Are Charter Cities a Possibility for Migrants?

What if nations sought to create new cities instead of camps for the ever growing numbers of migrant refugees? A recent article for Brookings suggests this policy option, and the authors explain:

Charter cities are new urban developments that have been granted special jurisdiction to create their own governance systems. Clearly defined legal frameworks, good governance, efficient distribution of public goods, and modern infrastructure could support well-functioning markets and attract investments to generate higher rates of economic growth in charter cities. Based on these principles, we propose to establish sustainable charter cities-in-exile (SCCEs) as a policy framework for host countries and international development organizations to promote refugees' self-reliance and facilitate their integration. The proposal supplements existing migration policies, especially in areas of identified procedural and logistical bottlenecks, and supports refugees in their freedom of choice of migration destinations.

In some ways I find this proposal impractical, given the difficulties involved. One can only imagine the political battles that would ensue in the U.S. were policy makers to suggest something similar. Yet some nations may prove more willing to address these issues, which accounts for a response from The Global Eye.

It is clear that we all want legal and regulated immigration but the issue is highly complex and is characterized by growing complexity.

Still, their response to the Brookings article considers the possibilities:

It seems to us a viable prospect for a phenomenon that, politically, has been reduced to an invasion and a threat. Without changing perspective, politics will continue to deny the structural nature of the phenomenon and only aggravates its consequences.

My biggest concern in all this, is the extent to which economic complexity is starting to limit what traditional institutions can successfully coordinate for services and infrastructure, especially in areas which lack wealth sources. Granted, a century earlier, even individual private companies (as one example) could still manage the services and infrastructure involved for company towns, but larger versions today would be no easy feat. Alas, only consider the difficulties private companies in the U.S. encounter today, if they attempt to provide affordable healthcare for their employees.

Indeed, the serendipitous interaction between primary and secondary markets in the most prosperous regions, largely accounts for the economic dynamism of our present. However many knowledge providers are reluctant to settle in regions which come up short in this regard. Considered in this light, what these charter cities need to generate could be difficult. More specifically, "sustainable cities-in-exile" (SCCE's) would 

seek to provide refugees with a place of safety, an immediately available assistance network, and an accelerated path towards professional and income opportunities. A guarantor country or group of countries would enforce the SCCE's charter while guaranteeing the safety of private sector investments and firms, including those from the country of origin with temporary headquarters-in-exile. A proper institutional architecture guaranteed and monitored by national governments and international guarantors, with direct involvement of the refugees and local communities, would help to reduce the risks of crime, human rights abuses, and sexual exploitation.

While these are worthy goals, who would fund the traditional institutions required to make it all happen? It's this same lack of funding for vital traditional institutions here, which leaves many citizens without basic amenities in rural and underdeveloped areas. For that matter, a recent Washington Post article highlights how American territories are losing population in similar ways. 

At stake in all this, are distributional scarcities and limitations in some of our most important institutions, particularly those representative of secondary markets for applied knowledge. I believe that in order for new cities to happen, people will need stronger connections with direct forms of wealth creation and applied knowledge systems. Otherwise, many newcomers would remain dependent on the assistance of institutions already unable to meet the needs of local citizens. Chances are, the problems of immigration won't be so severe, once applied knowledge institutions evolve to allow skills participation for all individuals. After all, many nations would be more open to immigration, if their own citizens could participate in applied knowledge networks as well. 

Incentives Matter for Continuous Procedural Maintenance

As economies gradually become more complex, basic structural maintenance grows more complicated also. Yet the maintenance of our lives, physical environments and knowledge structures is perceived as economic burden, and societies now lack sustainable market structure in crucial areas. During cycles of primary market dominance, societies come to rely on continuous procedural maintenance through monetary and non monetary means. Now however, some of what we've relied on for full maintenance capacity, has been lost. This is particularly true for the use of knowledge in society. 

Just the same, maintenance needs don't go away, and we need new thought processes which can recreate reliable continuance. Doing so means the transformation of our dependent (or secondary) markets, as these areas especially lack incentive to maintain societal stability through monetary compensation alone. In all this, governments are increasingly pressured to minimize fiscal burdens in the use of applied knowledge and skill. We have already seen how procedural maintenance is perceived as taxpayer burden, as political groups now seek to undo the institutions of knowledge and action with nothing sustainable to take their place.

Private enterprise also lacks incentive to make full use of applied knowledge, especially if doing so is perceived as a problem for profit maximization. This isn't good news for societies in the years ahead, since more effective use of knowledge is needed to overcome numerous obstacles to continued progress. These are just some of the reasons I've advocated for time arbitrage commitment as an economic unit of value, to supplement crucial maintenance where monetary compensation so often falls short.

Nevertheless, some reluctance on the part of governments and private enterprise, is understandable. After all, various interest groups have been notorious for creating maintenance "requirements" which are basically about profit making opportunities, instead of true systemic support. Despite the fact faux maintenance isn't often immediately obvious, it occurs routinely in the knowledge based demands of healthcare, education, finance and legal professions. As these additional costs accrue across the spectrum, it only gets more difficult for people, governments and businesses alike to preserve their efforts in society. 

Unproductive forms of economic complexity increasingly dominate our redistribution flows. If this weren't enough, the recent cultural battles leave more productive forms of economic complexity on shaky ground. Clearly, too many economic incentives haven't been well aligned for basic maintenance needs. Indeed, a major part of what makes it difficult to maintain productive economic complexity over long periods, is that societies tend to downplay the very activities which conserve valuable patterns of production. How might this be changed?

Ownership and Output in Excess Nominal Claims

Excess nominal income claims are too common in local service markets which are not discretionary. Governments and special interests alike tend to limit these options, thereby reducing effective management for both our personal obligations and physical environments. If this unfortunate circumstance weren't enough, excess claims in these areas are starting to impact monetary policy as well.

Our potential for ownership and personal responsibility are sorely compromised, when too many markets for basic life needs are narrowly defined. The markets most affected are those involving human capital, skill potential and housing. Alas, these are now mostly intended for the use of higher income groups. What's left for ownership potential, includes traditional housing (with its legal benefits of family inheritance), financial markets for the traditional capital of wealth building, and the formal institutions which now link human capital to status and monetary gain. All of these are associated with equilibrium imbalance and excess nominal claims. 

