If my blog lacks normalcy when it comes to economic issues, in all fairness, I'm not sure what "normal" even is. But what, exactly, makes it different? Over the past month I've reflected on that question, and have since come up with some explanations. Perhaps it would be a good idea also, to put a lightly edited version of this post on the blog sidebar.
1) In the blog's early years, I gradually developed a real economy or supply side approach to economic issues. Doing so seemed important, for while market deficiencies aren't readily amended by demand based policy options, there's too little direct focus on market deficiencies which so often result in inappropriate demand based policy. If societies were more open to innovative supply side strategies which could improve market access and participation, there would ultimately be less budgetary gridlock, and fewer inappropriate fiscal policies. Such innovation is especially needed now, since fiscal options in general are much more limited than they were, even a half century ago.
2) There are positives in supply side intentionality which are often missed. When market platforms do not accurately reflect production and consumption potential for a wide range of income levels, governments tend to step into the fray. However, this can lead to additional losses in personal and social freedoms, especially when governments quickly intervene where markets are not responsive or proactive. On the other hand, when usable platforms are designed which create opportunities for all income levels, these options are generally more benign and beneficial than governmental policy responses.
3) One thing about me which is relatively normal: A rural middle class perspective which gradually transitioned to a lower middle class reality in later years. Nevertheless, my lower middle class outlook doesn't always make sense online, where societal issues are generally debated by individuals in higher income brackets. Despite the fact a good portion of my working years were in urban environments, by my fifties, I lacked the level of income necessary to remain urban in many U.S. locales.
Plus, the social media of intellectual dialogue is dominated by college graduates. My perspective can be off putting to someone who doesn't imagine economic integration in a knowledge based economy, as feasible for people with limited incomes or formal education. So not only am I out of step with neighbors such as those who recently put up obscene flags spelling out F*&# Biden, but also successful city people who dismiss me as another dimwit ne'er do well. For these reasons and of course others (including safety precautions), I'm careful about advertising my beliefs and ideas where people happen to see me in public. It's just better not to antagonize others, especially since I seldom know who is actively offended by my actions and ideas. In other words, as a blogger, these considerations help explain why I don't really have a public persona.
4) I generally seek out elements from classical economic thought, not only because they are more readily available, but because they provide a good foundation for additional theoretical framing. In similar spirit, I defend the validity of GDP measure and market monetarist (monetary) thought, as both help in understanding potential gains in productivity and long term growth. Many institutions continue to serve valid and utilitarian purposes. However, our non tradable sectors need extensive organizational augmentation in both skills use potential and ownership strategies. Fortunately, many aspects of tradable sector activity remain as useful as ever. In particular - given the nature of tradable sector wealth origins and remaining capacity to support non tradable sector prosperity - it can be counterproductive to claim capitalism has failed.
5) Since many recognize time as our most important resource, it's surprising there have not been more calls to make time a valid economic unit in its own right. Doing so would provide much needed context for economic time use in experiential, practical, and other workplace settings. With time as a valid economic unit, societies could help solve the problem of limited capacity to reward highly valued skills via terms of full monetary compensation. Even though our time commitments and availability will always be scarce, we should not be burdened, by the artificial scarcities which are presently putting modern knowledge based economies in jeopardy.
6) Many now envision innovation and progress as something to further expand horizons for the already successful. However, this is a very shortsighted approach. Only consider for instance how the most meaningful progress over the millennia, has benefited citizens from all walks of life.
While there are various interpretations of progress, I believe the one which matters most, takes into account the time constraints people face in meeting the most basic elements of their lives. Said another way, when innovation reduces time requirements for one's most basic needs, production gains in the form of progress have been realized. The problem in this regard is that extensive price making in non tradable sectors has substantially reduced the time many people have to enjoy their lives. Too many non tradable sector institutions have saddled citizens with financial burdens beyond what is necessary, thereby reducing already scarce time for other life options and challenges. No measure of productivity is really complete if it doesn't take aggregate time obligations into account for meeting non discretionary consumption. A productivity measure is needed which can strip away hedonism and signalling, to determine a base of actual necessity - one not further expanded by extensive regulations. With such a base, we would once again be able to determine both progressions and regressions in total factor productivity.
7) One underlying theme in my work has been a constant source of motivation, perhaps in part because it has received so little attention elsewhere. Even though I've found a few references to sectoral effects over the years, I am astonished more work hasn't been done in this area. After all, shifts between tradable and non tradable sectors affect people's lives in many ways. These structural shifts greatly impact economic outcomes, particularly in terms of aggregate demand and supply.
Unfortunately, a general lack of understanding and consideration about sectoral effects, now poses more problems than in previous decades. For instance, price making in non tradable sectors has led to quickly expanding national budgets, with consequential equilibrium imbalance which impacts a wide range of governmental goals and political alignments. Modern day economies are extremely reliant on knowledge, and they need a more direct and reciprocal approach for time based services generation. Otherwise, many nations will eventually struggle with excessive dependence on monetary redistribution for applied knowledge.
8) My first explorations online began in 2009, and I quickly realized my inclinations toward libertarianism would be different from the norm. For instance, I preferred a utilitarian approach, but it was clear neither governments or free market advocates were focusing on means to promote the greatest good for the greatest number. However I eventually realized doing so was not a straightforward process, since achieving the greatest good for the greatest number is mostly feasible through local and decentralized means. This is one reason it is so important to understand monetary flows between tradable and non tradable sector activity, so that internal reciprocity reduces the budgetary constraints which lead to fragile politics.
Libertarianism has found limited success in part due to its lack of emphasis on free markets which benefit all income levels. I hope more future libertarians will advocate for free markets which improve the lives of all citizens, instead of mostly catering to the interests of the best and brightest.
9) Nevertheless, my concerns for those who have been left behind, tend to take different forms from those of the political left. A lifetime of personal experience and observation has convinced me that markets could be devised which offer better production and consumption options for citizens, than governments have been able to provide. In particular, governments face more constraints when it comes to local economic circumstance, especially given their desire to appease those who hold excessive power.
And while my concerns about class issues might seem old fashioned at first glance, today's class issues are a world apart from those in an era of industrial dominance. What depresses me most is identity politics and its associated cultural battles. Since many on the right now eagerly engage in cultural struggles as well, a much needed focus on structural realignment, has been all but forgotten. If this weren't enough, some on the right dismiss my reasoning because I believe everyone deserves meaningful roles in knowledge based economies. Restructuring toward this end should be our focus - not contributing to more social fallout by fighting over who should be deemed "worthy" of the limited slots in today's most prominent workplaces.
10) Some have emphasized the nature of a circular economy in recent centuries. Why not take a closer look at this reality, to understand how we might better manage originating or primary wealth flows. When we recognize the majority of time based services as essentially secondary markets in this framework, we come to understand how fragile these secondary markets actually are. Even though their importance is paramount, they lack the solid foundation for the economic dynamism we now need, to expand the horizons of knowledge. Fortunately, if we are willing to try, we could eventually align time value to create a stronger foundation for originating wealth - one which expands the potential of both useful and desirable services generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment