Here are some reflections on posts from 2020. This has been a year which - for many readers - is thankfully almost behind us! I wish everyone the best for 2021.
Even though artificial intelligence can improve aggregate output in non tradable sectors, tradable sector activity includes AI exponential effects as direct wealth sources. This particularly matters since we've long relied on the monetary redistribution of exponential output, to create jobs as societal permission. Since production efficiencies are translating into relatively less tradable sector work (and its associated exponential output revenue), we need a more direct wealth creation approach for time based product, to ensure that non tradable sector services retain societal permissions as well. After all, some of our most meaningful and challenging work lies in these areas. Artificial intelligence could also be utilized (via societal permission) to augment symmetric time value for all individuals in services generation.
Once the pandemic finally recedes, will we still be grappling with economic stagnation? For instance, some argue that a decades long slowdown actually indicates economic success. Even if such assertions are valid, problems remain - especially in terms of inequality. After all, millions continue to hope for a stronger growth trajectory which increases their own chances of active participation in the economy. In the meantime, too many non tradable sector market options are not responsive, to the reality of lower income levels. Since production reform is still needed in non tradable sectors, it could be counterproductive to rely on the idea of a fully grown economy as capable of supporting economic stability.
Millions were already trying to find ways to live more affordably, before the additional burdens of pandemic circumstance. Since non tradable sector options for lower income levels were already limited to begin with, governments face additional struggles in assisting citizens who need help the most. If real innovation had been made possible for low cost housing, financial burdens would not be so severe, now. Chances are, more societal upsets such as pandemic could occur again, sooner rather than later. Before that happens, let's ensure that more low cost living options become available.
Ask members of small rural communities about their most pressing circumstance, for what is often a two part response: Securing reliable housing and maintaining a full range of local services. Likewise, these are also important issues for left behind urban communities. In short, many areas in the U.S. would benefit from a more innovative approach to building/infrastructure manufacture and time based services. Local citizens need to be directly involved with these processes as well. The recent pandemic especially highlights a need for local healthcare coordination which reduces dependence on scarce hospital beds during public emergencies. Mutual assistance in educational efforts could go a long way towards alleviating this problem.
Fiat monetary policy has been largely responsible for the transition to a knowledge based economy, in recent decades. However, even though many nations got off to a good start with this approach, a stronger real economy methodology is needed to support monetary policy. In part due to extensive price making in time based services, the present services dominant general equilibrium lacks inclusive levels of economic participation, ownership and growth potential. More opportunities for economic integration and knowledge use are needed, for millions of citizens who still seek means for productive engagement with others.
When we think of budgetary needs for infrastructure, how do we frame system wide efficiencies? One reason this is an important issue, is that today's infrastructure does not fully meet the needs of many individuals and communities. Some systems trade offs are sub optimal since their designs don't reflect the resource capacity of lower income levels. How might a wide range of infrastructure more closely respond to what people can actually contribute? Just the process of answering this question, could go a long way to reduce a wide range of negative externalities, which societies all too often think they "must" live with.
Experiential time value between individuals is subjective. Even so, economic time needs to be understand in terms which are sufficiently concrete to measure in relation to shifts in long term productivity. Without such a perspective, there is a societal tendency to either accentuate or downplay activities with important economic ramifications. And presently, many time based services are considered intangible, in that much of their organizational structure is contrary to the resource reciprocity of tradable sector production. Due to their intangible nature, both practical and so called "impractical" forms of time based activity are being called into question. Ultimately, economic time value needs to be more reciprocal and immediate in nature, so as to better contribute to future productivity gains.
If more markets could readily serve all income levels, citizens would not need to constantly call on their governments to come to the rescue. We have lacked the economic freedom to create markets which could tend to basic needs for lower income levels. Such markets, if they existed, would not need to be constantly questioned in terms of efficacy and worth. However, should societies elect to create forms of basic income in the near future, why not support non tradable sector production reform, so that basic income recipients might build respectful lives for themselves.
Before the pandemic, there were already pressing structural issues which had long been neglected. For instance, political polarization has been in part due to artificial scarcities. Yet despite the artificial scarcities of professionalized time, the time we have to fulfill our societal obligations is truly scarce. How might we do a better job of improving economic time value for all citizens? Should we elect to do so, the time we all have to get things done, would go much further than is the case today. And once we become more confident in the ability of our time to accomplish what is necessary, perhaps more of us will also become more inclined to live and let live.
When it comes to services and the need for greater productivity, there's a paradox. How to create greater efficiency in services (for continued prosperity), when we wish for more personal attention (time) from others than they can provide? Wouldn't productivity gains translate into even less time availability? Alas, so long as services are funded by other sources of wealth, yes. However, we do have ways to work around this long term problem. By matching our economic time directly with others, we could create direct forms of wealth via symmetrical alignment. Local transformations in educational patterns, could go a long way to make this process possible.
No comments:
Post a Comment