Often I've suggested mutually held commonalities as a starting point for new community formation. Domestic summits, for instance, might provide means to bring individuals together, to explore the possibilities of building a productive services environment. However, not all social commonalities are necessarily conducive to positive bonding processes. What rationale might individuals actually have, for living and working in close proximity to one another, which could result in mutually beneficial outcomes?
In particular, one doesn't just throw a bunch of people together who aren't wanted elsewhere, as "Johnny" of the blog "Granola Shotgun" noted recently. He rightfully stressed the irrationality of taking groups of homeless people (who aren't wanted in particular neighborhoods or areas), to relocate them en masse elsewhere. Plus: How would anyone imagine that the native residents of the new location, would be okay with these social outcasts now in their backyard?
There needs to be positive rationale, for individuals to make concerted efforts toward progress and join forces in doing so. Such rationale goes well beyond the (albeit) understandable desire to escape unfortunate circumstance. While the above referenced blog discussion centered around the homeless, it could equally apply for other social outcasts such as former prisoners, individuals recovering from addiction, or those seeking to escape domestic violence. Even in the best of circumstance, should relocation occur based on a common negative identity, how could all these individuals be expected to adapt to a permanently close physical proximity to one another? Many probably would be unable to do so. Alas, there needs to be more to life as well, than being granted some version of a tiny house along with a government check.
Instead of attempting to build new communities based on unfortunate commonalities, it makes more sense to envision new startups in which individuals are uniformly hopeful for better and more successful futures. These are also more likely to be the individuals whose level of trust in others has not been completely shattered by previous life experiences. That's not to say that people with low levels of trust don't also deserve a chance to start over, by any means. Only that such individuals would likely need more outside assistance, until they have a chance to rebuild trust and self respect via mutually beneficial working relationships.
Even what may appear as fortunate commonalities or success indicators, isn't necessarily a good starting point for economic community. In order for communities to succeed, they need a diverse range of individuals with a wide range of skill capacity and personal interests. Perhaps one commonality in such a framework, would be a common belief in the idea of success as desirable in group context. Just as it isn't helpful to build anew from a failed identity set as a group starting point, community as social or political identity is hardly a sufficient base to build upon.
The commonalities that matter for economic community, also cut across many lines of common reference. Low income as a common denominator could provide a helpful starting point. After all, adaptation to low wages over time, could mean a greater appreciation of environments which benefit from simpler zoning requirements, cost effective building manufacture and low maintenance ownership potential. The low maintenance factor is particularly important for individuals who - for any reason - might otherwise find themselves undermined by high costs of ownership and/or maintenance requirements. Many social outcasts and others fall into this category, yet simple low maintenance environments could help bring the strength and stamina they do have, to the fore.
People may be good candidates for new communities, who have reason to believe they could thrive in these open ended free market settings. Yet not every new start will succeed, and every apparent failure would have its own story to tell, to those willing to listen. Much also depends on whether participants have the commonality of faith in the potential of their fellow human beings, regardless of one's personal disappointments and setbacks. Those who hold the belief a better future remains possible through combined efforts, may be able to contribute to a new continuum of knowledge based endeavor, based on services productivity. With such hopefulness as a place to begin anew, many other aspects of economic community could eventually follow.
Showing posts with label domestic summits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic summits. Show all posts
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Thursday, April 5, 2018
Localism Needs a Strong Economic Base
Is it possible to localize cultural preferences? While I've hoped for similar outcomes from knowledge use systems, there are important economic considerations as well. For instance, groups of individuals in new communities would have difficulty organizing purely on shared values, without an economic framework that could make functional decentralization a real possibility.
Just the same, it's time to explore new means for moving forward, as Washington's gridlock is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. In a recent Brookings article, "Is constitutional localism the answer to what ails American democracy?", the authors write:
What's more: As "Johnny" of Granola Shotgun recently noted, retail designations are no longer the panacea for many communities they once were, in terms of providing local taxation revenue. How might new communities meet mutual obligations on different sets of terms?
Plenty of discussion needs to take place, before groups can envision settings that are conducive for working with others on mutually agreeable terms. There's three central economic aspects to this process, in particular: Local infrastructure commitments, incremental ownership options (for all residents), and circumstance in which taxation will still apply. Time arbitrage as a component of wealth creation, also creates internal revenue and time coordination flows - flows which otherwise would have been dependent on other sources for ongoing maintenance and upkeep of shared spaces.
Individuals would naturally gravitate towards groups which share similar resource capacity for infrastructure commitments and ownership responsibilities, hence infrastructure outcomes would reflect this reality. The good news for groups with limited resource capacity? As a society, we're getting close to the technological momentum that makes possible a much wider range of affordable infrastructure - some of which would require far less maintenance, than infrastructure requirements which evolved in the 20th century.
When would taxation still be necessary within the equilibrium corporate structure that provides an economic base for new communities? One example occurs when local citizens take part in ownership options which provide dividends within the equilibrium corporation's tradable sector role, for production of building and infrastructure components. What makes this particular income taxable at county, state and national levels, is that it represents product separate from time capacity. Most important for the equilibrium corporate structure, however, is to ensure that compensation for time based product is not subject to any taxation, since time is scarce and not capable of output multiplication.
The digital era makes it possible to form new communities in which participants have shared interests and values. Just the same, similar identities are but a starting point, as these new groups would also need to agree on similar means of resource accommodation and commitment levels. Everyone would need to be in agreement re the purpose of basic infrastructure settings, and how those settings could assist them in their own personal goals and aspirations.
Just the same, it's time to explore new means for moving forward, as Washington's gridlock is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. In a recent Brookings article, "Is constitutional localism the answer to what ails American democracy?", the authors write:
Our urgent call for a new civic ethos reflects our belief that the old New Deal structure that relies on centralized standardized solutions does not align with the variety of life in America today.Even though a rethinking of non tradable sector activity would be key for such efforts, today's non tradable sector activity is caught in a tangled web of interdependence at local, state and national levels. True decentralization would require reassessing these complicated connections, so as to move past the problems they still pose for independent action.
What's more: As "Johnny" of Granola Shotgun recently noted, retail designations are no longer the panacea for many communities they once were, in terms of providing local taxation revenue. How might new communities meet mutual obligations on different sets of terms?
Plenty of discussion needs to take place, before groups can envision settings that are conducive for working with others on mutually agreeable terms. There's three central economic aspects to this process, in particular: Local infrastructure commitments, incremental ownership options (for all residents), and circumstance in which taxation will still apply. Time arbitrage as a component of wealth creation, also creates internal revenue and time coordination flows - flows which otherwise would have been dependent on other sources for ongoing maintenance and upkeep of shared spaces.
Individuals would naturally gravitate towards groups which share similar resource capacity for infrastructure commitments and ownership responsibilities, hence infrastructure outcomes would reflect this reality. The good news for groups with limited resource capacity? As a society, we're getting close to the technological momentum that makes possible a much wider range of affordable infrastructure - some of which would require far less maintenance, than infrastructure requirements which evolved in the 20th century.
When would taxation still be necessary within the equilibrium corporate structure that provides an economic base for new communities? One example occurs when local citizens take part in ownership options which provide dividends within the equilibrium corporation's tradable sector role, for production of building and infrastructure components. What makes this particular income taxable at county, state and national levels, is that it represents product separate from time capacity. Most important for the equilibrium corporate structure, however, is to ensure that compensation for time based product is not subject to any taxation, since time is scarce and not capable of output multiplication.
The digital era makes it possible to form new communities in which participants have shared interests and values. Just the same, similar identities are but a starting point, as these new groups would also need to agree on similar means of resource accommodation and commitment levels. Everyone would need to be in agreement re the purpose of basic infrastructure settings, and how those settings could assist them in their own personal goals and aspirations.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Gentrification is a General Equilibrium Constraint
In a Brookings article, "Will Opportunity Zones help distressed residents or be a tax cut for gentrification?" Adam Looney notes:
Instead of worrying about the places people sometimes need to leave behind due to gentrification, let's pay more attention to how the marginalized can build anew in environments which more closely match their potential. One reason so few solutions have been actively sought for lower income levels, is the fact we don't yet have zones which can experiment with less costly innovative building components and physical infrastructure.
Likewise, in the originally conceived Empowerment Zones, local services were probably framed as an ongoing external societal cost. In order to create long term solutions for limited wage capacity, local services need internal generation which allows them to become wealth creation instead of external costs. Such a strategy would greatly add to what participants could bring to the table, in terms of mutually shared responsibility. By allowing innovation to contribute to physical and social infrastructure, many who are now considered marginalized in some capacity, would finally get an honest chance to become more personally accountable - both for themselves, and for others.
States are fast approaching a deadline set by the new tax law to designate low-income neighborhoods as "Opportunity Zones" - a designation that will unlock favorable capital gains treatment for investments in those areas.And he continues:
In contrast to the new Opportunity Zones, the policy with the best proven record - Empowerment Zones - focused on people and local services not just capital investments. They encouraged hiring, subsidized up front investment in capital and equipment, offered loan guarantees, regulatory waivers, a partial exclusion of capital gains, and large grants to local government authorities for local services and infrastructure...But the program was expensive and intensive, costing approximately $850 per resident. As a result, only 11 neighborhood zones were ever designated under the original design.Is there a better approach? Much was written about the potential of Empowerment Zones, so I was startled to discover only eleven were established. Nevertheless, regular readers won't be surprised that I consider gentrification to be a general equilibrium constraint, due to societal expectations re housing and infrastructure which don't necessarily align align well with life's realities. Once traditional housing and physical infrastructure age, their costs and maintenance requirements can become a burden on anyone with limited resources, especially the oft fixed incomes of retirement. What if gentrification also translates into too few places for older individuals with limited incomes to go? As Alana Semuels recently wrote for The Atlantic:
In America in 2016, nearly half of all single homeless adults were aged 50 and older, compared to 11 percent in 1990.Fortunately, it's possible to overcome the societal expectations that are closely tied with general equilibrium constraints. We could create defined equilibrium (non tradable sector) settings, which more closely match the personal aspirations and resource capacity of groups who find common ground for living and working together. Presently, when many individuals with limited means exit gentrified locales, they often end up in other declining areas which pose greater risks than the places they left behind. If people had options for carefully considering how to start over with other individuals in similar circumstance, the pressures of relocation might not be so unsettling.
Instead of worrying about the places people sometimes need to leave behind due to gentrification, let's pay more attention to how the marginalized can build anew in environments which more closely match their potential. One reason so few solutions have been actively sought for lower income levels, is the fact we don't yet have zones which can experiment with less costly innovative building components and physical infrastructure.
Likewise, in the originally conceived Empowerment Zones, local services were probably framed as an ongoing external societal cost. In order to create long term solutions for limited wage capacity, local services need internal generation which allows them to become wealth creation instead of external costs. Such a strategy would greatly add to what participants could bring to the table, in terms of mutually shared responsibility. By allowing innovation to contribute to physical and social infrastructure, many who are now considered marginalized in some capacity, would finally get an honest chance to become more personally accountable - both for themselves, and for others.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Skills Coordination Games as Preference Sampling
How might we choose to structure daily routines - which could include anything from personal aspirations, basic work functions or ongoing familial responsibilities, with other groups which share relatively similar viewpoints and values? Granted, we already have approximations for the above scenario, to some degree. Most of the income levels which have shifted upward, as workplace structure has divided between core and peripheral elements, include spontaneous coordination in the marketplace for time based services.
It's the income levels which have shifted downward, where people tend to lack common reference points to coordinate mutual assistance. Skills coordination games could help some of these individuals explore new organizational frameworks for individual and group development. Such games could provide a beginning point, whereby individuals with limited resources might contemplate a more hopeful future.
Many of the informal coordination patterns of the past no longer exist, in developed economies. Future patterns will need economic definition, so they can contribute to the productive agglomeration which has largely been lost outside of today's more prosperous regions. In all of this, both producer and consumer aspirations will need to be taken into account, so that individuals can contribute to the reality of their own environments.
Nevertheless, it won't be easy to discern personal preferences at the outset. Not only has our economic reality changed greatly in recent decades, but our institutions have often substituted their own preferences on our behalf, in the meantime. Experimentation for the creation of new workplaces, will be slow and to some degree, painstaking. Skills coordination games would provide opportunities for individuals to come together and debate the possibilities of shared aspiration and responsibility.
In some instances, skills coordination games would simply provide a test, to determine how one feels about the process. Do these activities seem practical to the observer? Answers will depend on one's prior inclinations and perceptions. Much may also depend on the work habits one has already put to use in the workplace, or other skills and activities that seem reasonable to share with others.
Once a given group is organized and ready to proceed, a process of deliberation is set into motion. First, how do our more important aspirations fit into our ongoing schedules? Often, daily schedules revolve around these challenges, even though they do not always take an economic form and are instead a part of our personal activity. How might time arbitrage be different in this regard? The flexible nature of educational settings in knowledge use systems, could provide occasions when we get the chance to discuss our personal challenges with others within an economic framework.
Each group begins the discussion with personal aspirations and goals they would like to pursue. Simply hearing what others hope to achieve, suggests possibilities for others, as to the activities they might in turn wish to seek out. Once everyone shares these thoughts, the process begins again with hobbies and other areas of proficiency that participants would be willing to provide.
After these possibilities are discussed, is the third offering of lower skill work. What would participants be comfortable providing for others, and how much time would they be able to do so? A willingness to participate at multiple skill levels, makes it easier to achieve high levels of matched activity with others, which is one of the more important aspects of the game.
Participants might also discuss personal motivations for the preferences they seek. Once everyone is familiar with what is initially offered, the group shifts to what they might accept of the offerings, either in the present or at some point in the near future. How many gaps exist between what is needed, and what is being offered?
Whether or not this is a problem, depends on the nature of the group, and whether in some instances participants would consider educational commitments to more closely align with the expressed desires of the group. Plus, basics would be more important in the beginning, and as a game continues, there would be more focus on experiential options alongside practical options. After these discussions, everyone could once again compare offerings, and discuss whether the process unfolded differently from what their initial expectations might have been.
While little of this process may appear practical at first, these groups would be striving to determine in real time, what countless articles have said needs to be done: Begin the process of determining how we wish to live among one another in the future. Ultimately, it's a matter of finding better answers among ourselves, before our institutions can know how best to respond.
It's the income levels which have shifted downward, where people tend to lack common reference points to coordinate mutual assistance. Skills coordination games could help some of these individuals explore new organizational frameworks for individual and group development. Such games could provide a beginning point, whereby individuals with limited resources might contemplate a more hopeful future.
