output which scales on traditional terms, and it can't always offer similar benefits for human capital's natural scarcity in the form of time based product. Earlier forms of tradable sector dominance, meant societies could mostly rely on monetary compensation patterns which captured additional monetary gains from scale. In this context, a wide array of time based product was readily derived from revenue surplus, taxation, and multiple forms of financial debt. However, as we continue to adjust to a services dominant economy, there may gradually be fewer options for gains in scale to accrue to aggregate income in general. Fortunately, these losses might be amended by seeking aggregate output gains that include knowledge, skill and time value as wealth components alongside monetary compensation.

Has GDP Measure Lost Its Practicality?  Even though monetary representation is but a partial approximation of progress, there is no consensus how intangible resource factors could contribute to a better framework. Yet it would be counterproductive to discard elements of GDP measure which clearly serve valid purpose. In all of this, practicality and utility are as relevant as ever. Economic time value is an intangible component which needs more clarification, especially given our high levels of time scarcity and already existing financial responsibilities. There's a good chance that economic time value would be the most logical addition to current GDP measure.

What Really Preserves the Labour Theory of Value?  In some respects the labour theory of value has been disproved, especially when labour is applied to product which exists separately from time value. However, the labour theory of value likely has some adherents in unexpected places, particularly among providers of high skill time based product. Social position for example allows professional associations to reward personal labour via a rationale that one's time represents quality product deserving of monetary reward. Here one can also find much of today's intangible resource capacity, which causes much confusion as to actual productivity gains. More markets are needed for forms of quality time based product that don't negatively impact total factor productivity.

Inclusive Economies Can't Be Built on Exclusive Pricing  Interestingly enough when this post was written, Wikipedia provided more information on inclusive growth, than on inclusive economies in particular. Yet that was a reasonable search result, since growth is always necessary, before more individuals can participate and gain economic access. Consider why the correlation of inclusiveness with economic growth, matters. Should people become convinced that economic growth is no longer necessary, markets would become more exclusive by design. Such a result would only close the door further on those who still seek access.

One way to counter this impulse, is to create additional economic value for time based product. Doing so would also mean less pressure on earth's physical resources for the monetary support of time value. Direct reciprocity for time based services is an inclusive approach, which could result in more supply and demand for applied knowledge, hence additional growth in the use of knowledge for all citizens.

Time and Fiscal Revenue as Scarce Commons  One way to decipher whether additional budgetary debt burdens can be safely imposed, is to stop and ask: Do we really understand the full extent of aggregate time obligations we have already imposed? What if we discovered how many economic time hours would be necessary to meet those already existing obligations, only to realize current or near future generations don't actually have that many economic time hours to spend? Given the possibility of such a scenario, time value may need to evolve beyond a purely monetary focus, so that societies aren't jeopardized once budgetary burdens in general become more difficult to repay.

Some Broader Considerations re MMT Logic  There are too many competing demands on present day fiscal policy, for it to provide a strong framework for the underpinnings of a 21st century economy. National income taxes were established during historical periods when (now mature) economies could still rely on expanding tradable sector growth. Much of these revenue sources consequently benefited from traditional scale, which allowed millions to contribute to the government's wealth redistribution patterns of the present. Alas, since gains in traditional scale are no longer widely distributed in aggregate income, more than monetary representation may be needed, to preserve the knowledge dispersal and skill sets so important to modern society.

Time as Economic Unit: Intervals of Certainty  Time arbitrage could bring greater stability and precision to how individuals plan and manage the use of their time. Indeed, such an economic option might even prove more useful than the proposed Facebook currency (Libra) which inspired this post. While workplace skills arbitrage is partly useful for personal time management, it is mostly feasible when personal income is sufficient for individuals to delegate to others, the responsibilities they lack the time to accomplish on their own.

Markets Could "Find a Way" For Services  Sometimes, supply side conservation of unique skills capacity may come at the expense of supply side potential for markets as a whole. Just as aquaculture provided a market solution for overfished oceans, time arbitrage might ultimately create solutions for overfished governmental revenue.

When is Hierarchical Structure a Good Approach?  Normally, time arbitrage would utilize relatively flat organizational capacity, in order to get things done. However there will always be occasions when hierarchical organization is more efficient and appropriate. Examples include complex procedures which are not often needed locally, and also workplace outcomes which clearly go beyond the contributions of single individuals.