How might one think about this? What's most affected includes the framing of artificial scarcity. Recently a gap has opened between aggregate nominal income and the output of GDP. Might this gap have been induced by purposeful reduced output (artificial scarcity), while maintaining similar levels of income expectations? And how does artificial scarcity contrast with natural scarcity for such correlations? After all, when income is derived from production via natural scarcities, existing output is more likely close to what is feasible and consistent with equilibrium or GDP potential. Perhaps due in part to the contributions of production via natural scarcities, nominal income has closely mirrored aggregate output for quite some time.

I'd like to think that production reform for non traditional housing and applied human capital, could help diminish the unexpected gap between aggregate income and GDP output. Non traditional housing options and horizontal alignment for services coordination, could lead to good deflation. Eventually such reform could lead to better equilibrium balance with other sources of wealth.

Indeed we've been fortunate that equilibrium imbalance can take centuries to become a macroeconomic problem. It's interesting how Adam Smith worried about equilibrium imbalance in his framing of"productive" and "unproductive" workers (Wealth of Nations), before the closely related Baumol effect became a legitimate concern. Perhaps the fact this process took so long to evolve, is what makes it difficult to relate to in the present.

Just the same, much is at stake. We need to recognize and respond to the burdens imposed by the expectations of our domestic services markets. Should we instead elect not to change anything, even the best NGDP monetary policy scenario would eventually lead to less applied knowledge for societies in the decades to come. Excess nominal claims with no other market options, would mean a gradual loss of our capacity to fulfill the challenges of a modern economy. It's time to consider building a future on more viable and sustainable terms.

Wants are Sometimes a More Relevant Form of Demand

When it comes to market design for low income consumption potential, perceived needs are often a logical starting point. Certainly I've emphasized needs focused design for lower income groups over the years. But what about circumstance when consumer wants are the more relevant factor? 

It's a consideration which matters when resources are not only scarce but also include experiential characteristics. Economic time commitments are a great example. Not every individual is going to seek out the kinds of knowledge and skills from people that others might happen to deem most practical. 

However, the importance of consumer choice especially holds true for energy resource options. In particular, both consumer needs and wants will determine aggregate energy demand (not to mention supply) in coming decades. Consequently, both should be factored into market and community design, so that resource scarcities can be fully accounted for. Even though we are beginning the shift from fossil fuels to electrically generated transportation, the processes involved won't always go smoothly. No one really knows yet who will remain able to travel as frequently via electric vehicles, as was possible with gas powered vehicles. What's more, energy use patterns and their fluctuations will remain important for central bankers when it comes to inflation management and economic stability. How might potential energy consumption for low income groups contribute to greater economic stability via supply side innovation? 

Community design in the near future could address such concerns. In all of this, our routine transportation offers a straightforward example. The natural consumer preference for vehicular transportation as a special activity, could contribute to positive energy use outcomes. Most everyone, regardless of income level, prefers driving for fun (such as vacations and weekend trips) over the hassles of driving to and from work. Even though it's presently difficult to translate this reality into walkable communities for higher income levels, there's been a dearth of low income community design in recent decades. Hence the good news: these missing design elements make it easier to create new communities from scratch for lower income groups. In the process, we would be able to reduce needs based (work related) automotive transportation in favour of walkable communities. Yet low income groups could strive for energy based transportation options specifically designed for the wants of experiential travel.

At an aggregate level, community design for energy wants with reduced energy needs, leaves more room for all citizens to benefit from transportation, despite impending energy scarcities. Creating walkable communities could make it feasible to better manage overall energy demand. Walkable communities can also make it easier for low income groups to maintain more efficient control over their (already) scarce time. We are fortunate indeed that it is easy to discern what holds greater personal value, in terms of energy resources for transportation. Let's follow through on that knowing, to ensure more meaningful energy consumption for all concerned in the decades to come.

The Importance of Economic Sustainability

April 22nd was the anniversary of Earth Day (beginning in 1970) which emphasizes environmental restoration and sustainability. However, this global acknowledgement reminds me that some aspects of sustainability get emphasized over others which are seldom noted. In particular - despite ongoing efforts to achieve financial and monetary stability as well - why has economic sustainability not received more attention?

After all, citizens need to be able to manage their own lives effectively, before they turn their attention to the physical care of their environments - at least insofar as sustainability is generally presented in the media. If sustainability dialogue focuses on anti growth or perhaps anti capitalism, then why do so many proposed environmental "solutions" end up costing more money than the poor can afford? Plus: paradoxically, the poor actually contribute to earth's resource preservation in many instances, since they have little choice but to limit their own consumption. 

Perhaps economic sustainability has not been considered, since instead of government dictates, it involves market centered options which lead to fewer financial burdens for low income levels. Unfortunately, when domestic providers prefer to keep consumption costs high, this results in an upward price spiral, as citizens respond by demanding ever rising wages to meet non discretionary costs. If this weren't enough, groups which lack the political power to demand "living" wages, also lack the ability to garner respect from society for the work they do. 

Let's reduce the spiral of ever rising wage demands, by bringing non tradable sector markets - especially time based services and basic housing components - within reach of all citizens. Once production reform becomes a reality, we will all benefit from the process. The road to greater stability in economic systems, is one which creates a more open version of market potential than is currently taking place.

Fortunately, there are many ways to make domestic innovation and production reform feasible. Should municipalities prove hesitant to make room for walkable options, why not create new communities which integrate walkable elements in the core of their design. When cities and towns won't address zoning and regulations which limit housing, create new communities that are willing to build flexible forms of housing and work spaces. And most of all, build new communities which actively engage in a full range of time based services generation. Make sure all residents are included in local calendars for work, play, and more, during the course of every year. 

All these elements might add up to a sustainable future, one where high income levels are no longer necessary to live a good and meaningful life. Once we create viable market options which don't require excess use of earth's resources in the first place, sustainability might finally be envisioned in broader terms.