Many of the informal coordination patterns of the past no longer exist, in developed economies. Future patterns will need economic definition, so they can contribute to the productive agglomeration which has largely been lost outside of today's more prosperous regions. In all of this, both producer and consumer aspirations will need to be taken into account, so that individuals can contribute to the reality of their own environments.
Nevertheless, it won't be easy to discern personal preferences at the outset. Not only has our economic reality changed greatly in recent decades, but our institutions have often substituted their own preferences on our behalf, in the meantime. Experimentation for the creation of new workplaces, will be slow and to some degree, painstaking. Skills coordination games would provide opportunities for individuals to come together and debate the possibilities of shared aspiration and responsibility.
In some instances, skills coordination games would simply provide a test, to determine how one feels about the process. Do these activities seem practical to the observer? Answers will depend on one's prior inclinations and perceptions. Much may also depend on the work habits one has already put to use in the workplace, or other skills and activities that seem reasonable to share with others.
Once a given group is organized and ready to proceed, a process of deliberation is set into motion. First, how do our more important aspirations fit into our ongoing schedules? Often, daily schedules revolve around these challenges, even though they do not always take an economic form and are instead a part of our personal activity. How might time arbitrage be different in this regard? The flexible nature of educational settings in knowledge use systems, could provide occasions when we get the chance to discuss our personal challenges with others within an economic framework.
Each group begins the discussion with personal aspirations and goals they would like to pursue. Simply hearing what others hope to achieve, suggests possibilities for others, as to the activities they might in turn wish to seek out. Once everyone shares these thoughts, the process begins again with hobbies and other areas of proficiency that participants would be willing to provide.
After these possibilities are discussed, is the third offering of lower skill work. What would participants be comfortable providing for others, and how much time would they be able to do so? A willingness to participate at multiple skill levels, makes it easier to achieve high levels of matched activity with others, which is one of the more important aspects of the game.
Participants might also discuss personal motivations for the preferences they seek. Once everyone is familiar with what is initially offered, the group shifts to what they might accept of the offerings, either in the present or at some point in the near future. How many gaps exist between what is needed, and what is being offered?
Whether or not this is a problem, depends on the nature of the group, and whether in some instances participants would consider educational commitments to more closely align with the expressed desires of the group. Plus, basics would be more important in the beginning, and as a game continues, there would be more focus on experiential options alongside practical options. After these discussions, everyone could once again compare offerings, and discuss whether the process unfolded differently from what their initial expectations might have been.
While little of this process may appear practical at first, these groups would be striving to determine in real time, what countless articles have said needs to be done: Begin the process of determining how we wish to live among one another in the future. Ultimately, it's a matter of finding better answers among ourselves, before our institutions can know how best to respond.
Saturday, February 4, 2017
The Limits of Indirect Reciprocity
Of indirect reciprocity, Shawn Parrish recently wrote:
More than ever, populations need different levels of infrastructure design and commitment, so as to maintain both direct and indirect reciprocity with one another, on economic terms. Many of life's important challenges can be met by those with smaller income levels, so long as provisions remain in place for design capacity which allows more innovative and less costly infrastructure. Otherwise, much of the indirect reciprocity that populations once took for granted in prosperous regions, will only become more difficult to maintain over time. Unfortunately, when wide income variance leaves too little room for basic forms of social and physical infrastructural options, trust is one of the first casualties.
Still, it's possible to generate more direct forms of reciprocity, for the time based product which is now in short supply. Doing so, would help to address the growing disconnect between incomes at a structural level. Not only does today's disconnect increase societal distrust; this vast income divide makes it appear as though millions are incapable of contributing either to their own destinies, or the destinies of others. However, in order for people to gain greater means for reciprocity - whether direct or indirect - they need the freedom to do so. Today, it is this freedom, that is missing. And without the right to contribute to our societies the best we can, others will continue to think that we are not capable of doing so.
One of the behaviors that humans display a lot is "indirect reciprocity". Distinguished from "direct reciprocity", in which I help you and you help me, indirect reciprocity confers no immediate benefit to the one helping. Either I help you, then you help someone else at a later time, or I help you and then someone else, some time in the future, helps me.In recent centuries, indirect reciprocity has especially made it easier for populations to coordinate a wide range of activity, among individuals who would scarcely be able to coordinate such activity on direct terms. However, there's a problem. As the wealth divide between aggregate time value and the value of all other resource capacity continues to grow, there are corresponding difficulties in coordinating living and working arrangements, between a wide range of income levels. For instance, even though prosperous regions can remain open to tourists and visitors, it's less of a simple matter now, for them to make permanent space for those with low incomes. One important reason, is that individuals with smaller income are less able to contribute to the high costs of either extensive infrastructure building, and/or maintenance.
More than ever, populations need different levels of infrastructure design and commitment, so as to maintain both direct and indirect reciprocity with one another, on economic terms. Many of life's important challenges can be met by those with smaller income levels, so long as provisions remain in place for design capacity which allows more innovative and less costly infrastructure. Otherwise, much of the indirect reciprocity that populations once took for granted in prosperous regions, will only become more difficult to maintain over time. Unfortunately, when wide income variance leaves too little room for basic forms of social and physical infrastructural options, trust is one of the first casualties.
Still, it's possible to generate more direct forms of reciprocity, for the time based product which is now in short supply. Doing so, would help to address the growing disconnect between incomes at a structural level. Not only does today's disconnect increase societal distrust; this vast income divide makes it appear as though millions are incapable of contributing either to their own destinies, or the destinies of others. However, in order for people to gain greater means for reciprocity - whether direct or indirect - they need the freedom to do so. Today, it is this freedom, that is missing. And without the right to contribute to our societies the best we can, others will continue to think that we are not capable of doing so.
Monday, July 18, 2016
A Plea For Economic Vitality
No economy or general equilibrium state can be considered vital or truly dynamic, if it is faltering at the margins. Why do policy makers and others turn a blind eye to local examples of economic abandonment, particularly in places which had extensive investment - in some instances - only decades earlier? Has everyone given up on long term growth?
It's one thing if existing structures clearly need to be torn down, for some reason. Is this what we are to expect when so much expense is poured into buildings and locations that are mostly intended to be usable for fifteen years, as has occurred in recent decades? Why not either build with the hope of greater permanence, or else design for greater flexibility at the outset via yearly spatial adjustments? In some instances, "permanent" new buildings are constructed with the promise of new business tenants, only to end up underutilized as extra storage space and the like, such as occurred recently on a nearby Main Street. What a waste!
The fact that neither public or private interests have addressed what can only be considered a wide array of economic abandonment, contributes to the kinds of social unrest which many of us who are older, never expected to see again in the course of our lifetimes. Faltering Main Streets were the first indication of trouble. Presently, abandoned businesses and homes in suburban areas are continuing the cycle.
Is it possible that shifts in middle class income patterns (less "middle", more "high" and "low") affect the dearth of local investment? After all, those with lower income levels have long taken advantage of existing real estate opportunities, when higher income levels shifted to new options elsewhere. A lack of investment along a full (diverse) income spectrum, contributes to an economic "deepening" of investment (instead of widening), as David Glasner noted in a recent post. His example highlighted capital deepening in relation to hiring decisions and efficiency in scale on the part of major companies, but these processes doubtless affect small business formation as well.
What is at stake in all this, is whether today's economic constructs remain vital to a point of being able to replicate themselves. Thus far it's been too easy to be fooled, when replication does takes place in developing nations (or more recent arrivals), but not in developed nations. What's the difference? A cellular organism has to divide (i.e. new wealth source) to generate new life. Not just stretch! In other words, economic vitality is not just a matter of expanding or bringing more entrants into already prosperous areas, but starting anew.
Meanwhile, cities and nations tell potential newcomers in no uncertain terms that they are basically full. Only so much augmentation is possible in the reigning circumstance of the present. And no one wants to hear it, because it is still too difficult to contemplate starting over. If today's economic conditions are to remain amenable to long term growth, this is no time to give up on places which have experienced less prosperity. Yet one reason it has been difficult to start the process - at least in the U.S. - is the lack of a national dialogue as to how citizens would like to live, work, and economically engage with one another in the 21st century. Instead, legislators and special interests are busily enacting laws to make many options in this regard off limits, across an entire realm of possibility.
Perhaps my outlook is even more "Malthusian" than usual (about economic vitality), due to a telling set of pictures and story line which provided a much needed warning. While prosperous regions and their residents mostly remain convinced all is well, economic stagnation continues apace at the periphery. From Johnny Sanphilippo at Market Urbanism, in "Your Town is a Financial Timebomb":
It's one thing if existing structures clearly need to be torn down, for some reason. Is this what we are to expect when so much expense is poured into buildings and locations that are mostly intended to be usable for fifteen years, as has occurred in recent decades? Why not either build with the hope of greater permanence, or else design for greater flexibility at the outset via yearly spatial adjustments? In some instances, "permanent" new buildings are constructed with the promise of new business tenants, only to end up underutilized as extra storage space and the like, such as occurred recently on a nearby Main Street. What a waste!
The fact that neither public or private interests have addressed what can only be considered a wide array of economic abandonment, contributes to the kinds of social unrest which many of us who are older, never expected to see again in the course of our lifetimes. Faltering Main Streets were the first indication of trouble. Presently, abandoned businesses and homes in suburban areas are continuing the cycle.
Is it possible that shifts in middle class income patterns (less "middle", more "high" and "low") affect the dearth of local investment? After all, those with lower income levels have long taken advantage of existing real estate opportunities, when higher income levels shifted to new options elsewhere. A lack of investment along a full (diverse) income spectrum, contributes to an economic "deepening" of investment (instead of widening), as David Glasner noted in a recent post. His example highlighted capital deepening in relation to hiring decisions and efficiency in scale on the part of major companies, but these processes doubtless affect small business formation as well.
What is at stake in all this, is whether today's economic constructs remain vital to a point of being able to replicate themselves. Thus far it's been too easy to be fooled, when replication does takes place in developing nations (or more recent arrivals), but not in developed nations. What's the difference? A cellular organism has to divide (i.e. new wealth source) to generate new life. Not just stretch! In other words, economic vitality is not just a matter of expanding or bringing more entrants into already prosperous areas, but starting anew.
Meanwhile, cities and nations tell potential newcomers in no uncertain terms that they are basically full. Only so much augmentation is possible in the reigning circumstance of the present. And no one wants to hear it, because it is still too difficult to contemplate starting over. If today's economic conditions are to remain amenable to long term growth, this is no time to give up on places which have experienced less prosperity. Yet one reason it has been difficult to start the process - at least in the U.S. - is the lack of a national dialogue as to how citizens would like to live, work, and economically engage with one another in the 21st century. Instead, legislators and special interests are busily enacting laws to make many options in this regard off limits, across an entire realm of possibility.
Perhaps my outlook is even more "Malthusian" than usual (about economic vitality), due to a telling set of pictures and story line which provided a much needed warning. While prosperous regions and their residents mostly remain convinced all is well, economic stagnation continues apace at the periphery. From Johnny Sanphilippo at Market Urbanism, in "Your Town is a Financial Timebomb":
I keep up with the reports and journalists proclaiming that America's suburbs are thriving and will continue to do so forever. Yet I keep scratching my head since these depictions are in conflict with what I keep seeing on the ground as I travel around the country.Many citizens don't have the current option of living where service formation and tradable sector production both exist in abundance. The above linked article also alludes to the fact that extensive government infrastructure is questionable, when much of it appears to encourage abandonment sooner, rather then later. Are we using the wrong kinds of infrastructure, if these forms of government investment end up being treated disrespectfully? How can governments contemplate further investment spending along the same lines, if too much ends up being squandered? It's time to recreate not just the environments that some of us live in, but also the ways in which we wish to interact with, and assist one another.
Tuesday, July 5, 2016
On the Vital Role of the Knowledge Donor
Put simply, a newly constructed equilibrium corporation wouldn't be possible without the assistance of knowledge donors, so this post also serves as an informal appeal to those who may eventually consider the offer. However, some readers might reasonably wonder: why am I discussing such an important subject in a blog post (i.e. digitally) instead of via the normal social circles?
There are several reasons. Health and related issues contribute to a present inability to travel on my part, and I can't be certain whether these circumstance will change. Also: without a college degree, I lack some of the qualifications to approach this matter with others at the level of, say, international summit settings where such issues are ideally addressed. I need to be clear as possible in the years ahead as to what this ongoing project would benefit from, so that others could fulfill similar functions in my stead, should they desire to do so.
On the other hand, I do hope to be able to take part in the organization of domestic summits, eventually. In these summits, other citizens such as myself would be involved who don't necessarily hold advanced degrees. Once my work is finally organized in a viable and understandable form, I'll begin efforts in earnest to reach out (digitally) and share it with others.
Either way, summits would bring individuals together from all walks of life, to explore the possibilities of a directly generated services and time based marketplace for the 21st century. For the participants of domestic summits, college degrees would not be necessary to participate, just as this form of institutional recognition would not be necessary for active participation in knowledge use communities, afterward.
However: in terms of setting up organizational capacity, knowledge use systems and the corporate structure they rely on, would greatly benefit from the personal attention of professional donors. My fondest hope is that this new structure can eventually provide a stronger link between a professional world which is increasingly burdened with society's hopes, and populations everywhere which seek to be a part of progress and prosperity.
While an equilibrium corporate structure would reach out to institutions of higher learning in multiple capacities, professionals are particularly needed to assist with some basic elements in three areas: economic, medical and legal. Many problems in these areas have become difficult to address through general equilibrium means - a factor which helps to explain the name of equilibrium corporation as an alternative equilibrium construct for broader economic access.
Today's healthcare professionals are overwhelmed as governments pressure them to expand their services, even though these professionals often don't have the resources (or backing) at the ready which would allow them to do so. Knowledge use systems could eventually relieve some of this pressure, by making it possible for medical professionals to preserve some of the most important facets of healthcare for broader use.
I mention healthcare first, because of its direct links to issues which so many nations now face. Among the reasons nations are compelled to turn back immigrants at the border, is the fact immigrants require healthcare which local citizens fear is already in short supply. And governments are facing new struggles in their efforts to support present healthcare obligations, as well. For instance, John Taylor reminded his readers that the CBO no longer reports U.S. debt levels higher than 250% of GDP, even though the upcoming fiscal projections are not substantially changed. Knowledge use systems would provide an option, for future generations who remain uncertain about the role of government entitlements for services generation.