Full Employment, or Future Productivity Gains?

Indeed, why should it have to be one or the other? And why isn't automation more often acknowledged, for the long term employment problems it might ultimately pose? Basically the issue is this: Would it be necessary to give up full employment for society to realize continued progress?

Perhaps the fact many earlier Luddite arguments didn't pose long term problems, explains an inclination to disregard where automation is a factor in regional employment losses. Nevertheless, as Scott Sumner noted in a recent post, protectionist and Mercantilist trade spats between nations aren't a reasonable approach, either. Alas, more logical responses aren't as obvious as one might expect, and there are plenty of moving parts in this scenario. Even though nationalist responses for instance are inappropriate and counterproductive, there's little consensus regarding a constructive framework for long term employment potential.

Any progress in this regard would focus on domestic economic realignment, and continued productivity gains are key to this discussion. Importantly, there are no linear solution sets which include full employment and continued productivity gains in a general equilibrium scenario. That said, the good news is that tradable sector organizational capacity is as appropriate as ever, at all levels of equilibrium dynamics. It's the organizational capacity of non tradable sectors which pose such problems for long term productivity, and employment as well.

If there is a tradable sector problem in all this, it's that we can no longer expect full employment in these areas. What we also can't accomplish is full employment from non tradable sector time based services as they are currently constructed. Without a more dynamic approach to services generation, these dependent (secondary) markets would ultimately create extensive societal burdens. Hence non tradable sector activity could benefit from a non linear approach. These new institutions (new communities) would build defined equilibrium settings which create additional employment and supply side potential, via mutual time reciprocity.

Once new non tradable sector institutions address full employment, how would they contribute to future productivity gains? First, a time arbitrage defined equilibrium does not detract from total factor productivity, since it would function as a primary or direct wealth creation market, instead of as a secondary market which depends on general equilibrium wealth.

Possibly the best news, is that internal sustainability is only part of what time arbitrage could contribute to long term productivity gains. When participating groups align skills and applied knowledge internally, they create new wealth in the process. Even though each individual's economic time options are necessarily rival due to time scarcity, the applied knowledge in each setting is non rival. Consequently, knowledge and skill gradually accumulate in ways which move forward services production benefits to future generations. This, instead of mostly expecting future generations to pay for today's skilled services! Even though these particular aspects of productivity might not manifest as monetary gains, they would nevertheless accumulate as long term output gains for knowledge, skills and services markets access.

Again, tradable sector productivity is still optimal in the sense that in many respects, we mostly need to keep doing what already works. One could say that tradable sector activity as a linear reality, is relevant as ever - not just for general equilibrium dynamics but as potential for every defined equilibrium setting. Yet we need to organize differently for non tradable sector output capacity, by thinking in non linear patterns which simultaneously encourage full employment and long term productivity gains.

Does Cooperation Lead to Greater Inequality?

In a recent Marginal Revolution post, Tyler Cowen appreciates "the virtues of greater cooperation" but adds, "Be careful what you wish for!" In some respects, it appears that more cooperation among participating groups could actually lead to greater levels of inequality. For instance, Cowen noted how high skilled individuals gain more benefits from mutual cooperation, than those who utilize lower skill levels in the workplace. Another oft cited example of late, are growing levels of inequality between different firms. How might one think about this conundrum? Could cooperation turn out to be just another expression for the wealth capture of collusion, or the exclusive nature of tribalism?

Fortunately, mutual coordination is too basic a human survival instinct, to be associated solely with either positive or negative outcomes. Plus, the references in Tyer Cowen's post were somewhat broad, in that his examples were more indicative of correlation than causation.

Nevertheless, when it comes to apparent inequalities, much depends on the extent to which specific resource coordination can disperse beyond directly participating groups. And since our time is naturally scarce, so too is time based product. Indeed, the only way to multiply high skill markets for time based services generation, is to invite more participants to the process. Otherwise, mutual cooperation in supply side chains which are limited by design, will only continue to exacerbate existing inequalities.

Until now, tradable sector dominance has proven far more capable of spreading wealth in societies, than has been the case for non tradable sector time based services. However, with time as a component of economic value alongside money, this problematic sectoral imbalance could ultimately be addressed. Time arbitrage would also be able to address the human capital investment problem by greatly lowering its costs. Presently, high human capital investment costs have become difficult for society to carry, since many time based services are reimbursed via debt and tax based redistribution.