The Decentralization Which Matters Most

How might decentralized options contribute to long term growth and economic sustainability? Granted, there are certain periods when centralized power structures hold certain advantages in this regard. But once governmental budgets start to extend well beyond revenue sources, centralized power gradually wanes in the long run. Indeed, we may have already entered a period when centralized power holdings actually detract from our economic potential. 

If so, what can be done? The structural framing of decentralization potential has yet to be fully explored. Meanwhile, current dialogue re decentralized options tends to be in reference to specific circumstance and factors, rather than multi system alignments. Yet the latter holds substantial possibilities for future dynamism, not to mention more sustainable economic outcomes. 

One way to think about such alignments, is how general or national equilibrium also translates into the resource potential of knowledge production. While the cumulative effects of this circulatory (primary to secondary market) environment are complex and vast, they still contain basic elements which could respond to systems design. Ultimately, local microcosms of defined equilibrium would feature complex services generation alongside local tradable sector activity. 

Presently, mature economies continue to benefit from highly complex financial systems for many important knowledge production activities. However, the extent to which these systems can further develop along similar lines, is increasingly in doubt. As it turns out, extensive price making in high skill time based product, limits entry into these vital markets not just in terms of production, but also consumption. While price making is certainly an understandable impulse, when most participants elect this route, others are left unable to coordinate more closely for the resource capacity which is actually at their disposal. And in this instance, the relevant resource is of course our aggregate time use potential.

Fortunately, defined local equilibrium could pick up where the possibilities of national general equilibrium for knowledge production, tend to leave off. Time as a valid economic unit, would lessen the need for full monetary reimbursement of a wide range of activities which people find particularly worthy of their own efforts. One reason it is so important to develop local environments which nurture knowledge production, is that extensive price making in high skill time value, has also led to political unrest and polarization. Not only would new institutions for knowledge production make it feasible for citizens of limited means to reengage with others, the rural urban divide could also be meaningfully addressed as well. 

Economic Considerations are Vital for Sustainability

Even though the sustainability of our planet is often debated - and rightly so - economic sustainability deserves a more central role in these dialogues than it has received thus far. Broader and even holistic considerations need to be taken into account, when it comes to general equilibrium stability and long term economic prospects. One significant problem in this regard, is how many of today's institutions no longer function well for lower income levels. When societies neglect the structural circumstance which affect these groups - such as recently noted by Nicholas Eberstadt for AEI - economic conditions will eventually suffer the consequence.  

In the U.S., neither Democrats or Republicans have thought seriously about vital aspects of economic sustainability. Not only have long term budgetary possibilities been sacrificed to entitlement requirements, but short term policy actions fail to take broader market dynamics into consideration. For instance, what good can be expected of fiscal austerity measures that primarily result in arbitrary limits on knowledge based social interactions? 

Alas, there will soon be many inevitable fiscal limitations, whether anyone desires such budgetary restrictions or not. Given this reality, the least we can do is ensure they don't stand in the way of sustainable economic outcomes, by building more inclusive market conditions to benefit all income levels. And - in the meantime - we could encourage policy makers to loosen the regulatory restrictions of our domestic non tradable sectors. 

It's a shame we have experienced various forms of fiscal austerity which were poorly thought through and scarcely benefited anyone. In a knowledge based economy, if fiscal limitations are due to government spending on less worthy causes, the outcomes aren't necessarily as benign as the budgetary restraints of earlier times during tradable sector dominance. Only recall that preference for monetary stimulus during tradable sector dominance was also closely associated with economic stability and positive outcomes. Nevertheless, it is ironic that today, when discussions regarding budgetary restraint still arise, it's usually when one political party wishes to impose fiscal austerity on the party currently in power. 

Any discussion about long term debt and budgetary obligations is incomplete, if it fails to consider market dynamics as a whole. When policy makers lack this broader perspective, they may attempt to either avoid or impose fiscal austerity, without understanding the potential ramifications of their intentions. Further: While fiscal policy losses aren't necessarily problematic for governments during long stretches of tradable sector dominance, there are altogether different factors to consider, once a substantial portion of GDP is derived through fiscal redistribution for applied knowledge. Since this has in fact occurred, knowledge based non tradable sectors can be less responsive to monetary stimulus (in lieu of fiscal stimulus) than one might expect. What's more, much governmental redistribution - at least in the U.S. - is intended for higher income levels. Hence while economic growth is of course needed to continue responsible stewardship for planet Earth, more is involved. It's time to ensure that aggregate growth potential includes output and production gains for all income levels, not just those at the top. 

Ultimately, the greatest potential for economic sustainability occurs when new market possibilities are extended to all income levels and groups. Achieving this, means creating new market use patterns which go well beyond the limits some firms and organizations might otherwise impose on others.  Granted, profits will always be a necessary component of economic sustainability, both for profit based firms and non profit organizations. Just the same, the greatest profits are possible, when the greatest number of participants can actively pursue their own dreams and aspirations as well.

Time as Journey, Money as Destination

Why is economic time an important consideration, especially in terms of GDP measure? Recall that today's GDP is all about what transpires in the current year of our economic journeys. After all, few aspects of life capture this process more effectively than the time commitments we assume, in part to meet our financial obligations. For anyone who doubts the significance of time based participation as wealth creation, the close correlation of nominal income with aggregate spending is an apt example. 

Nevertheless, some of the more obvious forms of wealth end up as destinations such as buildings and other physical assets. Real estate in particular tends to be passive holdings that aren't closely associated with economic dynamism, once they are constructed. Despite their reliable qualities in terms of asset values, passive holdings are mostly indirect contributors to current economic circumstance, and their value fluctuates accordingly. 

Since money naturally flows toward real estate holdings, this passive tendency helps explain why monetary representation isn't completely straightforward in the measure of GDP. Meanwhile, much of our aggregate time value lacks monetary equivalence. Despite the importance of time participation in the measure of GDP, aggregate time value is so unevenly represented, that consumer inflation does not readily correlate with asset inflation in general equilibrium. 