Just as basic elements of healthcare would be built into the educational structure of knowledge use systems, so too an understanding of economics, as a basic educational component. Regular readers know that I'm particularly concerned about economic education which includes not only the vital role of money, but also the role of the individual as an integral part of supply and demand. It is the ongoing intersection of time value with resource value, which matters most for populations of all sizes in terms of economic outcome.
Tight money conditions since the Great Recession have led to a relative loss of tradable sector activity, in relation to that of non tradable sector activity. Even though this circumstance is difficult to address in general equilibrium conditions at national levels (especially without a nominal level target), an equilibrium corporation would approach non tradable sector activity through innovative means which gradually diminish its costs, as contrast with those of tradable sector activity.
Several aspects of the equilibrium corporate structure are unique in nature, hence would benefit from legal assistance. Local participants would contribute to a direct marketplace for time value, through a process of mutual employment for ongoing activities in services formation. Incremental forms of ownership make it possible to own building components and land components separately, and time value serves as means to accrue asset formation through mutual educational assistance from a young age. By creating the most flexible forms of ownership possible, the equilibrium corporation can quickly respond to changes, whether those shifts in conditions are environmentally induced such as global warming, or even of a political nature such as secession.
As more individuals find themselves on the short end of economic access, the burdens on those expected to remain responsible, only continue to grow. Today's economic and social issues exist at a level which no longer readily responds to reason or persuasion. Further, asymmetric compensation (through discretionary income and revenue) alone is insufficient for full employment in an automated age, and fiscal measures such as basic income are completely off the mark. As technology substitutes for many of the old work roles, it will take time to restore faith in a future with new marketplace challenges.
Even though symmetric compensation is hardly an ideal substitute for merit based compensation and ability in the workplace, it could nonetheless provide a way for many among the marginalized to regain their hope for a better future. Knowledge donors would provide a most valuable service, through helping to define the original framework where knowledge use systems can begin. At stake is the preservation of knowledge for the foreseeable future, and also, the preservation of time value for all citizens.
There are several reasons. Health and related issues contribute to a present inability to travel on my part, and I can't be certain whether these circumstance will change. Also: without a college degree, I lack some of the qualifications to approach this matter with others at the level of, say, international summit settings where such issues are ideally addressed. I need to be clear as possible in the years ahead as to what this ongoing project would benefit from, so that others could fulfill similar functions in my stead, should they desire to do so.
On the other hand, I do hope to be able to take part in the organization of domestic summits, eventually. In these summits, other citizens such as myself would be involved who don't necessarily hold advanced degrees. Once my work is finally organized in a viable and understandable form, I'll begin efforts in earnest to reach out (digitally) and share it with others.
Either way, summits would bring individuals together from all walks of life, to explore the possibilities of a directly generated services and time based marketplace for the 21st century. For the participants of domestic summits, college degrees would not be necessary to participate, just as this form of institutional recognition would not be necessary for active participation in knowledge use communities, afterward.
However: in terms of setting up organizational capacity, knowledge use systems and the corporate structure they rely on, would greatly benefit from the personal attention of professional donors. My fondest hope is that this new structure can eventually provide a stronger link between a professional world which is increasingly burdened with society's hopes, and populations everywhere which seek to be a part of progress and prosperity.
While an equilibrium corporate structure would reach out to institutions of higher learning in multiple capacities, professionals are particularly needed to assist with some basic elements in three areas: economic, medical and legal. Many problems in these areas have become difficult to address through general equilibrium means - a factor which helps to explain the name of equilibrium corporation as an alternative equilibrium construct for broader economic access.
Today's healthcare professionals are overwhelmed as governments pressure them to expand their services, even though these professionals often don't have the resources (or backing) at the ready which would allow them to do so. Knowledge use systems could eventually relieve some of this pressure, by making it possible for medical professionals to preserve some of the most important facets of healthcare for broader use.
I mention healthcare first, because of its direct links to issues which so many nations now face. Among the reasons nations are compelled to turn back immigrants at the border, is the fact immigrants require healthcare which local citizens fear is already in short supply. And governments are facing new struggles in their efforts to support present healthcare obligations, as well. For instance, John Taylor reminded his readers that the CBO no longer reports U.S. debt levels higher than 250% of GDP, even though the upcoming fiscal projections are not substantially changed. Knowledge use systems would provide an option, for future generations who remain uncertain about the role of government entitlements for services generation.
Just as basic elements of healthcare would be built into the educational structure of knowledge use systems, so too an understanding of economics, as a basic educational component. Regular readers know that I'm particularly concerned about economic education which includes not only the vital role of money, but also the role of the individual as an integral part of supply and demand. It is the ongoing intersection of time value with resource value, which matters most for populations of all sizes in terms of economic outcome.
Tight money conditions since the Great Recession have led to a relative loss of tradable sector activity, in relation to that of non tradable sector activity. Even though this circumstance is difficult to address in general equilibrium conditions at national levels (especially without a nominal level target), an equilibrium corporation would approach non tradable sector activity through innovative means which gradually diminish its costs, as contrast with those of tradable sector activity.
Several aspects of the equilibrium corporate structure are unique in nature, hence would benefit from legal assistance. Local participants would contribute to a direct marketplace for time value, through a process of mutual employment for ongoing activities in services formation. Incremental forms of ownership make it possible to own building components and land components separately, and time value serves as means to accrue asset formation through mutual educational assistance from a young age. By creating the most flexible forms of ownership possible, the equilibrium corporation can quickly respond to changes, whether those shifts in conditions are environmentally induced such as global warming, or even of a political nature such as secession.
As more individuals find themselves on the short end of economic access, the burdens on those expected to remain responsible, only continue to grow. Today's economic and social issues exist at a level which no longer readily responds to reason or persuasion. Further, asymmetric compensation (through discretionary income and revenue) alone is insufficient for full employment in an automated age, and fiscal measures such as basic income are completely off the mark. As technology substitutes for many of the old work roles, it will take time to restore faith in a future with new marketplace challenges.
Even though symmetric compensation is hardly an ideal substitute for merit based compensation and ability in the workplace, it could nonetheless provide a way for many among the marginalized to regain their hope for a better future. Knowledge donors would provide a most valuable service, through helping to define the original framework where knowledge use systems can begin. At stake is the preservation of knowledge for the foreseeable future, and also, the preservation of time value for all citizens.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Random Thoughts on Knowledge Use Systems
Per the post title: Sometimes, part of the accumulating notes on my desk end up getting tossed, for no better reason than they lack a cohesive framework! I started out however, by questioning some of the similarities and differences that could occur in communities based along the lines of knowledge use systems.
Presently, I'm leaning towards "equilibrium corporation" as an appropriate name for a legal construct, since the term is more descriptive of the underlying rationale, than the "dual" designation I'd recently considered. Equilibrium corporation also provides a recognizable notation for economics as part of an educational framework. Too many political problems of the present, stem from a lack of economic understanding. One of the best things about compensated peer to peer learning is that today's K-12 public education is but a starting point, since some education basics can also be mastered on personal time via digital methods.
Not every community would be "newly created" in the sense of infrastructure and flexible building components for life/work options. An (alternative) equilibrium construct could assist older communities which are considering new beginnings as well. In some instances, partially abandoned neighborhoods might still be viable, provided local infrastructure can be salvaged or possibly reconfigured without excessive expense. I've not lived close to areas of extensive decline during my 60+ years, so admittedly don't know the extent of existing burdens that would be involved.
In other instances, "bedroom communities" could be created for system participants who wish to live near prosperous regions - particularly areas with limited ability to add greater population density for lower income levels. Indeed, it is becoming difficult to generate greater density for middle income levels in today's more prosperous regions.While these new towns would still have a multi purpose center or core, it would likely not be as extensive as "free standing" new communities with a broader array of ongoing activity.
Practicality for low income bedroom communities, also means creating simpler transport patterns to nearby cities. Affordable transportation infrastructure would not only make auto use unnecessary, but take advantage of resource sets within the realm of shared responsibility. In particular, citizens need transportation choices which go well beyond the present debate of self drive vehicles for major cities. As for the transportation difficulties of the here and now: one only wonders how many millions opt out of the workplace, because of the difficulties involved in maintaining older automobiles for long commutes.
Among the more inspiring visual components of these new communities, would be their walkable core. Beauty can become a part of local environment by means of shared time commitment, just as readily as disposable income. These could be among the first walkable communities created in nearly a century, for the average citizen (i.e. not high income retired) who wants to participate in a full range of economic activity without need of an automobile in central areas.
Depending on terrain of course, a series of "spokes" from the center (or downtown) would provide dedicated transportation options, so that different travel accommodations need not maneuver the same pathways and thoroughfares. The nature of these transportation options would help to determine as well, where individuals and families might prefer to locate, should they choose to locate inside of the areas where normal transportation spans the exterior of community boundaries.
Knowledge use systems would provide settings where a wide array of innovations and methods have a chance to be explored and discussed within common frameworks. When new communities are formed via the process of domestic summits, participants will have a chance to review innovation for building and infrastructure which often receives little notice otherwise in developed nations. Developed nations dismiss many such options out of hand. Too much housing has been built in recent decades which looks essentially like all other housing, and these developments use the same resource patterns which are mostly targeted for higher income levels.
Just as each alternate equilibrium construct would be unique, so too would be the environments they would generate. It has been said that variety is the spice of life, and even though these communities would be small by comparison with most towns and cities, in some respects they would actually have more variety and choice than can be found in their larger counterparts.
Update: Thanks to Miles Kimball for this Quartz article by Alex Balashov, about the unfortunate design of today's low density realm which was built especially for cars - http://qz.com/698928/why-suburbia-sucks/
Presently, I'm leaning towards "equilibrium corporation" as an appropriate name for a legal construct, since the term is more descriptive of the underlying rationale, than the "dual" designation I'd recently considered. Equilibrium corporation also provides a recognizable notation for economics as part of an educational framework. Too many political problems of the present, stem from a lack of economic understanding. One of the best things about compensated peer to peer learning is that today's K-12 public education is but a starting point, since some education basics can also be mastered on personal time via digital methods.
Not every community would be "newly created" in the sense of infrastructure and flexible building components for life/work options. An (alternative) equilibrium construct could assist older communities which are considering new beginnings as well. In some instances, partially abandoned neighborhoods might still be viable, provided local infrastructure can be salvaged or possibly reconfigured without excessive expense. I've not lived close to areas of extensive decline during my 60+ years, so admittedly don't know the extent of existing burdens that would be involved.
In other instances, "bedroom communities" could be created for system participants who wish to live near prosperous regions - particularly areas with limited ability to add greater population density for lower income levels. Indeed, it is becoming difficult to generate greater density for middle income levels in today's more prosperous regions.While these new towns would still have a multi purpose center or core, it would likely not be as extensive as "free standing" new communities with a broader array of ongoing activity.
Practicality for low income bedroom communities, also means creating simpler transport patterns to nearby cities. Affordable transportation infrastructure would not only make auto use unnecessary, but take advantage of resource sets within the realm of shared responsibility. In particular, citizens need transportation choices which go well beyond the present debate of self drive vehicles for major cities. As for the transportation difficulties of the here and now: one only wonders how many millions opt out of the workplace, because of the difficulties involved in maintaining older automobiles for long commutes.
Among the more inspiring visual components of these new communities, would be their walkable core. Beauty can become a part of local environment by means of shared time commitment, just as readily as disposable income. These could be among the first walkable communities created in nearly a century, for the average citizen (i.e. not high income retired) who wants to participate in a full range of economic activity without need of an automobile in central areas.
Depending on terrain of course, a series of "spokes" from the center (or downtown) would provide dedicated transportation options, so that different travel accommodations need not maneuver the same pathways and thoroughfares. The nature of these transportation options would help to determine as well, where individuals and families might prefer to locate, should they choose to locate inside of the areas where normal transportation spans the exterior of community boundaries.
Knowledge use systems would provide settings where a wide array of innovations and methods have a chance to be explored and discussed within common frameworks. When new communities are formed via the process of domestic summits, participants will have a chance to review innovation for building and infrastructure which often receives little notice otherwise in developed nations. Developed nations dismiss many such options out of hand. Too much housing has been built in recent decades which looks essentially like all other housing, and these developments use the same resource patterns which are mostly targeted for higher income levels.
Just as each alternate equilibrium construct would be unique, so too would be the environments they would generate. It has been said that variety is the spice of life, and even though these communities would be small by comparison with most towns and cities, in some respects they would actually have more variety and choice than can be found in their larger counterparts.
Update: Thanks to Miles Kimball for this Quartz article by Alex Balashov, about the unfortunate design of today's low density realm which was built especially for cars - http://qz.com/698928/why-suburbia-sucks/
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Further Rationale for Domestic Summits
Several recent posts from Arnold Kling, reminded me of issues that are pertinent to the kinds of organizational capacity which domestic summits would also address. Regular readers may remember earlier posts on my part, which discussed domestic summits as a way to begin the process of creating new communities. A commenter asked Arnold Kling:
While reductions in business overhead are important, simpler forms of business structure would allow all summit participants - even those who may not consider themselves particularly entrepreneurial - to create new community and participate in marketplace outcome. Most important is the fact many such beginnings would result in positive and long lasting effects.
Among the many retail possibilities, are updated variations on pushcart vending such as market monetarist Benjamin Cole has proposed, and he explains their benefits to a commenter in a recent post at Historinhas. Even though higher income levels have often sorted for business patterns that negate pushcart vendor related options, other income levels would welcome flexible retail in new marketplace design. Retail production choices are especially becoming more important, as big box retail finds little incentive for either building or remaining in communities without high income levels.
A framework which makes greater use of lower wage and income potential, would allow infrastructure and environmental factors to move closer to the resource capacity of each group. As participants determine what is possible in this regard, follow up summit gatherings would allow those who ultimately commit, to select among the marketplace constructs which new groups wish to pursue. These resultant settings could be thought of as free market innovation zones. In these zones, what would otherwise be labeled "disruptive" (i.e. undesirable) innovation, can take place without posing direct threat to the general equilibrium conditions of prosperous regions. Domestic summits would serve as a starting point, for the selection process of more unique settings than today's standard zoning and regulatory environments allow.
There's another aspect of the resulting selection processes among potential groupings which deserves consideration. Sometimes, what appears as though discrimination, is simply the desire of individuals to work and live in groups that are similar. Years earlier, working with others who had experienced a lot of discrimination in their lives, I remember being astonished when they nonetheless expressed a preference for much of their time to be spent with others who could relate to life experiences held in common. Often, this was a matter of race preference as well.