Granted, the coordination potential of time arbitrage can't change the underlying problems of limited non tradable sector revenue. After all, the scarcity of time based product translates into aggregate output limits for these activities as well. What time arbitrage could create, however, is greater accessibility to services marketplaces in terms of production and consumption. One reason this ultimately matters so much for existing inequalities, is that millions now need a high income level just to access basic - yet vital - skilled services. In short, there are organizational means whereby mutual cooperation could create greater equality for all skill levels, once time value gains validity alongside monetary value.

Personal Production as a Human Right

Markets can't really be considered free, if too many of us aren't being recognized as active contributors to supply side processes. How so? Where once our economic efforts were largely connected with physical production, our economic priorities now are more likely to be associated with time based product. In this context, our time is more important at an experiential level for all concerned, than was the case when most product assumed forms separate from ourselves. Clearly, we face a quickly evolving set of economic circumstance which needs a careful response. Today's services dominance suggests we reexamine whether we are actively contributing to positive personal outcomes - not to mention outcomes which are as voluntary as possible.

Nevertheless, there is considerable confusion about the shift to services production. Presently, many assume only certain forms of human capital need apply for participation on economic terms. Some organizations arbitrage skill so as to manage time based services in ways that are poorly aligned with what providers and recipients prefer. Further, many aspects of personal skill which are important for the applied knowledge of modern economies, are off limits to those who don't complete formal educational processes that involve extensive monetary investment.

As tradable sectors continue to reduce their employment needs, time based services will be a logical transition for many in the coming decades. However, important time based services are presently arbitraged between individuals and the impersonal interface of public or private enterprise, rather than voluntary personal negotiation. Alas, this approach has unfortunately contributed to losses of personal autonomy. When people lose the ability to play active roles in production and consumption which involves extensive personal interaction, they may be forfeiting certain aspects of human dignity and respect in the process. Even though such losses may be more subtle than many of the human rights highlighted in recent centuries, they are still quite important in terms of well being and happiness.

Why haven't more individuals taken a stand in terms of personal production rights? For some, the trade offs can be reasoned away, due to a dynamic consumer economy of material abundance. Among the many benefits of a fortuitous tradable sector history, a wide array of luxuries have essentially been transformed into "necessities".

However, look more closely, and one realizes that skilled time based services have not followed a similar path, nor are they are likely to do so in their present organizational form. Yet non tradable sector requirements have conditioned citizens - especially in recent decades - to accept a wide array of time based services as absolute societal necessities. Otherwise, governments may not have been as willing to bear the burdens of redistribution now required to reimburse skilled services. Nor do the burdens fall solely on governments. Services costs are built into business obligations, just as the costs of applied knowledge compel citizens to seek higher paying employment, than the economy is able to create for all concerned.

If we can reclaim our own capacity to produce as a human right, eventually we would be able to bring down some of these costs and burdens. Clearly, the ways in which we all need to be able to produce for ourselves and others, are important not only for well being, but also human survival. Given the relatively recent historical emphasis on human rights in general, especially those of a political nature, perhaps it isn't surprising that societies have yet to deeply consider economic rights. For that matter, production reform potential for applied knowledge, is just part of the production reform societies need, to bring costs of living back in line with future income - hence revenue - realities. In particular, production rights would also extend to our contributions to the physical environments we live in, as well. Fortunately, we can start anew with organizational patterns for production reform which - instead of adding societal burdens - might ultimately relieve them.

Defined Equilibrium and the Generational Debt Burden

Given all the discussion regarding a more sustainable use of earth's resources, one might expect more concern about sustainable long term budgetary strategies as well. Why, then, hasn't this been the case? Part of the problem, is that governments and populations are overly reliant on long term debt for the funding of high skill services generation.

However, this approach leaves too much applied knowledge vulnerable to the limits of asymmetric reciprocity. Too many debt instruments now discourage symmetric resource use for services generation. Alas, debt as services "solution" encourages a societal perception that carefully managed national budgets aren't as important as other aspects of sustainable resource use. Even though monetary representation (in its most immediate and usable form) reflects direct resource reciprocity, a substantial amount of monetary representation supports less direct means of high skill services funding.