If we are to achieve greater economic stability in the near future, more emphasis will be needed on the journey itself, and not just the destination. By no means is the measure of GDP unimportant in all this, for it is closely connected to how we go about our economic lives. Should economic time become a valid measure alongside money, not only would this increase the overall value of GDP measure, it could create additional market depth for the time value of all citizens. 

Our focus on economic journeys is especially needed for the long term preservation of applied knowledge. By far the most important aspect of economic time, is its ability to function as a vessel which carries experienced knowledge from person to person. Time is the vessel which gives societies the ability to carry forward applied knowledge in recognizable patterns. Even though money preserves activities for applied knowledge to some extent, money will always be better suited for ends than means. Alas, when money is the sole representative unit of economic value, so much of it eventually flows into passive economic destinations, that not enough remains for the actual journeys of our lives. 

Fortunately, time arbitrage patterns could supplement money by ensuring that more economic activity remains in active roles, instead of excessively flowing to passive destinations. Time arbitrage as a valid unit of economic measure, could help ensure that important knowledge flows can be maintained even in historical moments of budgetary and financial limitations. Hopefully, we will be able to create new means to sustain full levels of economic participation in the near future. Time as an economic unit of value alongside money, could bring better balance to the activities of our journeys and their eventual destinations.

Notes on Trade Offs in Systems Design

Even though governmental gridlock is often frustrating, in some respects it can be more practical than the alternative. Among other things, gridlock acknowledges extensive competing demands on government budgets. And due in part to changes in lifestyle and individual priorities, some budgetary commitments no longer contribute to economic dynamism as ably as before, such as traditional physical infrastructure. Unfortunately, an undue focus on traditional infrastructure tends to detract from systems design options which more accurately mirror a fundamentally changed economy.

Systems maintenance trade offs are important as well. When we can't decipher how our time commitments translate into societal obligations, it only gets more difficult from there, to apportion remaining time for our own needs. We've gradually tossed much of our redistribution potential, via taxation, into a vast chasm of societal responsibilities. Could some of these processes take place on more productive terms? Even highly skilled knowledge is in certain respects a mundane maintenance function, yet we have few settings where it can be readily applied as such. In the future, as budgets become more constrained, what monetary values might public goods and services continue to hold? We need to create new market options while we can still think clearly about what will be involved. In other words, well before budgetary shortfalls make it necessary to do so on more stringent terms.

Each of us has a limited amount of money, time and resource capacity, for what societies wish to implement and hopefully, maintain. Alas, it is becoming less practical over time, to further add to environment maintenance costs (whether local, state or national) without clear specification of the trade offs, not to mention which income groups are actually expected to be responsible for costs. Much of what currently transpires is no longer realistic for societal coordination, given the wide variance in today's income levels. All the more so, when money mostly serves as a stand in for personal time or resource commitments.

Despite the importance of systems design on multiple levels, the broader trade offs that impact societal well being are not being accurately debated. Future systems design will have a greater chance of success, if and when it takes our broad income diversity into full account. Whenever income levels prove insufficient for systems maintenance, we can build respectable and desirable alternatives in the form of new environments, for those who lack the full monetary rewards of meritocracy. I would be remiss if I didn't add: When it comes to trade offs in general, this part of the public discussion has scarcely begun. Plus, when trade offs are discussed from a public choice perspective, it's not helpful when they are framed as "we would be better off without", if no market alternatives are being actively prepared for implementation. The rise and fall of Obamacare is just one egregious example.

A lack of systems design which could take different lifestyles and income levels into account, has also led to struggles whereby various groups attempt to impose their lifestyle preferences on other groups. In many instances it would be simpler to start from scratch, especially for the creation of walkable communities. New beginnings in systems design could ultimately lead to less political polarization, and more hope for the future. Restored hope in decentralized prosperity, could likely mean less struggle over opposing visions of the "good life". No one has ever successfully imposed their version of "best life" on any one else. People are far too stubborn for that to happen. So why do centralized governments keep trying to impose either/or lifestyle scenarios, which they inexplicably expect all citizens to live by?

However, the cronyism of special interests, has inadvertently contributed to today's either/or scenarios as well. Now, consider the consequences: When governments give in to the protectionism impulses of private interests, where is the logic in belittling citizens for responding by demanding similar protections? Despite the fact that protectionism has come full circle, and of course the global implications, there may yet be time to back away from this precipice. Why not work to reduce centralized and protectionist impulses while we still can. Why not build upon systems design which makes room for everyone, not just whichever fortunate individuals happen to be in power at any given moment. Ultimately, the best way to achieve sustainable trade offs, is to create ample economic options - options which allow all income levels to contribute and participate in society.

For Progress, Basic Innovation Remains Necessary

When it comes to societal progress, inventions that improve basic aspects of living are as crucial as they ever were. In considering why this is so, one also hopes future progress studies will encourage participants to envision basic innovation as much more, than past historical records. Innovation is not solely about creating new economic options, to further tempt those who already have plenty to spare! Indeed, with concerted efforts to innovate local environments, productive transformation could come to non tradable sector activity where it is most needed: time based services, building components, and physical infrastructure.

Oftentimes, achieving more supply side output means getting more people involved in the entire process. Alas, societies tend to lose this perspective, and they end up traveling paths in which ever fewer citizens are able to go. And while a more inclusive economy is often discussed in terms of greater monetary redistribution, basic forms of real economy activity are actually more important, so that all citizens can remain fully engaged. Much about societal progress relies not only on our active participation, but our personal ability to contribute to system maintenance as well. However, without ongoing production reform which lowers basic systems costs, they eventually become unsustainable, as growing majorities of citizens find themselves unable to contribute to systems upkeep.

Another way to think about supply side possibilities: How can we create more good deflation in these basic areas of our lives? What the supply side makes possible in terms of production and consumption, often matters much more than our actual income differences. Only recall, how the benefits of good deflation in tradable sectors have led to greater economic access and centuries of progress. Production reform in non tradable sectors would ultimately translate into additional economic activity, allowing millions more to build meaningful lives.