However, these natural grouping tendencies are often confused with discriminatory activity in the marketplace. Part of the problem is that too many groups end up competing in an economic arena which lacks sufficient production and consumption space for all involved. The domestic summit response is for self selecting groups to create more marketplace and economic access for everyone, instead of encouraging anti-discrimination processes which are mostly a battle over the already existing pie of general equilibrium. Some aspects of direct democracy would be within reach (for time value in particular) in small group settings, because the results are not those which millions of individuals are expected to comply with.
All who take part in domestic summit proceedings would need to approach them with an open mind, to create a positive experience capable of long term potential applicability. It would be difficult for anyone with a negative attitude regarding "opposing" lifestyle options in general, to add value for a particular marketplace option among many possibilities. Domestic summits would strive to multiply social capital, instead of continuing with today's political efforts to closely restrict anything possible in this regard. Again, from Arnold Kling:
Anti-discrimination policies sought to provide economic access in an arbitrarily limited marketplace. However, a better approach would have been to create sufficient marketplace space which provided production and consumption potential for all concerned. This is also an important reason greater flexibility in property ownership is needed, so that mutually held real estate can also be coordinated for changing preferences in working and living arrangements. Today, most neighbors live next door to one another not because of any personal preference, but because of the limited pathways which today's property ownership makes possible.
Over the decades, I've observed alternative production/consumption options that were lost because they posed too great a threat to the existing order. The seventies in particular, were a time of great hope for both infrastructural and healthcare options which for the most part did not see the light of day. Now, today's struggle with food trucks and digital platform transportation feels reminiscent, as these options also pose a direct threat to existing general equilibrium conditions.
What's more, the political arena doesn't acknowledge that special interests and government alike continue to put sand in the gears, of what otherwise would be greater choice and innovation in the marketplace. Instead, political parties react to the existing order in ways that could undermine both economic and political stability. Domestic summits would provide means for individuals to present alternatives that don't pose a direct threat to the status quo. There is no reason, why any society should have to live by the same set of economic rules, regardless of income. Still, creating new patterns for life and work is best approached with a live and let live perspective, for the best possible outcome.
If we are over-educating our workforce, then why don't entrepreneurs find and train non-college workers at lower lifetime salaries?Kling replies:
Very good question. Equivalently, why don't non-college workers try to convince entrepreneurs that they can do the same work for lower pay?Of course one needs understandable settings among a wide variety of groups, in which it is possible to do so! My first thought upon reading his response, is that lower pay as a logical move, would involve a restructuring of organizational marketplace costs as well, for both living and working. Otherwise, those with lower pay would continue to struggle with the oft ill defined consumption expectations of general equilibrium. Hence taking this into account is what I have referred to as an alternative equilibrium response, to the normal costs associated with general equilibrium conditions.
While reductions in business overhead are important, simpler forms of business structure would allow all summit participants - even those who may not consider themselves particularly entrepreneurial - to create new community and participate in marketplace outcome. Most important is the fact many such beginnings would result in positive and long lasting effects.
Among the many retail possibilities, are updated variations on pushcart vending such as market monetarist Benjamin Cole has proposed, and he explains their benefits to a commenter in a recent post at Historinhas. Even though higher income levels have often sorted for business patterns that negate pushcart vendor related options, other income levels would welcome flexible retail in new marketplace design. Retail production choices are especially becoming more important, as big box retail finds little incentive for either building or remaining in communities without high income levels.
A framework which makes greater use of lower wage and income potential, would allow infrastructure and environmental factors to move closer to the resource capacity of each group. As participants determine what is possible in this regard, follow up summit gatherings would allow those who ultimately commit, to select among the marketplace constructs which new groups wish to pursue. These resultant settings could be thought of as free market innovation zones. In these zones, what would otherwise be labeled "disruptive" (i.e. undesirable) innovation, can take place without posing direct threat to the general equilibrium conditions of prosperous regions. Domestic summits would serve as a starting point, for the selection process of more unique settings than today's standard zoning and regulatory environments allow.
There's another aspect of the resulting selection processes among potential groupings which deserves consideration. Sometimes, what appears as though discrimination, is simply the desire of individuals to work and live in groups that are similar. Years earlier, working with others who had experienced a lot of discrimination in their lives, I remember being astonished when they nonetheless expressed a preference for much of their time to be spent with others who could relate to life experiences held in common. Often, this was a matter of race preference as well.
However, these natural grouping tendencies are often confused with discriminatory activity in the marketplace. Part of the problem is that too many groups end up competing in an economic arena which lacks sufficient production and consumption space for all involved. The domestic summit response is for self selecting groups to create more marketplace and economic access for everyone, instead of encouraging anti-discrimination processes which are mostly a battle over the already existing pie of general equilibrium. Some aspects of direct democracy would be within reach (for time value in particular) in small group settings, because the results are not those which millions of individuals are expected to comply with.
All who take part in domestic summit proceedings would need to approach them with an open mind, to create a positive experience capable of long term potential applicability. It would be difficult for anyone with a negative attitude regarding "opposing" lifestyle options in general, to add value for a particular marketplace option among many possibilities. Domestic summits would strive to multiply social capital, instead of continuing with today's political efforts to closely restrict anything possible in this regard. Again, from Arnold Kling:
...one possibility I want to throw out there is that people want affluent neighbors...high prices is going to make me want to live there.Few individuals with a substantial income would feel otherwise, given the unfortunate lack of trust that has become a feature of the U.S. landscape. In the thoughtful comments that followed, some noted that the only remaining forms of discrimination that are still possible, are those of price and meritocracy. Prices have been unnecessarily bid up because too few other possibilities exist for the natural forms of association that people seek. Even though discrimination certainly has negative implications, one's desire to sort for lifestyle preference is not the same thing.
Anti-discrimination policies sought to provide economic access in an arbitrarily limited marketplace. However, a better approach would have been to create sufficient marketplace space which provided production and consumption potential for all concerned. This is also an important reason greater flexibility in property ownership is needed, so that mutually held real estate can also be coordinated for changing preferences in working and living arrangements. Today, most neighbors live next door to one another not because of any personal preference, but because of the limited pathways which today's property ownership makes possible.
Over the decades, I've observed alternative production/consumption options that were lost because they posed too great a threat to the existing order. The seventies in particular, were a time of great hope for both infrastructural and healthcare options which for the most part did not see the light of day. Now, today's struggle with food trucks and digital platform transportation feels reminiscent, as these options also pose a direct threat to existing general equilibrium conditions.
What's more, the political arena doesn't acknowledge that special interests and government alike continue to put sand in the gears, of what otherwise would be greater choice and innovation in the marketplace. Instead, political parties react to the existing order in ways that could undermine both economic and political stability. Domestic summits would provide means for individuals to present alternatives that don't pose a direct threat to the status quo. There is no reason, why any society should have to live by the same set of economic rules, regardless of income. Still, creating new patterns for life and work is best approached with a live and let live perspective, for the best possible outcome.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Defining Circles of Sustainability, and Some Examples
I've used this term infrequently, in part because some concepts associated with it are being discussed in related contexts. Still, it's a phrase I relied on prior to beginning this blog, hence the designation deserves a spot in the glossary page notes I hope to have ready, later in the year.
Circles of sustainability can be thought of as special attention, to internal design patterns which affect the economic outcomes of free market potantial. In turn, this process corresponds to realistic assessments of local group capacity for total economic output, given the resource commitments involved. Complex economies benefit from multiple patterns of resource use that are both recognizable and accessible.
It also helps to differentiate local circles of sustainability, from patterns of sustainable specialization and trade (PSST) as advocated by Arnold Kling. While the adaptations Kling notes may be deemed spontaneous market conditions, they still result from intentional design on the part of both public and private interests, for the broad settings of general equilibrium conditions. Think of digital tech entrepreneurs which contribute to traffic flows for information and knowledge use, for instance. Kling's general equilibrium approach would also reflect the economic patterns that eventually gain historical perspective.
What happens when equilibrium conditions are not enough, to support economic inclusion? When individuals have little ability to contribute to local definitions of production and consumption, one result is frequent calls for wage increases. However, this approach can mean further imbalance in general equilibrium conditions. Another important example are the calls for less taxation, which - if and when heeded - sometimes lead to negative aggregate supply outcomes. Some economic activities were previously generated on fiscal terms that don't easily gain supply side replacement in the marketplace, when less tax revenue is available.
Current struggles in general equilibrium conditions, also include attempts to provide greater housing density in prosperous areas, so as to bring lower income levels to closer existing work proximity. One cannot help but wonder, how prosperous cities once had ample room for multiple income levels. Might the problem be the fact today's municipalities "need" citizens who can pay higher local taxes? If so, that means zoning "keeps out" the ones who cannot. One could reason that municipal obligations weren't so burdensome, when heavy backlogs of pensions didn't have to be paid and infrastructure was relatively new - meaning less costly maintenance was involved. In any event, sustainability requires local citizen resource capacity, hence sustainability in new communities includes arbitrage time value when wages fall short of the mark.
As a result, some who would benefit from better economic access, will need to start over with different infrastructure obligations, in new settings for mutual employment and service possibilities. Part of this process will include greater economic complexity for groups which only number in the hundreds. Getting started, means local participants will lend their own personal thought processes for infrastructure design and revenue capacity.
Presently, when national or state level governments fulfill infrastructure roles, results tend to be one size fits all infrastructure. These initial requirements can leave lower income levels compromised, in terms of participation and the capacity for bearing responsibility. Consider a recent infrastructure request from "the fortunate" in an article at the Atlantic, by Robert Frank. He asks, shouldn't the rich contribute more? In promoting his new book "Success and Luck" (which sounds like a good read) Frank emphasized how luck is more of an important factor for success in life than many are inclined to think. He was the guest of this week's Econtalk with Russ Roberts, where they also touched on some of the infrastructure arguments included in the Atlantic article.
One reason it's difficult to argue for the rich to commit further taxes for purposes of infrastructure, is the fact (also noted by Russ Roberts) this request is quickly diluted in a barrage of competing government obligations. And again, even in the best of circumstances: when outside parties are expected to do the heavy lifting, the result is externally defined infrastructure which meets the needs of general equilibrium, instead of the income levels which need alternatives to general equilibrium conditions. It is better to redefine alternative equilibrium in which all income levels can contribute to the desired results.
Another consideration: today's infrastructure requirements reflect the additional resource capacity of "home advantage" periods. In other words, overhead costs and (legal) pension requirements tend to be established when trade advantages make these costs reasonable for many citizens. While infrastructure costs aren't such a burden for prosperous regions where local residents have access to international wealth flows, it is more difficult to maintain the same forms of infrastructure, in areas where income levels face limits. Indeed, the example of many a struggling municipality serves as a warning, to consider infrastructure options which prioritize walking over auto for daily work/life needs, alongside innovative choices in electric and water systems.
Fortunately, reducing overhead for living and working needs is not as difficult as it may seem. Many forms of mass production for infrastructure and building components can be assembled on site by local citizens. Best of all, digital networks have greatly reduced overhead costs for business formation, and are gradually becoming capable of reducing costs for learning as well. The next logical step, is to use digital means to coordinate diverse economic settings at close range.
For sustainable infrastructure and living/working environments, it is best to create ways for participants to contribute to the infrastructure which is most capable of addressing their needs. Instead of counting on the lucky and fortunate (yet again) to "make up" for the ones not so fortunate, design environments for greater economic freedom. This way, the potential for luck could draw a bit closer, to many who didn't appear quite so fortunate in the demanding conditions of general equilibrium.
Circles of sustainability can be thought of as special attention, to internal design patterns which affect the economic outcomes of free market potantial. In turn, this process corresponds to realistic assessments of local group capacity for total economic output, given the resource commitments involved. Complex economies benefit from multiple patterns of resource use that are both recognizable and accessible.
It also helps to differentiate local circles of sustainability, from patterns of sustainable specialization and trade (PSST) as advocated by Arnold Kling. While the adaptations Kling notes may be deemed spontaneous market conditions, they still result from intentional design on the part of both public and private interests, for the broad settings of general equilibrium conditions. Think of digital tech entrepreneurs which contribute to traffic flows for information and knowledge use, for instance. Kling's general equilibrium approach would also reflect the economic patterns that eventually gain historical perspective.
What happens when equilibrium conditions are not enough, to support economic inclusion? When individuals have little ability to contribute to local definitions of production and consumption, one result is frequent calls for wage increases. However, this approach can mean further imbalance in general equilibrium conditions. Another important example are the calls for less taxation, which - if and when heeded - sometimes lead to negative aggregate supply outcomes. Some economic activities were previously generated on fiscal terms that don't easily gain supply side replacement in the marketplace, when less tax revenue is available.
As a result, some who would benefit from better economic access, will need to start over with different infrastructure obligations, in new settings for mutual employment and service possibilities. Part of this process will include greater economic complexity for groups which only number in the hundreds. Getting started, means local participants will lend their own personal thought processes for infrastructure design and revenue capacity.
Presently, when national or state level governments fulfill infrastructure roles, results tend to be one size fits all infrastructure. These initial requirements can leave lower income levels compromised, in terms of participation and the capacity for bearing responsibility. Consider a recent infrastructure request from "the fortunate" in an article at the Atlantic, by Robert Frank. He asks, shouldn't the rich contribute more? In promoting his new book "Success and Luck" (which sounds like a good read) Frank emphasized how luck is more of an important factor for success in life than many are inclined to think. He was the guest of this week's Econtalk with Russ Roberts, where they also touched on some of the infrastructure arguments included in the Atlantic article.
One reason it's difficult to argue for the rich to commit further taxes for purposes of infrastructure, is the fact (also noted by Russ Roberts) this request is quickly diluted in a barrage of competing government obligations. And again, even in the best of circumstances: when outside parties are expected to do the heavy lifting, the result is externally defined infrastructure which meets the needs of general equilibrium, instead of the income levels which need alternatives to general equilibrium conditions. It is better to redefine alternative equilibrium in which all income levels can contribute to the desired results.
Another consideration: today's infrastructure requirements reflect the additional resource capacity of "home advantage" periods. In other words, overhead costs and (legal) pension requirements tend to be established when trade advantages make these costs reasonable for many citizens. While infrastructure costs aren't such a burden for prosperous regions where local residents have access to international wealth flows, it is more difficult to maintain the same forms of infrastructure, in areas where income levels face limits. Indeed, the example of many a struggling municipality serves as a warning, to consider infrastructure options which prioritize walking over auto for daily work/life needs, alongside innovative choices in electric and water systems.
Fortunately, reducing overhead for living and working needs is not as difficult as it may seem. Many forms of mass production for infrastructure and building components can be assembled on site by local citizens. Best of all, digital networks have greatly reduced overhead costs for business formation, and are gradually becoming capable of reducing costs for learning as well. The next logical step, is to use digital means to coordinate diverse economic settings at close range.
For sustainable infrastructure and living/working environments, it is best to create ways for participants to contribute to the infrastructure which is most capable of addressing their needs. Instead of counting on the lucky and fortunate (yet again) to "make up" for the ones not so fortunate, design environments for greater economic freedom. This way, the potential for luck could draw a bit closer, to many who didn't appear quite so fortunate in the demanding conditions of general equilibrium.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Some Musings on Municipal Planning
In response to a recent post from Alex Tabarrok regarding urban planning, Arnold Kling wonders whether the process is still being explained in terms that are too simplistic:
Present day city formation in developing nations, tends to follow standard formulas, which mostly reflect twentieth century development. Many ideas for charter city development are presently in a theoretical stage. As Arnold Kling noted, changing circumstance will be an ongoing part of the process in the years ahead. The fact that the marginalized are the ones who would benefit most from new circumstance, yet are not actively involved in ongoing dialogue, has bearing on why many ideas in this blog are simply exploratory functions right now.
Planning is something that never stops...How do you adapt a city to new circumstances?New circumstance exist in several dimensions as well - some of which remain confusing because they are in need of internal generation, even if a charter is involved. Tabarrok's post touched on a recent interview with Paul Romer, regarding his own work in urban planning assistance. What are some differences between urban planning in general, and charter cities? Paul Romer provides an explanation from the relevant blog post.
A charter city is like urban expansion but some aspects of how the city will be run can be specified before anyone arrives. This gives the organizer of a charter city the opportunity to implement reforms that are difficult to implement after people are already in place. The name charter refers to the charter that William Penn wrote for Pennsylvania. This charter said that this new place would implement a separation between church and state and would always respect freedom of religion. With this charter in place, he could recruit people who wanted to live in such a place.Recall that knowledge use systems - and their associated local corporations - would include characteristics of charter formation. Uncertainty regarding new circumstance is doubtless a factor why charter cities haven't gotten enough traction. Even so, those with the means to invest are not necessarily the ones who want - or need - to start over. Many who would benefit from new circumstance for working and living, may not necessarily have the financial means to make a new start. This has bearing why time value is needed as a valid component for investment - not just for personal service needs but those of community as well. Indeed, it would be difficult to participate in planning processes for new community formation, if one cannot generate resource capacity which would be useful for others.
Present day city formation in developing nations, tends to follow standard formulas, which mostly reflect twentieth century development. Many ideas for charter city development are presently in a theoretical stage. As Arnold Kling noted, changing circumstance will be an ongoing part of the process in the years ahead. The fact that the marginalized are the ones who would benefit most from new circumstance, yet are not actively involved in ongoing dialogue, has bearing on why many ideas in this blog are simply exploratory functions right now.
Paul Romer noted in the above linked interview that a "quality city needs a substantial amount of public space if it is eventually to support high density." This would also be true for any knowledge use community with inherent geographic qualities which make it a desirable location for the long term. Further, time based investment would likely augment the pleasant features that already exist. Communities such as these would come with recognizable time use "pricing" imprints to choose from as well, instead of standard taxation or fees. The fact that population densities would be closely aligned for walkable communities in particular, means more public space would be spaced alongside private use areas as well.
Often, in the past, communities were built around locally available resources which were treated as a centerpiece of group organization. For the most part this form of organization has been relatively informal, but there have also been examples of top down dictates which failed on more personal terms. Even so, much about knowledge use systems also involves organizational patterns which initially appear complex. How would they not come across as top down dictates?
Knowledge use systems would utilize services as a centerpiece of time organization, but in ways that allow individuals to set their own schedules with one another. The systems might evolve along two different templates, depending on whether they originate in already existing municipal surroundings or begin anew in areas with low population density. As to new community locations, Emily Washington recently penned an apt reminder, that today's infrastructure does not have enough options in terms of what people actually want from their environments.
Today, many individuals who would like to live among other individuals with similar lifestyle preferences, are geographically separated from one another, with little more than the forms of social media they have in common. Further, many who attempt to carry out alternative infrastructure on their own are often discouraged by local municipalities which adhere to strict codes. Eventually, domestic summits could help more like minded individuals find one another, in a process that would mean the beginning of new communities for those who need them most. Future posts will get into more detail, as to some of the charter conditions which would inform these communities at the outset.
Often, in the past, communities were built around locally available resources which were treated as a centerpiece of group organization. For the most part this form of organization has been relatively informal, but there have also been examples of top down dictates which failed on more personal terms. Even so, much about knowledge use systems also involves organizational patterns which initially appear complex. How would they not come across as top down dictates?
Knowledge use systems would utilize services as a centerpiece of time organization, but in ways that allow individuals to set their own schedules with one another. The systems might evolve along two different templates, depending on whether they originate in already existing municipal surroundings or begin anew in areas with low population density. As to new community locations, Emily Washington recently penned an apt reminder, that today's infrastructure does not have enough options in terms of what people actually want from their environments.
Today, many individuals who would like to live among other individuals with similar lifestyle preferences, are geographically separated from one another, with little more than the forms of social media they have in common. Further, many who attempt to carry out alternative infrastructure on their own are often discouraged by local municipalities which adhere to strict codes. Eventually, domestic summits could help more like minded individuals find one another, in a process that would mean the beginning of new communities for those who need them most. Future posts will get into more detail, as to some of the charter conditions which would inform these communities at the outset.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Knowledge Use Start-Ups: Putting It All Together
Many of my posts end up making arguments re why knowledge use systems are needed in the first place. This is such an easy mindset to maintain, because a wide range of discussions take place in terms of why something is needed (or not). But sometimes it feels like a passive approach! Autumn can be a good time for new beginnings, and I'm counting on the cooler days for a new "burst" of energy. So this post - at least - will change gears from why to how - if only to get past the seeming impossibility of the task!
When it comes to local context for corporate structure, a clear framework for the initial organization can be the greatest struggle. Granted, a starter organization (for knowledge use systems) may end up as a non profit entity, given the nature of its ongoing tasks which include vetting processes and explaining the legal and monetary circumstance. But everything that follows - with a little luck - will eventually exist as for profit entities, complete with built in "mini banks" to support a lifelong process for human capital. Time value is the untapped wealth of the present, and it is the economic growth needed most.
Organizational capacity holds intrinsic value, which is capable of serving as a source of wealth generation. The hard part is just getting to a point where the advantages of this approach start to become evident! I now recognize that there are people everywhere who would like to contribute in some way, and others would be inspired to take part in the resulting communities. I just haven't found the best means yet, for reaching out and making the necessary connections!
Even though these environments will often be relatively simple and multi purpose, knowledge use systems will still need regular contact with professionals in the fields involved. New community start ups will be able to tap the resources of the "starter" organization, particularly for details re time arbitrage management and material for a services core. Plenty of coordination will be involved, not just between different kinds of skills sets but also in terms of reconciling various approaches into a cohesive whole. I am still a long way from being able to travel and personally communicate with others re these efforts, but continue to hope that I will one day be able to do so. In the meantime I will get as much explanation in print, as possible.
Domestic summits will of course be a part of this process, but they would be needed some years down the road, after the initial legal and monetary hurdles have been overcome. Also, the domestic summit process would be intended for individuals and groups who are actively considering new community start ups, but need to meet others first in order to find out whether they are on the "same page" regarding lifestyle and infrastructure planning.
Further, even though infrastructure is important, provisions for infrastructure design would evolve after other elements of the system have been established. Part of what will help in this regard, is that time arbitrage is always a possibility in already existing communities. The first priority is to create a system of broad knowledge use, which is accessible and workable for either tighter or smaller population densities than is now the case. Each new group would start the process by defining a services core for time arbitrage, and expanding from that point.
Initially, a sponsorship phase is likely to be involved for those who seek to establish knowledge use systems. At a group level, this phase might last a year or more until the services core is established to a degree that most individuals have become comfortable with the working relationships involved. Once a group establishes a reliable organizational structure, they become eligible for internal monetary compensation - i.e. the internal "bank" structure for human capital. All progress in this regard would be recorded both for the records of the starter organization, as well as the governments which are willing to acknowledge these new communities as an active part of their economic structure. The recording process is much simpler than it may sound, in that time arbitrage is recorded by the participants who take part in ongoing transactions.
Two forms of sponsors could assist the start up process for new communities, prior to their formal recognition status. Whereas one would provide financial assistance, the other would be more directly involved in the provision of their own time and skills, as seed capital for new communities. Financial sponsors might select a participant and provide their hourly compensation for matched time, and possibly living expenses if needed.
A basic or minimal "work week" for participants (during prime work years) could be 15 matched hours, which makes for a (minimum) 30 hour week, given the matched time with others. Often these would be 15 different sets of individuals, who would frequently use common services areas in central locations to ease the coordination process. Also, given the fact much of this time also counts as consumption, some will choose a good deal more than 15 matched hours per week. While coordination also extends to living quarters, much of the process will begin in relatively public areas - particularly for those of a young age, and especially for the many groups where trust will need to be gradually rebuilt.
The internal banking structure of knowledge use systems is not one of loan generation, but of compensation for matched time. This process includes an expected base of minimal but ongoing investment patterns, which make it possible to cut back whenever needed for time based obligations. These incremental shares - as a basic form of investment - would exist in the form of local square footage options, as well as for building components. Common working areas - adjacent to public areas - would be a part of local shared investment structures. For instance, in peer to peer educational settings, student entrepreneurs could meet with customers (peers, etc) in their own purchased components of central community areas.
In order for local corporations to maintain the right to monetary origination, they would agree not only to maintain vital service formation for all local citizens, but also to expand and diversify knowledge use options over time, so as not to present a burden on the limited services capacity of present day state and national governments. In the sense these local corporations provide a bank like function, it of course exists in a beta position to the alpha position of the Fed. Also, the Fed would need the timely and accurate records of local and group efforts, in order to faithfully represent them.
Eventually, these local systems would be able to provide accurate measurements not just for services, but also assets and production flows as well. As a part of the measurement process, the differences between local wealth origination and resource flows from other areas would also be observed. Since the non tradable and tradable aspects of these small but open economies would gradually become easier to recognize, they would provide useful information for larger economies as well.
When it comes to local context for corporate structure, a clear framework for the initial organization can be the greatest struggle. Granted, a starter organization (for knowledge use systems) may end up as a non profit entity, given the nature of its ongoing tasks which include vetting processes and explaining the legal and monetary circumstance. But everything that follows - with a little luck - will eventually exist as for profit entities, complete with built in "mini banks" to support a lifelong process for human capital. Time value is the untapped wealth of the present, and it is the economic growth needed most.
Organizational capacity holds intrinsic value, which is capable of serving as a source of wealth generation. The hard part is just getting to a point where the advantages of this approach start to become evident! I now recognize that there are people everywhere who would like to contribute in some way, and others would be inspired to take part in the resulting communities. I just haven't found the best means yet, for reaching out and making the necessary connections!
Even though these environments will often be relatively simple and multi purpose, knowledge use systems will still need regular contact with professionals in the fields involved. New community start ups will be able to tap the resources of the "starter" organization, particularly for details re time arbitrage management and material for a services core. Plenty of coordination will be involved, not just between different kinds of skills sets but also in terms of reconciling various approaches into a cohesive whole. I am still a long way from being able to travel and personally communicate with others re these efforts, but continue to hope that I will one day be able to do so. In the meantime I will get as much explanation in print, as possible.
Domestic summits will of course be a part of this process, but they would be needed some years down the road, after the initial legal and monetary hurdles have been overcome. Also, the domestic summit process would be intended for individuals and groups who are actively considering new community start ups, but need to meet others first in order to find out whether they are on the "same page" regarding lifestyle and infrastructure planning.
Further, even though infrastructure is important, provisions for infrastructure design would evolve after other elements of the system have been established. Part of what will help in this regard, is that time arbitrage is always a possibility in already existing communities. The first priority is to create a system of broad knowledge use, which is accessible and workable for either tighter or smaller population densities than is now the case. Each new group would start the process by defining a services core for time arbitrage, and expanding from that point.
Initially, a sponsorship phase is likely to be involved for those who seek to establish knowledge use systems. At a group level, this phase might last a year or more until the services core is established to a degree that most individuals have become comfortable with the working relationships involved. Once a group establishes a reliable organizational structure, they become eligible for internal monetary compensation - i.e. the internal "bank" structure for human capital. All progress in this regard would be recorded both for the records of the starter organization, as well as the governments which are willing to acknowledge these new communities as an active part of their economic structure. The recording process is much simpler than it may sound, in that time arbitrage is recorded by the participants who take part in ongoing transactions.
Two forms of sponsors could assist the start up process for new communities, prior to their formal recognition status. Whereas one would provide financial assistance, the other would be more directly involved in the provision of their own time and skills, as seed capital for new communities. Financial sponsors might select a participant and provide their hourly compensation for matched time, and possibly living expenses if needed.
A basic or minimal "work week" for participants (during prime work years) could be 15 matched hours, which makes for a (minimum) 30 hour week, given the matched time with others. Often these would be 15 different sets of individuals, who would frequently use common services areas in central locations to ease the coordination process. Also, given the fact much of this time also counts as consumption, some will choose a good deal more than 15 matched hours per week. While coordination also extends to living quarters, much of the process will begin in relatively public areas - particularly for those of a young age, and especially for the many groups where trust will need to be gradually rebuilt.
The internal banking structure of knowledge use systems is not one of loan generation, but of compensation for matched time. This process includes an expected base of minimal but ongoing investment patterns, which make it possible to cut back whenever needed for time based obligations. These incremental shares - as a basic form of investment - would exist in the form of local square footage options, as well as for building components. Common working areas - adjacent to public areas - would be a part of local shared investment structures. For instance, in peer to peer educational settings, student entrepreneurs could meet with customers (peers, etc) in their own purchased components of central community areas.
In order for local corporations to maintain the right to monetary origination, they would agree not only to maintain vital service formation for all local citizens, but also to expand and diversify knowledge use options over time, so as not to present a burden on the limited services capacity of present day state and national governments. In the sense these local corporations provide a bank like function, it of course exists in a beta position to the alpha position of the Fed. Also, the Fed would need the timely and accurate records of local and group efforts, in order to faithfully represent them.
Eventually, these local systems would be able to provide accurate measurements not just for services, but also assets and production flows as well. As a part of the measurement process, the differences between local wealth origination and resource flows from other areas would also be observed. Since the non tradable and tradable aspects of these small but open economies would gradually become easier to recognize, they would provide useful information for larger economies as well.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
People Are The Heart of Economic Life
If people are central to economic life, why has it become so difficult to think about the economy on these terms? Even though many suspect problems down the road - should too few remain employed as technology increases - few have dealt with this issue head on. It's important to realize that ensuring full employment does not create a "planned" economy. Instead, a steady focus on new organizational capacity, would ensure that people have voluntary means to interact with one another which are formally embedded in both social and economic structure.
Many on the left believe that governments define economic circumstance, hence should be responsible for any economic matters deemed most important. But governments can't take the place of the social coordination which sustains a civil society. In today's marketplace this coordination is incomplete, and too few on the right have noticed. Others on the right have grown less concerned about the economy, in relation to family and what they consider more important matters. But when economies don't have the chance to remain strong, families and cultures also struggle to stay afloat.
Regular readers know that I believe the marketplace needs a bit more help from people from all walks of life. Not just in the U.S. but also other nations, as central bankers continue to wind down the growth levels which were associated with the twentieth century. Are potential solutions too "boring"? Why don't domestic summits have the same panache as other kinds of summits? If given the chance, they might actually yield a greater benefit than often materializes from international summits. Yet how many nations have heeded the call to seek domestic vitality, in order to generate more positive monetary policy?
Time value in relation to other forms of resources, is the reason that economics matters. And yet the time value of the individual, is the central component which has been most neglected. How might one think about time value in broad terms? A few years earlier I touched on five stages of economic activity which seemed to apply regardless of other resource capacity, and it seems useful to consider them again, here.
These five categories provide ways to think about economic activity in both broad societal terms, as well as those of the individual. Not only do they provide a framework for decision and management process regarding divisions of labor, they serve as ways to think about time management as one transitions through different phases of life.
Many on the left believe that governments define economic circumstance, hence should be responsible for any economic matters deemed most important. But governments can't take the place of the social coordination which sustains a civil society. In today's marketplace this coordination is incomplete, and too few on the right have noticed. Others on the right have grown less concerned about the economy, in relation to family and what they consider more important matters. But when economies don't have the chance to remain strong, families and cultures also struggle to stay afloat.
Regular readers know that I believe the marketplace needs a bit more help from people from all walks of life. Not just in the U.S. but also other nations, as central bankers continue to wind down the growth levels which were associated with the twentieth century. Are potential solutions too "boring"? Why don't domestic summits have the same panache as other kinds of summits? If given the chance, they might actually yield a greater benefit than often materializes from international summits. Yet how many nations have heeded the call to seek domestic vitality, in order to generate more positive monetary policy?
Time value in relation to other forms of resources, is the reason that economics matters. And yet the time value of the individual, is the central component which has been most neglected. How might one think about time value in broad terms? A few years earlier I touched on five stages of economic activity which seemed to apply regardless of other resource capacity, and it seems useful to consider them again, here.
These five categories provide ways to think about economic activity in both broad societal terms, as well as those of the individual. Not only do they provide a framework for decision and management process regarding divisions of labor, they serve as ways to think about time management as one transitions through different phases of life.
Maintenance - Building - Creating - Understanding - Healing
Think how coordinated activity evolved, prior to extensive monetary use. One can think of maintenance activity as the human element which transcends instinct, in terms of preserving what has already been formulated by the mind. Maintenance ensures that the gains of building and creating become embedded in society. As such, maintenance forms a pyramidal base for economic activity in general.
Even though building (of new elements) and creating (design) regularly come into play, they are not needed constantly, because much of daily activity continues to proceed from the reenactment and preservation of earlier efforts. Hence building, creating and understanding are layered on top of maintenance structure, and healing forms the pinnacle. However, it is important to remember that this is not the healing of the human body (which resides alongside all forms of teaching in the maintenance structure) but the healing across disciplines which preserves what lies below.
Even though building (of new elements) and creating (design) regularly come into play, they are not needed constantly, because much of daily activity continues to proceed from the reenactment and preservation of earlier efforts. Hence building, creating and understanding are layered on top of maintenance structure, and healing forms the pinnacle. However, it is important to remember that this is not the healing of the human body (which resides alongside all forms of teaching in the maintenance structure) but the healing across disciplines which preserves what lies below.
While building and creating are considered primary for today's forms of wealth formation, they are not needed to the degree that maintenance is needed, and yet they have been expected to fund all of maintenance capacity. This is why maintenance tends to break down over time. Consequently, the vital activities of maintenance need to be approached directly, so that they can also be capable of wealth creation on their own.
Otherwise, what looks to be a highly stable pyramid formation, develops holes at the base of the structure, when it proves too difficult for building and creating elements to regularly contribute to the base of the structure. The pyramidal structure is endangered now, because healing and understanding elements have already been fragmented. As the process continues, a breakdown can ensue in the building and creating components, which further extends to the base.
Otherwise, what looks to be a highly stable pyramid formation, develops holes at the base of the structure, when it proves too difficult for building and creating elements to regularly contribute to the base of the structure. The pyramidal structure is endangered now, because healing and understanding elements have already been fragmented. As the process continues, a breakdown can ensue in the building and creating components, which further extends to the base.
By tapping into personal time value, new wealth can be generated from the bottom of the pyramid, so that building elements do not have to carry the load for both wealth formation and maintenance capacity. The base is made up of every kind of knowledge use imaginable. Yet the services capacity which lies here is strangely unrecognized, for the distinctly human quality it holds. When one considers the immense importance of the maintenance base of the pyramid, the mistake of discounting services finally becomes evident. Far too much of maintenance was written off as governmental instead of personal responsibility, even as it became impossible for governments to maintain the vital processes of knowledge use and preservation.
This is why time arbitrage is needed, in order to preserve what has become so valuable in recent centuries. Technology provides elements of maintenance alongside building capacity, but technology cannot be expected to substitute for the vital work of the mind. Equal time use capacity would make multiple forms of knowledge use sustainable, at the base of the pyramid. People are the heart of economic life. It's time to recognize the role that every individual has to play in the maintenance functions of society, so that everyone can also reach for the other roles which personally matter most in the course of a lifetime, as well.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Design for Economic Freedom
What does economic design have to do, with the freedom to interact meaningfully with others? Plenty. I have as much appreciation for Adam Smith's "invisible hand" in the economy as anyone. Just the same, spontaneity in the marketplace can be difficult to come by, when governments and special interests hijack the nature of product formation and infrastructure options. Unfortunately, excessive control in this regard has been going on for a long time.
Adam Smith also wrote about the multiple instances when governments and business interests refused to be supportive of free markets for manufactures and exports. Even though governments have made considerable progress in this regard for tradable goods, other design innovations are long overdue - especially for knowledge use and the asset formation of non tradable sectors. What would be required, to generate the economic freedoms which could better preserve political and economic sustainability?
There are several basic principles involved, beyond the need to match and coordinate time arbitrage equally to generate new wealth. Most important is the right to produce, on the part of as many individuals as possible in any participating system. Production of time based service product is completely different from production of product which benefits from scale, because more personal involvement is needed for time and knowledge based product - not less. And more time based product involving skills capacity, means more individuals and human capital involved in economic life, not less. Because matched time becomes new wealth, these forms of knowledge use and skills capacity are beholden to no special interest or benefactor, beyond the local systems which make them possible.
While production reform is important for time based knowledge use, skills sets, and services, production rights are also important for basic structural innovations within any given community. Knowledge use systems would seek to locally define product through as many means as possible, and through the assistance of as many individuals as possible. However, these forms of product diversity are not to be confused with tradable goods, which for the most part would continue to be sought both regionally and internationally on the part of knowledge use systems. Production reform is needed mostly for non tradable sectors.
A second principle for economic freedom, is that of the right to consume what one wants. Importantly, the right to market one's ideas and product comes first, before lifelong consumption of knowledge based services is a realistic possibility for lower income levels. Also, a clarification: the right to consume is not to be confused with claims on what governments have sought to make available in the marketplace, such as "rights" to healthcare which is already in short supply within primary equilibrium. Individuals need alternative equilibrium options, in which they are able to produce the knowledge sets and services they desire.
A third principle would be a broader understanding of wealth which exists beyond monetary terms. Even though one recognizes that money is only a part of wealth, there have been too few means, for anyone to turn this wisdom into something more concrete. Time arbitrage would eventually allow other factors of wealth to come into play beside monetary compensation, and monetary policy would also face less pressure to solve social issues which lie beyond its reach.
Another aspect of economic design, is the need for a structural response to changing trends in consumption. Baby Boomers have understandably become more pragmatic in recent decades, and in any circumstance, one generally decreases spending as they age. But pragmatism on the part of youth is a new development, which speaks volumes as to what production reform needs to take into consideration. Without a doubt, some of the frugal spending habits of today's youth will persist through the course of their lifetimes. A recent Time article listed 10 ways how spending patterns have changed for millennials - three of which I will touch on here.
First, millennials have become somewhat wary of investing, in terms of equities. Even though the Great Recession was (ultimately) contained by the Fed, the fact that monetary policy suffered a severe initial setback, is now reflected in lowered expectations on the part of those who were just getting started in the workplace. Now, some among this group will save for retirement by putting their money into a sock drawer, instead of normal investments.
Granted, some of the younger millennials will have more faith in the economy, as workplace opportunities have improved of late. Even so, those who were getting started during the initial downturn, will likely seek more practical environments than are currently on offer in the marketplace, for the rest of their lives. Because of these circumstance - if for no other reason - there needs to be regions where both housing and knowledge based services innovation are allowed to take place. It is wrong for nations to expect populations to wait for years or even decades for a stronger economy, when better results could be generated much sooner without the needless sacrifice.
Also, the Times article spoke of a lack of spending for both housing and cars among millennials. While some will eventually commit to traditional housing and cars, low cost commuting options are needed for transportation, besides the dedicated roads and highways for automated vehicles. Again, the highly debated transportation of the future will become feasible options in cities, rather than outlying areas. Many who live in rural areas will need substantial changes in density and infrastructure patterns, in order to gain economic diversity where they already live.
In summary, economic design needs to respond to the kinds of choices that people are now able to make, which in many instances won't be similar to upper income spending patterns. Some will still seek higher income options, but others will want choices designed for more practical and flexible ends. As things stand now, primary consumption choices in non tradable sectors do not offer much in the way of economic freedom. There's a reason why Milton Friedman said of freedom, that it is a rare and delicate plant. Indeed...one that too many still take for granted.
Adam Smith also wrote about the multiple instances when governments and business interests refused to be supportive of free markets for manufactures and exports. Even though governments have made considerable progress in this regard for tradable goods, other design innovations are long overdue - especially for knowledge use and the asset formation of non tradable sectors. What would be required, to generate the economic freedoms which could better preserve political and economic sustainability?
There are several basic principles involved, beyond the need to match and coordinate time arbitrage equally to generate new wealth. Most important is the right to produce, on the part of as many individuals as possible in any participating system. Production of time based service product is completely different from production of product which benefits from scale, because more personal involvement is needed for time and knowledge based product - not less. And more time based product involving skills capacity, means more individuals and human capital involved in economic life, not less. Because matched time becomes new wealth, these forms of knowledge use and skills capacity are beholden to no special interest or benefactor, beyond the local systems which make them possible.
While production reform is important for time based knowledge use, skills sets, and services, production rights are also important for basic structural innovations within any given community. Knowledge use systems would seek to locally define product through as many means as possible, and through the assistance of as many individuals as possible. However, these forms of product diversity are not to be confused with tradable goods, which for the most part would continue to be sought both regionally and internationally on the part of knowledge use systems. Production reform is needed mostly for non tradable sectors.
A second principle for economic freedom, is that of the right to consume what one wants. Importantly, the right to market one's ideas and product comes first, before lifelong consumption of knowledge based services is a realistic possibility for lower income levels. Also, a clarification: the right to consume is not to be confused with claims on what governments have sought to make available in the marketplace, such as "rights" to healthcare which is already in short supply within primary equilibrium. Individuals need alternative equilibrium options, in which they are able to produce the knowledge sets and services they desire.
A third principle would be a broader understanding of wealth which exists beyond monetary terms. Even though one recognizes that money is only a part of wealth, there have been too few means, for anyone to turn this wisdom into something more concrete. Time arbitrage would eventually allow other factors of wealth to come into play beside monetary compensation, and monetary policy would also face less pressure to solve social issues which lie beyond its reach.
Another aspect of economic design, is the need for a structural response to changing trends in consumption. Baby Boomers have understandably become more pragmatic in recent decades, and in any circumstance, one generally decreases spending as they age. But pragmatism on the part of youth is a new development, which speaks volumes as to what production reform needs to take into consideration. Without a doubt, some of the frugal spending habits of today's youth will persist through the course of their lifetimes. A recent Time article listed 10 ways how spending patterns have changed for millennials - three of which I will touch on here.
First, millennials have become somewhat wary of investing, in terms of equities. Even though the Great Recession was (ultimately) contained by the Fed, the fact that monetary policy suffered a severe initial setback, is now reflected in lowered expectations on the part of those who were just getting started in the workplace. Now, some among this group will save for retirement by putting their money into a sock drawer, instead of normal investments.
Granted, some of the younger millennials will have more faith in the economy, as workplace opportunities have improved of late. Even so, those who were getting started during the initial downturn, will likely seek more practical environments than are currently on offer in the marketplace, for the rest of their lives. Because of these circumstance - if for no other reason - there needs to be regions where both housing and knowledge based services innovation are allowed to take place. It is wrong for nations to expect populations to wait for years or even decades for a stronger economy, when better results could be generated much sooner without the needless sacrifice.
Also, the Times article spoke of a lack of spending for both housing and cars among millennials. While some will eventually commit to traditional housing and cars, low cost commuting options are needed for transportation, besides the dedicated roads and highways for automated vehicles. Again, the highly debated transportation of the future will become feasible options in cities, rather than outlying areas. Many who live in rural areas will need substantial changes in density and infrastructure patterns, in order to gain economic diversity where they already live.
In summary, economic design needs to respond to the kinds of choices that people are now able to make, which in many instances won't be similar to upper income spending patterns. Some will still seek higher income options, but others will want choices designed for more practical and flexible ends. As things stand now, primary consumption choices in non tradable sectors do not offer much in the way of economic freedom. There's a reason why Milton Friedman said of freedom, that it is a rare and delicate plant. Indeed...one that too many still take for granted.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Economic Design: Fact or Fiction?