And, in part because of the future reciprocity expected of services debt, monetary representation of the latter is less likely to be kept in active circulation in the economy, than the former. When money becomes "sterilized" on such terms, it may actually be designated as a measure of current value, instead of as a current medium of exchange (This process also prevents nominal inflation at a general equilibrium level, but simultaneously deflates investment capacity). Part of the impulse to sterilize money is due to the lack of immediate reciprocity for services generation. Hence some monetary representation (also reflected in divisia) can actually obscure the crucial role of money in wealth creation via immediate resource symmetry. Chances are, it will be a while before differences in monetary divisia roles become more apparent, since monetary representation is still evolving in response to recent services dominance in general equilibrium conditions.

In all of this however, future generations are expected to pay for many high skill knowledge based services being provided in the present. This being the case, is it any wonder that while younger generations are concerned about earth's sustainability, they aren't particularly worried about long term budgetary sustainability? Especially if policy makers aren't attempting to reduce the burdens of future generations in this regard! When every political party starts to run with the money while in power, what would make free college for all any more egregious than other forms of budgetary excess! Since younger generations have been sorely compromised at basic levels of governmental policy, that could explain why they no longer find a middle ground in policy making, all that compelling.

Unfortunately their lack of concern is quite understandable. That said, I still believe in long term approaches for long term debt burdens. Let's face it, Keynes probably didn't emphasize that "In the long run we are all dead" because he didn't care about the long run. Rather, he may have been worried that economists wouldn't continue making strong enough contributions or adjustments as needed, to help ensure economic stability for the long run. Call me old fashioned perhaps, and not sufficiently cynical given present political circumstance, but I still worry that if long term debt burdens are not soon addressed, much of today's economic prosperity will eventually unravel. Regular readers also know I doubt we can still tend to these issues on general equilibrium terms in a complex economy. Which is why I suggest local defined equilibrium settings, to help maintain and preserve long term economic stability.

For the most part, the general equilibrium conditions of many nations have become too complex to respond well to ideas - economic or otherwise - which could readily be applied to a structural whole. Indeed, some even complain that there is a dearth of new ideas! Chances are, what's really lacking are suitable settings where new ideas could readily be tried with minimal repercussions if they don't work out. Governments need to give their citizens permission to conduct local small experiments via new economic platforms, instead of subjecting entire nations to economic experiments which are more likely to end up as social disasters. Plus, governments are increasingly exposed to competing factions which prefer different approaches to economic engagement. Why not try different approaches in small community settings, instead of attempting to impose a one size fits all economic pattern on a diverse citizenry?

While local versions of defined equilibrium would create boundaries for time based services coordination, these new communities would remain open to surrounding economies, especially for tradable sector activity and global ideas re infrastructure potential. Still, these communities would reject forms of non tradable sector rigidity which made debt burdens so intractable in the first place. Hopefully, new economic options for non tradable organizational capacity, might eventually lessen society's dependence on debt formation. Affordable building components and reciprocal symmetry in services generation, could give governments much needed possibilities for the problems of long term budgetary debt.

The "Greener Pastures" of Market Flexibility

With the advent of NIMBYism and protected knowledge sources, we sometimes forget how earlier forms of market flexibility made it easier for individuals to move more freely from place to place. How might we recreate "greener pastures" for new economic opportunities, especially for those with the greatest incentive to put them to good use?

The mid twentieth century U.S. economy was a time of considerable market flexibility, which helps explain some of the nostalgia surrounding this period. Clearly, its tradable sector dominance also contributed to social mobility. What were relatively flexible organizational patterns and divisions of labour in particular, helped local environments adapt to changing economic and social circumstance. Small business production was extensive, and it made feasible a wide range of wealth creation diversity. Even the smallest and most isolated of communities were often able to create their own roles, in what was an open and dynamic domestic economy.

Chances are, today's sticky domestic markets are a bigger problem for social mobility than is generally recognized. While social mobility is more often described as realizing income gains over time, our ability to move about freely as needed without accruing excessive costs or personal risks, is likely just as important. How much social mobility is negatively impacted, by the rigid requirements of non tradable sectors? Especially since these sectors tend to set the rules for economic participation in general. Even though tradable sector factory closings are an obvious hardship, citizens of hard hit regions face additional long term difficulties, when they try to start over in new environs only to find the costs of economic engagement beyond their reach. Unfortunately, non tradable sector rigidity is shutting off too many economic opportunities in domestic markets.