In certain respects, good deflation functions as other forms of productivity gains, in that it achieves more output via the resource capacity already at our disposal. This is why we also tend to observe lower costs in areas where good deflation does occur. That said, quality product gains also affect this relationship. In particular, preserving good deflation potential in non tradable sectors, means being careful not to allow perceptions of quality product to determine the extent of our personal economic time commitments. Especially given required costs for personal environments which are already non negotiable! Many businesses already have ample incentive to increase productivity, so why hasn't a similar approach been applied to the resource potential which communities actively share? After all, there are plenty of means for doing so, which can preserve the freedom and autonomy of all involved.

Without the possibilities of good deflation, too much non tradable sector activity would remain a financial burden for limited income communities. It's time for real change in these basic systems. Even though existing inequalities will always be with us to some extent, we could still bring vast progress to non discretionary goods, services and environment structure which involves asset ownership. Whether or not societies prosper in the future, may well depend on how our non tradable supply side capacity is organized and conceptualized. There's plenty of work to be done, to improve these vital areas of our lives.

For Libertarians, Sustainability Matters for Economic Freedom

Is it possible for libertarians to find political support which isn't diluted by excessive identification with conservatives or progressives? While alignments such as these are understandable, they still tend to result in lost freedoms. And all too often, if economic freedoms are lost, it's only a short step further to lost political and social freedoms as well.

Too many ideological arguments turn around personal preferences for either government or business dominance. As it turns out, this reasoning is too simplistic for the economic complexities of our time, especially since many aspects of private and public enterprise are quite integrated. While this integration has often created positive outcomes, in other instances it results in negative complexities which make life more difficult for everyone.

The main issue at hand, however, is how both public and private endeavour are losing their ability to maintain real economy activity at consistent growth levels. What can we do, to ensure the extensive progress of recent centuries is not put at risk? I continue to hope that libertarians will assume new roles in promoting more sustainable forms of wealth creation. In many instances, doing so would include taking part in local economic experiments which promote both the well being of lower income groups and small communities.

Especially paramount is our need for sustainable local economies. Since much of our healthcare is stymied by centralized organizational patterns, the U.S. particularly struggles with today's pandemic circumstance. Part of our inability to productively respond, is due to the built in structural limitations of today's high skill service generation. Locally provided skilled services - where they are in fact possible - are caught in the political struggles of centralized revenue flows and their macroeconomic patterns. Indeed, these service patterns became more prominent with the added wealth of globalization. Hence it's not helpful, that losses in globalization could also lead to a partial demise of these centralized form of skills arbitrage.

We need a new approach to high skill applied knowledge, and libertarians have the opportunity to take part at a time in history when it especially matters. Even though it is difficult to establish additional high skill services through fiat monetary systems, time arbitrage could provide much needed new sources of wealth and economic stabilization. All who believe in the continued viability of free markets, could benefit by making time based services more amenable to free market approaches such as this.

By allowing time value to function as a valid economic unit, we could encourage stronger coordination patterns between individuals - patterns which ultimately lead to more sustainable outcomes. Only recall as well, how immediate reciprocity in services could help alleviate long term budgetary problems. When it comes to non tradable sector production reform, goals such as these are worth pursuing. Let's build more reliable social patterns for economic sustainability, while there is still ample time to do so.

When Monetary Representation Becomes Fragile

Can monetary policy retain a stable and relatively constant level (near to mid term), given the uncertainties of the pandemic? Since this most recent recession began with extensive supply side disruptions - subsequently impacting aggregate demand - no one knows for certain. However, even though the Fed has yet to adopt NGDPLT, the Mercatus center has created a new measure called the NGDP Gap, which among other things will highlight nominal income stability. This new measure could help people determine how closely the Fed adheres to representing economic activity without undue gaps or changes in valuation.

Nevertheless, overall monetary representation may remain somewhat fragile in the years ahead, even if central bankers adhere to an optimal course. Only consider how prior to the pandemic, monetary policy became compromised by structurally uneven equilibrium coordination between tradable and non tradable sectors. The latter is more prone to price making than the former. Plus, they represent human capital in highly different ways which have yet to be fully accounted for. By way of example, the marginal revolution which is so important to tradable sector activity, is less a determinant of economic outcomes in non tradable sector activity. Ultimately, better defined economic roles are needed for all human capital, before non tradable sector activity ceases to detract from equilibrium balance and optimal monetary representation.

Extensive price making in non tradable sectors tends to compromise aggregate output, which in turn makes it difficult to align aggregate output with a stable nominal income trajectory. Since price taking involves better coordination of all resource capacity, it has proven simpler for monetary policy to represent tradable sector output, during long periods of relative tradable sector dominance. However, once general equilibrium is dominated by price making outcomes, assets tend to experience additional pressure as well. As asset values rise, some become convinced that monetary policy is too "loose", even though this actually may not be the case. Rather, when full economic participation is limited to subsets of given populations, the consequent output reductions impose higher prices elsewhere, thus making it appear to some that monetary policy has become too expansionary. In short, monetary policy may struggle to contribute to optimal aggregate output, once price making becomes dominant in general equilibrium.

Fortunately, this sectoral imbalance could be addressed through a broader interpretation of human potential in the marketplace - one which includes more price taking for time value in equilibrium context. By bringing greater economic value to all human capital potential, we could also do much to stabilize monetary representation. A better representation of aggregate time value, would make it simpler for a level nominal target to serve as a reliable snapshot or historical memory of economic value. Toward this end, the adaptation of time use potential as a valid economic unit, might help to restore money to its vital role in defined economic wealth and value.

Further, time use as an expression of economic value, creates more space for a wide range of maintenance functions which otherwise become limited in mature economies, as budgets are strained by competing objectives. Time arbitrage would not only preserve time value for society as a whole, it could contribute to maintenance activities involving a broad spectrum of knowledge and skill, so as to better preserve already existing wealth.

Education: Let's Restore Local Community Threads

Much of today's formal K-12 education, takes place quite separately from the lives of local citizens. Alas, this reality adds to the financial burdens of many small communities, where local citizens support public schools through lifelong property taxes. Even though local taxation sometimes leads to impressive school buildings and well prepared students, local circles of sustainability can still be broken, when students need to go elsewhere to put their skills to good use. What of the locals who may never gain the chance to meet these young people? What does society lose, when neither local citizens or students can benefit from what either group learns in life? How can a society sustain itself for the long run, when its knowledge based institutions seek monetary support to survive, but neglect to tap a vast abundance of human capital potential, so that all might thrive?

Clearly, our time value needs to be a greater part of the wealth equation for human capital. We could work to restore valuable community connections, especially those which promote the use of knowledge and skill for markets which otherwise tend to be in short supply. Enhancing the services productivity of all citizens is important, and all communities deserve active roles in today's knowledge based economy. Fortunately, it is within our power to realign local education, so that everyone might benefit from learning processes. Already we are seeing in a time of pandemic, how many knowledge centered institutions will struggle if they depend solely on taxation and redistribution, in the foreseeable future. Why not tap into the vast pools of human capital potential which are waiting to be unleashed?

Time arbitrage, with its reciprocal patterns of wealth generation, could provide opportunities for young learners to engage with many local citizens, particularly during their high school years. With a little luck, this approach might help heal some of today's political divisions. Plus, on a practical note, time arbitrage could lead to meaningful economic interchange, in years when students especially need resources that prepare them for adult responsibilities.

The recent COVID-19 pandemic also illustrates how students might assist others in the here and now. In particular, better communication systems are needed in small communities, so that all citizens can stay informed and up to date. One would think not much time would be necessary, before students could get digital versions of (yesterday's) local newspapers up and running. Such efforts could be readily coordinated without need for advertising revenue to keep the processes going. One immediate gain from such a project, is that small communities would be able to compile statistics about the effects of COVID-19 locally. In the meantime, they often have to rely on guesstimates according to big city statistics, for their own public health management options.

Ultimately, learning processes could be coordinated with larger cities, so that small communities become able to create a broad array of healthcare provisions. One possible pandemic response, might be for healthcare providers whose work is on temporary pause, to work with local citizens and students for the creation of local testing options and other vital assistance for those affected by COVID-19. Even though this would be a short term response, it nonetheless suggests future frameworks, by which prosperous areas might reach out to areas that were already left behind, prior to the pandemic. Given the chance, smaller communities might finally be able to realign local education, toward more productive and beneficial ends.

Notes on Practical and Experiential Wealth

Ultimately, the pandemic may encourage us to think differently, about the activities we associate with either practical or experiential wealth. For instance, it certainly didn't take long to discover - in the initial rush to social distance - that defining "important" versus "unimportant" business activities was no simple task. What further complicates the present crisis, especially in terms of possible wealth loss, is the extent to which the crisis includes both practical and experiential aspects of our economic lives.

For many of us in the past month or so (here in the U.S.), cabin fever set in almost as quickly as the decision to self quarantine. As it turns out, it is the rare person who doesn't crave novel experiences on a routine basis! Many learn - especially in later years - to make up for lack of travel opportunities via the interesting "escapes" of books, movies, music and more. Still, there are moments when nothing really substitutes for getting outside and experiencing the world in the company of friends, extended family and others.

Part of what sets this period apart from earlier pandemics, is how much of our economy has evolved away from practical consumption to many activities that scarcely seem practical at all, whether or not we happen to deem them emotional "necessities". When economic life was largely centered around goods rather than services, that earlier tradable sector dominance must have also made it simpler, to financially manage the economic disturbances brought about by pandemic circumstance.

By way of example, Ian Stewart recently noted how "The impact of this crisis will be as much on intangible capital as physical assets." Alas, it may take a while before we discover whether this crisis impacts how highly invested human capital is monetarily valued. Should considerable wealth be lost, that missing income potential would likely reduce the appetite for risk - especially considering the present requirements of capital risk in our physical environments.

Some wealth losses could be averted, should we elect to structure ownership potential in more incremental and flexible ways. Some of today's regulatory requirements could be amended via settings which allow simpler forms of physical infrastructure, for both living and working needs. Simpler ownership structures would maintain countless delicate webs of valuable human connections, even when those connections can't be as compensated as fully as before. As a society, we could try to ensure that valuable risk taking isn't lost, but instead transformed in easier to manage components than what are often deemed necessary in the present.

Even before the pandemic, we were already questioning the broader societal context of our educational systems. Where are the most meaningful experiences in these learning processes? What is the real difference between practical or experiential education, in an economic sense?

Learning is all the more complex, since it tends to include practical and experiential elements. Already, online learning appears to be more useful in terms of practical settings which can readily be managed by the individual. On the other hand, the most highly motivated learning often occurs when people get the chance to forge strong personal connections with others. If nothing else, temporary mandated closings of schools and colleges alike, might speed up societal incentive to generate more face to face interaction between people, wherever it is possible to do so. After all, the services generation which societies value most, tend to be of this nature.

How might technology lend support to a future capable of preserving experiential wealth? Roger Bootle believes the pandemic will encourage additional automation and use of robots, particularly for tasks which have been interrupted by social distancing. Nevertheless, he continues to hold confidence in new avenues for employment potential:

I draw comfort from human beings' need for other human beings. There's one thing that robots and AI will never be able to be better at than other human beings: being human. I think we are going to want to interact with other human beings in our work life and in our leisure life, and that's going to create demand for all sorts of new jobs.

When thinking about technological gains at a grassroots level, consider how near future tech could augment not just consumption potential for individuals, but production potential. The difference is crucial, and it matters for anyone who would assist others, yet needs additional tech support to augment their own skill and level of applied knowledge potential. Consider how technology could free individuals, it it assumes the practical tasks, while making room for individuals to exercise their own initiative in the experiential wealth they seek to share with others.

Utilitarian Capitalism (Could Be) Anti-Fragile

How sturdy will our capitalist systems prove to be, in a time of international pandemic? More specifically, are our present day organizational structures more fragile than we previously imagined?