Don Boudreaux posted recently, about economic "myths" which he believes non-economists (such as myself) are prone to. While most elements of his list were reasonable enough, anyone who has regularly kept up with this blog, knows that I take exception to this assertion on his part, regarding design:
Granted, Boudreaux regularly emphasizes the problematic nature of government planning and intervention. But few government interventions occur, which are not agreed to and encouraged by the special interests which seek those designs to begin with. Rather than insisting that structural economic design is either 1) not "helpful" or 2) not happening (!?!?), let's get real about what is actually occurring. If design is fact and not fiction, then why not extend the possibility of conscious design to those who are not quite so strong and powerful? Let's don't pretend it's not possible to do so.
Only consider the degree to which individuals and groups use design (regulation, zoning, law) to exclude those who may not appear strong enough to maintain similar sets of responsibilities. When this process goes too far, too many are left outside the preferences which are built up over time, in primary equilibrium. Those who end up left out of prosperous regions and cities, consequently need better defined means to make a life for themselves. Why not give them the chance to do so? Economic design is a natural part of life. Let's not pretend this is not true.
Little about the marketplace is as spontaneous and naturally provisional of economic freedom as some imply - a fact which has tremendous bearing on economic realities. Where possible, groups can design for greater inclusivity. But when communities understandably put up resistance, those who are excluded, need a chance to build environments where they can design better means for survival. What's more, they need the right to do so in circumstance where they pose no threat to the structural preferences which others hold.
Even though I am a proponent of intentional design, no one should mistake the sentiments of this blog as attempts to impose structural change where it is not wanted. In the long run, force all too often leads to repercussions which never quite go away. Rather, the goal for any nation which seeks to make room for growth, should be to make room for differences in economic design. Few other goals for decentralized decision making, are more important.
The myth that workable, productive and sustainable complex social orders must be the result of human design (or that human design can improve the workability, productivity, and sustainability of complex social orders).A propensity for design, is an integral part of the human mind. What institutional structure does not benefit from design? Even so, today's marketplace scarcely benefits from the economic freedom which Boudreaux's "leave well enough alone" quote implies. No one can afford to pretend that free markets exist for knowledge based services formation, and new design elements are needed in order for this to happen. There are too few choices as well for building components, in living and working environments of all kinds.
Granted, Boudreaux regularly emphasizes the problematic nature of government planning and intervention. But few government interventions occur, which are not agreed to and encouraged by the special interests which seek those designs to begin with. Rather than insisting that structural economic design is either 1) not "helpful" or 2) not happening (!?!?), let's get real about what is actually occurring. If design is fact and not fiction, then why not extend the possibility of conscious design to those who are not quite so strong and powerful? Let's don't pretend it's not possible to do so.
Only consider the degree to which individuals and groups use design (regulation, zoning, law) to exclude those who may not appear strong enough to maintain similar sets of responsibilities. When this process goes too far, too many are left outside the preferences which are built up over time, in primary equilibrium. Those who end up left out of prosperous regions and cities, consequently need better defined means to make a life for themselves. Why not give them the chance to do so? Economic design is a natural part of life. Let's not pretend this is not true.
Little about the marketplace is as spontaneous and naturally provisional of economic freedom as some imply - a fact which has tremendous bearing on economic realities. Where possible, groups can design for greater inclusivity. But when communities understandably put up resistance, those who are excluded, need a chance to build environments where they can design better means for survival. What's more, they need the right to do so in circumstance where they pose no threat to the structural preferences which others hold.
Even though I am a proponent of intentional design, no one should mistake the sentiments of this blog as attempts to impose structural change where it is not wanted. In the long run, force all too often leads to repercussions which never quite go away. Rather, the goal for any nation which seeks to make room for growth, should be to make room for differences in economic design. Few other goals for decentralized decision making, are more important.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
An Economic Suggestion, in Two Words
...for governments in particular. Look inward. Stop the blame game, and focus on moving ahead. (Recently I've kept up with historic levels of flooding in Texas, and blogging has been a bit light. So many areas have been affected - not only where there are family and friends, but where old memories reside as well.)
Look inward. So many positive actions could still be taken, so many changes could still be made, which would greatly improve economic conditions. However, doing so means that governments need to be willing to seek out their own citizens for solutions and answers to seemingly unsolvable problems - and often at local levels. Policy makers have become increasingly stymied, in their efforts to continue with one size fits all remedies. For a long time, it was possible for a representative democracy to do so. But increasingly: large scale planning efforts which expect entire populations to live the same way, can only go so far.
Some national introspection could go a long way, to tone down the reactive nature of today's political rhetoric. For instance, Harold James in a Project Syndicate post, notes the backlash towards migration which has developed in Europe. Of course, Europe's example is indicative of a reaction which has become typical for many nations. Many problems regarding social mobility, stem from the fact that few citizens feel as secure as they did, prior to the Great Recession.
Citizens do not feel their governments can adequately take care of their own, which is why many have become reluctant to assume further taxpayer responsibilities. The U.S. in particular, struggles with inadequate service formations at both national and state levels. Even as spending flows for services need to be maintained, politicians and economists alike are divided, how to do so.
Plus, the asset wealth of present housing stock depends on the ability of monetary policy to maintain aggregate spending capacity, in order that present debts and contracts can be honored. Much of this capacity also depends on maintaining labor force participation as well. Unfortunately, policy makers remain anxious to pull back from those commitments too quickly, as if doing so would somehow make the underlying structural problems go away without further ado.
Instead of reducing monetary flows prematurely, a structural shift needs to take place in both production and consumption capacity. Structural shifts are not just about the need to reduce dependence on pensions and create more flexible wages, but also about addressing the problems that both governments and special interests created for spending capacity, to begin with. Even though it isn't possible for today's institutions to provide wages and benefits as before, it's not rational for anyone to expect populations to be okay with these losses, if basic consumption patterns in services and housing do not also change.
Look inward. Find less to blame, and more ways to make certain that everyone remains economically engaged and has responsibilities which are actually possible for them to meet. No one should have to seek economic mobility to escape what does not work. Look inward to fix what does not work. Travel and mobility are best when they are about exploration, curiosity, and the desire to see the world. By recreating vital economic conditions at home - wherever home is - people can travel to explore, not escape. For any economist who believes a prosperous future remains possible, that should be the ultimate goal.
Look inward. So many positive actions could still be taken, so many changes could still be made, which would greatly improve economic conditions. However, doing so means that governments need to be willing to seek out their own citizens for solutions and answers to seemingly unsolvable problems - and often at local levels. Policy makers have become increasingly stymied, in their efforts to continue with one size fits all remedies. For a long time, it was possible for a representative democracy to do so. But increasingly: large scale planning efforts which expect entire populations to live the same way, can only go so far.
Some national introspection could go a long way, to tone down the reactive nature of today's political rhetoric. For instance, Harold James in a Project Syndicate post, notes the backlash towards migration which has developed in Europe. Of course, Europe's example is indicative of a reaction which has become typical for many nations. Many problems regarding social mobility, stem from the fact that few citizens feel as secure as they did, prior to the Great Recession.
Citizens do not feel their governments can adequately take care of their own, which is why many have become reluctant to assume further taxpayer responsibilities. The U.S. in particular, struggles with inadequate service formations at both national and state levels. Even as spending flows for services need to be maintained, politicians and economists alike are divided, how to do so.
Plus, the asset wealth of present housing stock depends on the ability of monetary policy to maintain aggregate spending capacity, in order that present debts and contracts can be honored. Much of this capacity also depends on maintaining labor force participation as well. Unfortunately, policy makers remain anxious to pull back from those commitments too quickly, as if doing so would somehow make the underlying structural problems go away without further ado.
Instead of reducing monetary flows prematurely, a structural shift needs to take place in both production and consumption capacity. Structural shifts are not just about the need to reduce dependence on pensions and create more flexible wages, but also about addressing the problems that both governments and special interests created for spending capacity, to begin with. Even though it isn't possible for today's institutions to provide wages and benefits as before, it's not rational for anyone to expect populations to be okay with these losses, if basic consumption patterns in services and housing do not also change.
Look inward. Find less to blame, and more ways to make certain that everyone remains economically engaged and has responsibilities which are actually possible for them to meet. No one should have to seek economic mobility to escape what does not work. Look inward to fix what does not work. Travel and mobility are best when they are about exploration, curiosity, and the desire to see the world. By recreating vital economic conditions at home - wherever home is - people can travel to explore, not escape. For any economist who believes a prosperous future remains possible, that should be the ultimate goal.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Charter City vs Charter Community: Some Comparisons
After listening to Paul Romer's latest interview with Russ Roberts at Econtalk, I wanted to sketch out a few differences between charter city or community approaches in this post. Econtalk also includes a link for a brief Romer interview from 2010, ("Give poor people a chance") which provides additional perspective.
Of course the primary difference would be in terms of scale. Whereas a charter city needs to commit to a well understood approach at the outset, charter communities could be more flexible and experimental in nature. And while charter city infrastructures may need to accommodate millions of citizens, charter communities would often be laid out for walkable and other non motorized options. This would allow the inhabitants to coordinate ongoing schedules and activities in ways that are also capable of overlapping, where needed.
Charter communities would rely on direct democracy for service formations, in part due to ongoing time use choices which involve long term educational planning and local resource use. Whereas services formations in charter cities would probably utilize traditional division of labor structures and representative democracy. The difference is also one of density optimization: divisions of labor in knowledge use communities would reflect the varied needs of a much smaller population at any given moment in time.
In the 2010 article, Romer spoke of increases in land value which would stem from the authorities providing public goods. For a charter community, land value would likely increase slowly, due to gains from increased ability to coordinate services and production more effectively over time. Local investments could be apportioned so that gains can provide fallback options for citizens as they age, as well.
Participants are more likely to be involved in initial planning processes, than would be possible in charter cities. Especially as the concept starts to take shape, more individuals would be able to play "founding" roles in domestic summits which seek to create new chartered communities. Domestic summits would also focus on the formation and definition of public spaces. These would vary widely, according to common interests and the kinds of infrastructure formation which best match investment options for potential citizen groups. As Romer noted, public spaces facilitate the interactions which make cities valuable. Certainly the same would hold true for charter communities.
A common characteristic of both city and community would be the fact that multiple interests would be brought together and harmonized. While broader sets of income levels would be able to live in charter cities, to some extent chartered communities would be able to make provisions in this regard as well. As Romer noted in the Econtalk interview, "An attractive climate is a luxury good." To a degree this is also true for other attractive geographic features. However, the U.S. still has vast stretches of property which could be made attractive in multiple capacities. What's more, some communities would include time commitments which lend to unique land use characteristics.
Only consider how long it's been since many cities were formed in the U.S., for the twentieth century mostly saw suburbs added to already existing cities. Not all big city infrastructure is going to hold up well in the decades to come. There are a couple of things to consider in this regard. Not only do future infrastructure patterns need to be more versatile, they will not always require require the same spatial dimensions of the present.
City formation slowed in part, because of origination patterns which were reliant on manufacture and traditional production. The fact that chartered communities could use knowledge based services as a point of origination, suggests new models for town centers and conceptual ideas for Main Street. Would a single primary street remain vital to communities of the future? In part, it depends on the designs that individuals find appealing, once domestic summits become a reality.
Last but certainly not least, chartered communities represent self supporting internal economies, which would be approved within given nations as the special exploratory zones they represent. In the U.S., states would agree to honor the same exemptions for these communities that would be honored by nations. Likewise, long term economic efforts on the part of these citizens would be recognized and compensated, as the new wealth they would bring for all concerned.
Of course the primary difference would be in terms of scale. Whereas a charter city needs to commit to a well understood approach at the outset, charter communities could be more flexible and experimental in nature. And while charter city infrastructures may need to accommodate millions of citizens, charter communities would often be laid out for walkable and other non motorized options. This would allow the inhabitants to coordinate ongoing schedules and activities in ways that are also capable of overlapping, where needed.
Charter communities would rely on direct democracy for service formations, in part due to ongoing time use choices which involve long term educational planning and local resource use. Whereas services formations in charter cities would probably utilize traditional division of labor structures and representative democracy. The difference is also one of density optimization: divisions of labor in knowledge use communities would reflect the varied needs of a much smaller population at any given moment in time.
In the 2010 article, Romer spoke of increases in land value which would stem from the authorities providing public goods. For a charter community, land value would likely increase slowly, due to gains from increased ability to coordinate services and production more effectively over time. Local investments could be apportioned so that gains can provide fallback options for citizens as they age, as well.
Participants are more likely to be involved in initial planning processes, than would be possible in charter cities. Especially as the concept starts to take shape, more individuals would be able to play "founding" roles in domestic summits which seek to create new chartered communities. Domestic summits would also focus on the formation and definition of public spaces. These would vary widely, according to common interests and the kinds of infrastructure formation which best match investment options for potential citizen groups. As Romer noted, public spaces facilitate the interactions which make cities valuable. Certainly the same would hold true for charter communities.
A common characteristic of both city and community would be the fact that multiple interests would be brought together and harmonized. While broader sets of income levels would be able to live in charter cities, to some extent chartered communities would be able to make provisions in this regard as well. As Romer noted in the Econtalk interview, "An attractive climate is a luxury good." To a degree this is also true for other attractive geographic features. However, the U.S. still has vast stretches of property which could be made attractive in multiple capacities. What's more, some communities would include time commitments which lend to unique land use characteristics.
Only consider how long it's been since many cities were formed in the U.S., for the twentieth century mostly saw suburbs added to already existing cities. Not all big city infrastructure is going to hold up well in the decades to come. There are a couple of things to consider in this regard. Not only do future infrastructure patterns need to be more versatile, they will not always require require the same spatial dimensions of the present.
City formation slowed in part, because of origination patterns which were reliant on manufacture and traditional production. The fact that chartered communities could use knowledge based services as a point of origination, suggests new models for town centers and conceptual ideas for Main Street. Would a single primary street remain vital to communities of the future? In part, it depends on the designs that individuals find appealing, once domestic summits become a reality.
Last but certainly not least, chartered communities represent self supporting internal economies, which would be approved within given nations as the special exploratory zones they represent. In the U.S., states would agree to honor the same exemptions for these communities that would be honored by nations. Likewise, long term economic efforts on the part of these citizens would be recognized and compensated, as the new wealth they would bring for all concerned.
