When We Can't Always Get What We Want...

Somehow I find it fitting that Mick Jagger of Rolling Stones fame, studied economics before joining the group. Indeed, the song "You Can't Always Get What You Want", is an apt reminder how we seemingly forget to build vital need based markets. Yet if our domestic non tradable sector providers paid more attention to these areas, perhaps people would be less inclined to question the integrity of today's economic and political systems.

Granted, many producers face the temptation of raising the bar on product definitions where possible, so that product and services reflect consumer wants more closely than actual need. After all it can be quite profitable to do so. Unfortunately however, if too many non tradable sector producers choose this route, markets gradually become destabilized. What might be done? Again, cue what Mick Jagger and Keith Richards wrote:

But if you try sometimes you just might find

you get what you need

It's time to get serious about creating more accessible free markets in our non tradable sectors. We are confusing too many experiential wants with what is essentially necessary in order for citizens to thrive. For one thing, taxpayers face additional burdens, due to negative externalities caused by low income workers who lack sufficient income for even limited sets of non tradable sector costs. One indicator we have procrastinated too long in this regard, is that middle class citizens are beginning to seek "living" wages for non discretionary needs as well. Domestic protectionism might be out of control for instance, when a general lack of basic markets encourages politicians to mandate wage floors. And higher mandated wages only make it more difficult for employers to realize profits. We need to focus on production reform in markets where it matters most, to stop this destructive cycle.

Alas, even with fewer profits and businesses in operation, we can't always get what we want when it comes to "livable" wages for all employees. Yet today's workplace offerings are thought of as "meaningful" mostly when when abundant wages are part of the package. Perhaps it's not surprising that the most negative responses to my work thus far, have been due to my advocacy for good deflation in time based services income.

However, good deflation in time based services might be the only way to increase the use of workplace knowledge in more meaningful and accessible ways. Let's just admit it: Great wages are one of those societal wants which is impossible to fulfill for all citizens, via either fiscal means or private sector mandates. The sooner we face this reality, the sooner we can move towards a future of restored hope, as millions gain the right to inclusion in more productive organizational settings. For one thing, good deflation in time based services would do much more than simply address consumer "affordability". Good deflation in income and building requirements, would give us the legal and social grounds to share the work which people find most meaningful in life. 

One reason citizens expect so much from fiscal policy, is that governments are expected to be responsible for meeting many societal needs. The problem in this regard, is how governments and private interests raised regulatory and price bars on basic needs too many times. Each time these bars were raised, governments incrementally gave up their ability to influence or fiscally support citizens and economies, one unfortunate rule and regulation at a time. Now, many basic needs go unmet, as regulatory rules mostly accrue to the societal benefits (wants) of higher income levels. Among the sacrifices in this regard are the one time effectiveness of fiscal policy. Where once it held a valid role in addressing societal needs, now it is closely bound with specific political aims. 

Consider why this matters for inequality and applied knowledge preservation, as well. Fiscal policy now only holds a minor role in smoothing income differences. But more importantly, it is losing its ability to fulfill the role of spreading and supporting knowledge for the use of all citizens. To a large extent, these roles are diminished by the fact redistribution mostly augments the wants of specific high income groups. 

Which is also why I find it difficult to understand, the high hopes attached to fiscal policy "remedies" such as MMT. Even if political support for Modern Monetary Theory should turn into a policy option constant, what might its adherents hope to accomplish in any concrete sense? And that's not even considering the disparaging attacks MMT advocates tend to make on monetarist views. To me at least, Modern Monetary Theory advocates appear mostly concerned with middle class wants, rather than any need based structural issues faced by lower income levels. Granted, there is some good which can still be achieved via fiscal policy. However, we should let go of believing fiscal policy can actually address existing inequalities, let alone the productive use and preservation of knowledge in society. 

 

Hopefully, my readers won't get the impression I view wants as a societal negative. I absolutely believe that wants can be positive as well. However, let's be careful to ensure basic needs are actually met, first. What's more, do so without changing the goalposts so as to obscure basic needs once again. For instance, don't insist that smartphones or credit use are absolute necessities. I don't need either in order to thrive, plus opting for these things would reduce my spending capacity in other crucial respects. Indeed, once basic needs are met, and one finally gets to breathe easier, the occasional wants of a tradable sector (retail) splurge need not break the bank at all.

When societies forget what it actually takes for lower income levels to survive, they also lose track of the extent to which progress actually takes place for societies as a whole. At the very least, tradable sectors have given us excellent examples for full needs based markets, especially when luxury adaptations come from basic commodification structures. Whereas non tradable sector activity, due to the existing scarcities of time and space, tends to leapfrog need based offerings for what may appear as societal progress, but in certain respects is instead luxury mandates for low income levels which can ill afford such requirements. 

Profit is integral to businesses and sustainable economies in general, but profits should not be sought by needlessly obscuring the differences between want and need. Too much of society is presently paying the price for this approach. For one thing, it is a simpler matter to determine basic survival needs than some imagine. Once we become willing to highlight the real differences, innovations for our physical environments in particular, could proceed from this understanding.

Until we realize good deflation in time based services and building requirements, these areas of our lives will remain structurally fragile. As things currently stand, the domestic markets of our non tradable sectors demand too much in terms of debt levels and redistribution, for governments and citizens to successfully shoulder these burdens in the near future. Let's commit to innovation in need based markets. Even though societies can't fulfill every thing their hearts desire, we could still do a much better job of market creation which addresses actual needs.