An interesting way to think about these issues, is the nature of risk taking in light of current market barriers. How so? Presently it is not uncommon, to hear that people aren't as willing to invest or take risks as was once the case. Yet this supposed lack of desire to invest further for continued economic progress, links economic stagnation with an assumed unwillingness on everyone's part. But why expect millions who are basically satisfied with their lives, to be the primary risk takers in society?

Plenty of individuals who are willing to assume risks and invest in new possibilities, aren't being noticed. Paradoxically, many who seek greener pastures are derided for doing so. Supposedly they aren't the ones to be pursuing better realities! Perhaps instead of expecting the already successful to do the heavy lifting of innovation and furthering progress, we might ask them instead to have more patience with others who aren't quite as content with present circumstance. We might discover how people who are content with their gains, could become more willing to make room for others who wish to create successes in their lives as well. In many instances, it simply isn't necessary for everyone to struggle with competing platforms and goals in the same physical locations. No one need force extensive market changes on those who understandably resist, when new spaces could be freed instead, for greener pastures of economic opportunity.

Transportation is Both Basic and Discretionary

How do we categorize the importance of transportation in the context of everyday life? More specifically, what do we need to utilize transportation for, in any given moment? By clarifying differences between basic and discretionary transportation options, we could better determine, how the physical layouts and transportation grids of new communities could reflect such roles as well.

As it turns out, commutes for daily routines vary considerably, from the transportation networks we now rely on for longer road trips. Alas, 20th century transportation networks - designed with automobiles in mind - created spatial settings which don't really distinguish between the two! Consequently, the same highway systems that can be so advantageous for discretionary and occasional travel, tend to be commuting headaches wherever people routinely come together to get things done. Some basic rethinking is needed, to retrieve commuting options which take less time than what is now frequently necessary.

What are some differences in transportation needs? One might imagine a spectrum which on one end contains daily non discretionary travel commitments, versus a totally discretionary "vacation of a lifetime" on the other. Points along the middle of our transportation spectrum could be occasional visits to friends and family at a distance, plus similar excursions of limited duration and expense.

Fortunately, the more discretionary aspects of this transportation spectrum are still served reasonably well by state and national highways, here in the U.S. Even so, some disparage today's interstate systems, and reason we would have been better off had they never been built. While I'm convinced many highways are practical and useful, they've still muddled how we once went about getting from point A to point B on a daily basis. Since roads for automobiles went through so many cities and towns instead of around them, the physical proximity people need for many daily interactions has long since been compromised. Yet for now, what's done is done. Many local commutes will remain lengthy in the foreseeable future, and millions will bear responsibility for high transportation costs, since so much private property fronts the thinly spread densities where people expect to get things done.

Ultimately, greater efficiencies in local commutes would involve a rethink for private property coordination, so that closely spaced population densities will once again prove feasible in small towns. What many new communities would want to achieve, is greater accessibility for services workplace densities in particular. It will be interesting, to observe whether some settings might eventually prove similar to walkable communities before the automotive era. How might neighbors shift what were earlier coordination patterns for physical production, towards new combinations for time based services production?

One major challenge is the need for more flexibility in private property ownership, so that optimal densities for current life goals and responsibilities are feasible in a community core.  How so? Consider that in many private property arrangements, getting from point A to point B takes more time due to the need to commute around residents who reside between those points, but aren't part of the coordination factor therein. Indeed, some residents who aren't locally engaged during normal work hours where they live, lose valuable time commuting elsewhere as well! If short commutes to get things done (by all concerned) is understood as an important community goal, flexible ownership patterns toward this end, could prove easier to achieve. Property ownership deserves commute considerations such as these.

Granted, millions of individuals will continue to prefer the spread out densities made possible by automotive transportation, and understandably so. Still, many others could benefit tremendously from walkable communities which don't require automobile ownership. Desirable though it is, automotive transportation should no longer have to be necessary for individuals to maintain their autonomy and personal connections with others. Recall as well, that while public transportation, taxis and new companies such as Uber are viable options to auto ownership in cities, they simply aren't practical in many small places where it can be difficult to make a profit.

Walkable communities would make life more affordable for those with limited sources of income. Plus a simpler infrastructure approach would lessen the burdens of many a municipal budget. Doubtless, plenty of exploration will be needed, before new communities can transition to walkable core settings which restore economic engagement at all levels of society. In time, however, closer densities for living and working could lead to newfound vitality and more sustainable small towns.