If only it were possible to address this crisis with more utilitarian options, additional fiscal stimulus might prove worthwhile. Instead, most current fiscal stimulus - other than provisions for pressing healthcare needs - will scarcely alleviate the financial burdens which emerge during the course of this pandemic. And unfortunately, too much of our non tradable sector capacity is structured in ways that are profoundly anti-utilitarian. A lot of fiscal stimulus is going to be lost to portions of the economy which are not basic to getting things done, in the days ahead.

In recent decades, much of our supply side capacity became focused on experiential and "quality product" markets. While these markets are valuable, all too often they leave few options for lower income citizens - as consumers - to meet life's basics first. For the most part, our non tradable sectors chose anti-utilitarian routes, in that they were largely designed to create the greatest good for the least number of participants. As governments come to the aid of these now (unexpectedly?) fragile systems, policy makers will find it difficult to meet the needs of their most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, the sum total of fiscal stimulus in the days ahead, will create additional debt burdens which still don't address overall economic stability or a safety net for lower income levels.

Eventually, people are likely to demand more basic and utilitarian systems than we presently have, for what are largely non discretionary needs. As Arnold Kling noted in a recent post, "Normal is not an option...Expect supply chains in the future to have a lot more redundancy and to be less driven by cost minimization." An important challenge, however, is to also preserve wealth and productive economic complexity as best we can. The sooner we bring a more utilitarian and flexible approach to our non tradable sector markets, the better.

Regular readers know how much I've praised tradable sector activity in general, since much of its dynamism stems from a uniquely utilitarian impulse. How so? Tradable sectors tend to create the greatest economic good for the greatest number, via product options which represent all income categories, not just those of the middle and upper classes. This is a profound utilitarian result which underlies the prosperity of the recent era we have mostly taken for granted.

But achieving such results in our domestic settings, would mean a refusal to arbitrarily limit supply side definitions in (mostly) non discretionary markets. Until non tradable sectors gain some room to breathe freely, our economic systems are going to become increasingly fragile. Alas, it has finally become evident that strict adherence to specific definitions of quality product, costs lives. At a White House conference earlier this week, Dr. Deborah Birx defended our late start in diagnostics testing for COVID-19, and in doing so she often repeated the need for "quality" product. I must have cringed every time she did so. While the quest to allow only "quality" product is understandable, unfortunately it has led to fragile and incomplete markets, especially in housing and the use of time centered knowledge and skill.

Only recall for example, how continuous calls for quality product eventually led to losses of healthcare provision in rural areas. David McCullough wrote in The Pioneers that when Dr. Samuel Hildreth settled in Marietta, Ohio (1808), the town had "about 180 dwelling houses, and nearly 1500 inhabitants". Yet Dr. Hildreth would be sharing his new practice with five other doctors who were already there!

In all of this, there are both physical and intellectual dimensions to the kinds of utilitarian markets which are urgently needed. Once we finally open the participation of applied knowledge to all citizens, we may also gain greater chances of surviving pandemics. Likewise, should we decide to build a full range of living options representative of all income levels, utilitarian capitalism could come to the rescue of both lives and financial systems. Granted, all such efforts will take time. But it is worth pursuing them now, to make a difference for personal and economic stability in the years to come.

Notes on Personal Reciprocity vs Social Reciprocity

Between keeping up with developments re COVID-19, and efforts to clarify my own perceptions in regard to reciprocity, I deleted more material in the last post than was actually kept. So today I'll try again, to explore relevant differences between (what could be considered) personal and social reciprocity.

Free markets are often described as voluntary forms of exchange. Even so, too many time based economic interactions, are not as spontaneous and voluntary as they could be. When it comes to other forms of product, prices can usually do a good job of representing and coordinating the voluntary actions of individuals and groups. It's when final product contains substantial time based and experiential components, that people face too many obstacles in what they might otherwise create or provide for one another. Money is a tremendous price and signal, but it could perform even better, if mutual time preferences could also function as prices, signals, and stores of economic value.

Many activities take place either through the personal reciprocity of individuals, or the social reciprocity of groups. While personal exchange allows individuals to negotiate for common purposes, social reciprocity seeks to build bridges and common "middle ground", as well. Since beginning this project, I've tended to focus more on personal reciprocity, than social reciprocity. However the reality is they are equally important, for they often need to function simultaneously in many social circumstance. Even as personal reciprocity creates starting points between individuals, it's the larger group context of social reciprocity which encourages a cohesive and constructive whole. In other words: When minds "think alike" in terms of aspirations and personal commitments, individual daily contributions in this context, are more likely to create circles of social sustainability.

Both social and personal reciprocity require understandable social patterns which are voluntary and not forced. People are far more likely to continue reaching out to other individuals, once it becomes obvious their efforts will generally not be in vain. What's more, societies and their institutions cannot expect immediate family members to assume too much personal reciprocity in the form of internal family roles. When this occurs, human capital potential is limited, as is also the potential of group interactions as a whole.

Plus, when individual family members have plenty of options in group settings for time based services provision, each family member stands a better chance of maintaining their personal autonomy and self respect. Indeed, family relationships tend to be more positive and supportive, so long as all family members have ample opportunity to benefit from the personal reciprocity and social reciprocity of group settings. We often observe this now in the services generation of high income communities, for instance. The more possibilities each individual holds for time arbitrage, the less the chance that everyday interactions will be of a forced nature.

How might we create reliable patterns for mutual reciprocity which are more voluntary in nature than present day institutions?  Skills arbitrage - for all its monetary value - has proven insufficient for the generation of services, knowledge, and personal autonomy which societies aspire to, particularly during times of economic uncertainty. Time arbitrage could ultimately tap into more sources of human capital, than skills arbitrage is capable of. Eventually, time arbitrage could lead to sustainable forms of services generation, which take place via common and easy to understand frameworks.

In order to function effectively, time arbitrage would include recognizable elements of both personal and social reciprocity. As to the latter, new communities could be established, where common interests could be pursued as a long term continuum for the maintenance and care of applied knowledge. Best, these new sources of human capital could rely on internal organizational patterns to generate new wealth. Indeed, one might dare hope, that when societies falter for any reason, such communities would serve as repositories of human potential, economic integration, and long term economic stability. In these settings, personal reciprocity could become the base which is strong enough for the larger goals of social reciprocity.