Monday, March 16, 2015
Innovation Needs Decentralization
A primary goal of any local knowledge use system, would be to recapture the earlier spontaneity of innovation. Inventions were once associated with specific individuals, and those innovations often proved capable of benefiting populations as a whole. While today's innovations are geared towards internal procedures and long term profits, earlier inventions tended to reinforce previous gains within broad based settings. Future innovation needs more of that same outward, decentralized focus, as a starting point.
What, exactly, about the earlier innovation dynamic has been lost? After some discussion regarding innovation for public welfare, Diane Coyle provided a number of related links in a recent post and she sums up:
Unfortunately, the publicly funded capital firms (sovereign wealth funds) which Dani Rodrik suggests for future innovation, would be quite difficult to enact. Kemal Davis also worried that monopolistic industries such as pharmaceuticals "would contribute to the creation of a new aristocracy that can pass on its wealth through inheritance". However, worrying about this particular inheritance possibility is beside the point. What matters is not so much the distribution of already existing wealth, but the fact that important knowledge use flows have been severely disrupted. After all, this impacts wealth creation as a whole.
Even though governments can't travel " back in time" to more inclusive innovation at national or state levels, citizens can do so locally through the creation of knowledge use systems. This would also be a more effective way to address inequality, than centralized forms of innovation which mostly benefit those who coordinate and invest in large scale projects at the outset. More of that commitment and investment - particularly for innovation in services and asset formation - needs to occur locally.
Fortunately, today's technology opens new paths for production to benefit small scale settings - a factor which can make all the difference for local planning. As Alex Tabarrok and Shruti Rajagopalen noted recently, there is a "delicate dance of top-down and bottom-up planning that cities need to thrive".
This "delicate dance" is a process which domestic summits could capture. Those who have new ideas and concepts for infrastructure, would be able to meet with individuals from all walks of life who wish to take part in the process. Most important, the planning component of domestic summits is only the beginning. Innovation is not just about creating unique settings to live and work in, but what happens through the course of lifetimes in these settings as well.
What, exactly, about the earlier innovation dynamic has been lost? After some discussion regarding innovation for public welfare, Diane Coyle provided a number of related links in a recent post and she sums up:
(a) we're a long way from being able to make definitive policy recommendations about how to boost innovation...And (b) there's a lot of work economists need to do on standard welfare economics, which has a dusty 1970s (or earlier) feel to it.It's hard to miss the fact that governments used to be more capable of contributing research for widely held knowledge. Even though no one expects private enterprise to share closely held secrets with the public, tax funded knowledge use was supposed to be a different story. However, governments no longer have adequate reason to publicly support knowledge, in part because they materially gain from privatized knowledge use. Kemal Davis notes for instance that public/private knowledge capture has created its own inequality, with "$84,000 for a twelve-week course of treatment" for hepatitis C.
Unfortunately, the publicly funded capital firms (sovereign wealth funds) which Dani Rodrik suggests for future innovation, would be quite difficult to enact. Kemal Davis also worried that monopolistic industries such as pharmaceuticals "would contribute to the creation of a new aristocracy that can pass on its wealth through inheritance". However, worrying about this particular inheritance possibility is beside the point. What matters is not so much the distribution of already existing wealth, but the fact that important knowledge use flows have been severely disrupted. After all, this impacts wealth creation as a whole.
Even though governments can't travel " back in time" to more inclusive innovation at national or state levels, citizens can do so locally through the creation of knowledge use systems. This would also be a more effective way to address inequality, than centralized forms of innovation which mostly benefit those who coordinate and invest in large scale projects at the outset. More of that commitment and investment - particularly for innovation in services and asset formation - needs to occur locally.
Fortunately, today's technology opens new paths for production to benefit small scale settings - a factor which can make all the difference for local planning. As Alex Tabarrok and Shruti Rajagopalen noted recently, there is a "delicate dance of top-down and bottom-up planning that cities need to thrive".
This "delicate dance" is a process which domestic summits could capture. Those who have new ideas and concepts for infrastructure, would be able to meet with individuals from all walks of life who wish to take part in the process. Most important, the planning component of domestic summits is only the beginning. Innovation is not just about creating unique settings to live and work in, but what happens through the course of lifetimes in these settings as well.
Monday, February 16, 2015
What Do We Want From Our Environments?
Generally, if this question gets asked at all, it tends to be in single issue formats. Countless groups stand at the ready, to assist a specific circumstance or need. Everyone it seems, is ready to find a way to "bend" the environment to their demands. And yet nothing about life exists as a single problem to be solved. Why not a more comprehensive and integrated approach - a multitude of possibility?
In the meantime, governments have attempted to continue 21st century progress on the outdated expectations of the 20th. One of the more obvious flaws in this non strategy is "sluggish" investment. How can anyone get excited about investing, with so little certainty what anyone wants? Low interest rates are a significant part of this scenario, but some remain confused by low interest rates just the same. Doesn't that indicate a good time for governments to borrow? Not necessarily so, as Scott Sumner notes once again.
Even though monetary conditions are better, the structural debate for long term strategies has scarcely begun. Indeed, some are convinced what passes for discussion in this regard is mostly handwaving. For instance, as Lars Christensen notes about Japan's somewhat improved scenario:
There are still investments which governments could make on behalf of their citizens. However the opportune moment for any government to make new commitments, is when its citizens are already inspired to do the same. The fact that no one is making any substantial first moves, suggests it is time to figure out what people want from their lives and and their circumstance. While the answers of course will differ, there are nonetheless patterns that can be distinguished in the dialogue.
For one thing, changes - particularly those involving infrastructure - can't just be imposed on already existing environments. While some adaptation can take place (i.e. density adjustments for instance), it's best not to expect too much for regions which have long since matured into unique identities. Instead, governments and citizens need to look for economic potential either in adjacent or even entirely new locations. Rather than committing to expensive infrastructure at the outset, groups can experiment with flexible infrastructure and working arrangements, to see where new production and services formation may take hold. In some instances, individuals who wish to take part may be able to lend time and skills commitments, particularly when they don't have sufficient monetary resources at the outset.
Domestic summits can assist in what would become a gradual matching process: one that would allow citizens to come together for similar strategies in production and services structure. In a sense these environments would give new meaning to entrepreneurial activity. After all, it is possible to think of individuals "hiring" one another for time arbitrage. What's more, some would experience a revival of almost forgotten social skill sets. Newly formed communities would gradually lead to other shared investment strategies, in their turn.
Often, people with varying abilities and income levels need different forms of infrastructure as well. Having life/work choices such as this could mean not needing to claim disability or - for some baby boomers - a way to avoid having to take early social security compensation. For too many, the biggest difficulty is trying to work at the high level of expectation, inherent in many settings. Far better, to generate communities which match aptitudes and goal sets more closely. Far better, to make certain everyone has ways to remain responsible and connected to others.
In the meantime, governments have attempted to continue 21st century progress on the outdated expectations of the 20th. One of the more obvious flaws in this non strategy is "sluggish" investment. How can anyone get excited about investing, with so little certainty what anyone wants? Low interest rates are a significant part of this scenario, but some remain confused by low interest rates just the same. Doesn't that indicate a good time for governments to borrow? Not necessarily so, as Scott Sumner notes once again.
Even though monetary conditions are better, the structural debate for long term strategies has scarcely begun. Indeed, some are convinced what passes for discussion in this regard is mostly handwaving. For instance, as Lars Christensen notes about Japan's somewhat improved scenario:
Now Prime Minister Abe has to deliver on structural reform, but that can be said about every industrialized country in the world.Oddly, when countries are slow to consider the needs and circumstance of their own citizens, domestic concerns end up overshadowed by changing world events. It's a pattern which repeats all too often. Why should war have to be the factor that finally mobilizes populations?
There are still investments which governments could make on behalf of their citizens. However the opportune moment for any government to make new commitments, is when its citizens are already inspired to do the same. The fact that no one is making any substantial first moves, suggests it is time to figure out what people want from their lives and and their circumstance. While the answers of course will differ, there are nonetheless patterns that can be distinguished in the dialogue.
For one thing, changes - particularly those involving infrastructure - can't just be imposed on already existing environments. While some adaptation can take place (i.e. density adjustments for instance), it's best not to expect too much for regions which have long since matured into unique identities. Instead, governments and citizens need to look for economic potential either in adjacent or even entirely new locations. Rather than committing to expensive infrastructure at the outset, groups can experiment with flexible infrastructure and working arrangements, to see where new production and services formation may take hold. In some instances, individuals who wish to take part may be able to lend time and skills commitments, particularly when they don't have sufficient monetary resources at the outset.
Domestic summits can assist in what would become a gradual matching process: one that would allow citizens to come together for similar strategies in production and services structure. In a sense these environments would give new meaning to entrepreneurial activity. After all, it is possible to think of individuals "hiring" one another for time arbitrage. What's more, some would experience a revival of almost forgotten social skill sets. Newly formed communities would gradually lead to other shared investment strategies, in their turn.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Domestic Summits and the Design Perspective
Interesting indeed, that Shane Parrish found in The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Manual, these thoughts on the differences between design and planning:
Part of the problem is that governments and citizens are not used to working together for design perspectives, and scarcely have applicable context by which to do so. Domestic summits would be one way to address this, because the design format would apply for those who wish to take part in the result, instead of populations as a whole. Recently I've read several books which cover history around the time of the American Revolution, and by no means was the required coordination for those original states a walk in the park. They were more inclined to think of themselves as distinct countries! In retrospect, it is amazing that so many individual visions were able to coalesce to the degree they did, to form a new nation.
Today, design scenarios need to occur within specifically contained templates, so that problem solving efforts do not pose threats to already existing design patterns. Of course, this would not make design process outcomes any less important. The new communities which could eventually result, would highlight the efforts of incredibly diverse imaginations.
What, then, are underlying design elements which would apply in multiple circumstance? First, ask: what overall purpose would new communities serve? Economic inclusion is important, in that it is too often not possible in primary equilibrium. The main reason for internally generated unique equilibrium levels, is to make resource use representative of multiple income and lifestyle choices. One reason today's monetary policy exists on such a knife's edge, is the fact that entire populations are expected to make do with a very similar equilibrium, re non tradable asset and services structures.
Compensation for a common time base, would allow individuals to design personal time use as they see fit. What's more, time arbitrage brings clarity to automation choices, which would also become ongoing community investment options. Another important design element of time choice, exists in regard to the "slow economies" which offer experiential product. Again, automation in combination with a common time base, creates time, production and consumption choices at personal levels. Each community would have unique automation and "slow economy" imprints.
Experiential aspects of "slow economies" would include numerous hunter gatherer elements - both in terms of knowledge use and environmental definition. Of course, these elements are also representative of the challenges which need to remain in otherwise static primary equilibrium, where possible. To be sure, equilibrium does not always appear static, for high income levels with considerable economic freedom. However, time use and resource options need to remain fluid at lower income levels as well.
How to think about design for production and consumption in general? Everyone wants product options which are tempting by design, but not in such a way that those choices require unnecessarily having to give up on other desired options. In other words, what is scarce, and what is artificially scarce? Understanding the difference means everything, for time use potential.
What's more, design needs to be such that one can move forward in a series of steps in which if a hard fall occurs, that does not mean falling all the way back to the bottom. A marketplace which is designed for economic freedom, leaves as many options in this regard as possible. And with economic freedom, Hope Has a Place.
While both activities seek to formulate ways to bring about preferable futures, they are cognitively different. Planning applies established procedures to solve a largely understood problem within an accepted framework. Design inquires into the nature of a problem for solving that problem...Where planning focuses on generating a plan - a series of executable actions - design focuses on learning about the nature of an unfamiliar problem. When situations do not conform to established frames of reference - when the hardest part of the problem is figuring out what the problem is - planning alone is inadequate and design becomes essential.Many have given up on the earlier growth trajectory, in part because reform tends to be couched in the language of planning instead of the language of design. As a result, attempted financial reforms are little more than reactions to already known givens. Reactions are only exacerbating political differences, and means to discover alternate pathways should be at the top of the national agenda. In particular, the fact that design elements remain missing from housing as a consumption good, affects the weakness of the housing market. For instance, James Picerno asks: can the U.S. economy remain strong as it presently appears, if housing remains wobbly?
Part of the problem is that governments and citizens are not used to working together for design perspectives, and scarcely have applicable context by which to do so. Domestic summits would be one way to address this, because the design format would apply for those who wish to take part in the result, instead of populations as a whole. Recently I've read several books which cover history around the time of the American Revolution, and by no means was the required coordination for those original states a walk in the park. They were more inclined to think of themselves as distinct countries! In retrospect, it is amazing that so many individual visions were able to coalesce to the degree they did, to form a new nation.
Today, design scenarios need to occur within specifically contained templates, so that problem solving efforts do not pose threats to already existing design patterns. Of course, this would not make design process outcomes any less important. The new communities which could eventually result, would highlight the efforts of incredibly diverse imaginations.
What, then, are underlying design elements which would apply in multiple circumstance? First, ask: what overall purpose would new communities serve? Economic inclusion is important, in that it is too often not possible in primary equilibrium. The main reason for internally generated unique equilibrium levels, is to make resource use representative of multiple income and lifestyle choices. One reason today's monetary policy exists on such a knife's edge, is the fact that entire populations are expected to make do with a very similar equilibrium, re non tradable asset and services structures.
Compensation for a common time base, would allow individuals to design personal time use as they see fit. What's more, time arbitrage brings clarity to automation choices, which would also become ongoing community investment options. Another important design element of time choice, exists in regard to the "slow economies" which offer experiential product. Again, automation in combination with a common time base, creates time, production and consumption choices at personal levels. Each community would have unique automation and "slow economy" imprints.
Experiential aspects of "slow economies" would include numerous hunter gatherer elements - both in terms of knowledge use and environmental definition. Of course, these elements are also representative of the challenges which need to remain in otherwise static primary equilibrium, where possible. To be sure, equilibrium does not always appear static, for high income levels with considerable economic freedom. However, time use and resource options need to remain fluid at lower income levels as well.
How to think about design for production and consumption in general? Everyone wants product options which are tempting by design, but not in such a way that those choices require unnecessarily having to give up on other desired options. In other words, what is scarce, and what is artificially scarce? Understanding the difference means everything, for time use potential.
What's more, design needs to be such that one can move forward in a series of steps in which if a hard fall occurs, that does not mean falling all the way back to the bottom. A marketplace which is designed for economic freedom, leaves as many options in this regard as possible. And with economic freedom, Hope Has a Place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)