3D Printing Holds Vast Economic Potential

Some of the most encouraging news in recent years, is due to advances in 3D printing and technology. Recently I came across the video "3D Printing is Changing the World", which is well worth the twelve minutes it takes to watch.

Indeed, it's surprising that the near future possibilities of 3D printing have not been more widely discussed. Instead, artificial intelligence gets much of the innovation spotlight, despite the fact that 3D printing could prove equally significant - if not more so. For that matter, emerging 3D printing technology is already evident in cutting edge research applications.

Granted, it may take some time, before 3D printing technology finally benefits local environments and improves the quality of life for millions with limited incomes. But once this finally occurs, the process could also usher in long term productivity gains. After all, 3D printing for local manufacture, would produce building components in ways which vastly reduce required time (purchase) hours for a wide array of building needs.

In the meantime, the above linked video highlights some 3D printing applications which are taking place in the here and now. For instance, healthcare researchers are taking 3D printing to a wholly new organic level, in hopes that organ donor scarcity might finally be alleviated. Plus, 3D printing is already contributing to models, parts and tools on demand, thereby assisting multiple development processes. For that matter, we have already entered a crucial period in which prototypes are evolving into mass manufacture design. From here, 3D printing processes will assume their first widespread production stages.

What directions might all these efforts take? Since there are currently many unknowns, perhaps this transitional effect helps to explain a recent manufacturing lull. While everyone's attention has mostly been on national trade disputes as disrupting global supply side patterns, there's also the reality that initial mass manufacture changes are still in progress. Doubtless, some participants wish to observe what takes place in the next few years, before broad investment options become more obvious. Some manufacture response patterns may change the extent to which global manufacture supply side patterns are configured, as well.

Another interesting aspect of the video was how advanced recycling technology could emerge, from research efforts to create sustainable site based manufacture on Mars. Should this research come to fruition, it could create impetus to produce more plastics as a permanent component of local recycle for local manufacture. I find it most encouraging, that research intended for projects far from earth, could create vast potential at home, by restoring production possibilities for millions of us - quite literally in our own backyards.

Recall that in the not so long ago past, local production in tangible goods, made it much simpler for citizens to pursue intellectual and artistic challenges without dependence on revenues from centralized national budgets. With a little luck, 3D printing could not only lead to production gains in non tradable sector activities, but also tradable sectors, thereby restoring the viability of decentralized manufacture in millions of left behind communities.

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.

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.

What's the Point in Work With Limited Pay?

For some - regardless of past earnings - this question may appear to have a simple answer. There isn't! Yet plenty of work we perceive as either enticing or necessary, takes place via no monetary compensation to speak of. How to think about this reality?

What encourages us to choose the work we are willing to do, regardless of compensation? After all, much more is at stake than a "fat" paycheck. By way of example, voluntary work we deem desirable, may either contain the internal reward of intellectual challenge, or represent our sense of duty to others. For that matter, work of a seemingly mundane nature is worthwhile, since daily chores and routines play important roles in maintaining our connections to our environments. Some will likewise sacrifice reliable paychecks to work on autonomous terms, particularly since doing so makes it simpler to juggle competing responsibilities.

Nevertheless, we find most aspects of work more meaningful, if we aren't constantly having to worry about keeping a roof over our heads and food in our pantries. Should low pay work appear insufficient for meeting basic needs, some will refuse to work for others on those terms. And yet there's plenty of work needing to be done, which for the most part can only be paid poorly. Consequently, progressives and conservatives alike are discussing the possibility of creating either "living" wages, or else wage subsidies as government support for employees (via their employers).

Even though I'm pessimistic as to whether either approach is actually feasible, I'm an optimist about the possibility of creating local environments which better reflect low to mid range wage capacity. Supply side innovation for our non tradable sectors, could create greater personal security and stability, for those whose primary work only gains minimal monetary compensation.

So: Consider the range of work possibilities we might consider for ourselves if we don't also have to worry about keeping a roof over our head, and food in our pantry. Would relative financial stability change our mental framework as to what is possible?

Regardless of automation and AI, modern day economies are likely to need a full range of skills complexity in the near future. That said, a lot of employment options may not pay quite so handsomely as before. One problem in this regard is that existing municipal government budgets may become stretched to the breaking point - an event would lead to knock on effects elsewhere in the economy as well. Even though millions continue to seek high compensation for personal levels of high skill, the reality is many budgets will come up short for this human capital approach. Indeed, while lower skill work has been displaced to some degree by automation, AI is a more recent technological development which could impact high skill levels, especially if it becomes utilized in response to budgetary limitations.

Eventually, more cities and communities are going to need to redirect extensive resource capacity to basic elements of infrastructure maintenance. Hopefully, this will encourage the creation of infrastructure and services which don't cost so much to operate and maintain in the first place! Once we have more local settings which are easier to maintain, more individuals may ultimately find value in pursuing intellectual endeavour which does not necessarily come with a large paycheck, or a pension for that matter.

Another consideration, is that the twentieth century redefined how we perceive many non pecuniary obligations to others. These cultural shifts are quite substantial and are still having ramifications. One reason a marketplace for time value is needed, is to restore important forms of mutual assistance which have essentially fallen by the wayside. Also, the use of skills arbitrage for widespread employment, has contributed to increasing physical distance from friends and families as we age. Time arbitrage - given its encouragement of physical proximity for economic activity - could help restore mutual assistance in ways which allow us to rebuild trust locally.

Should people refuse to work for "peanuts", often there are good reasons why. Fortunately, we can create new forms of institutional means which make it more worthwhile to do so. One important aspect of these processes is greater economic security, via innovation for more affordable local environments. Plus, we commit to a restoration of personal workplace autonomy, for participating individuals. Why so? Only recall that one's ability to personally manage workplace circumstance, is a major reason why people are often willing to work for less money. And even though making room for the personal autonomy of others would include occasional inconveniences on our part, only recall how much we appreciate it, when others extend to us, the same privilege of personal autonomy.