Use Markets to Help the Marginalized (Before It's Too Late)

In a time of rising inflation and interest rates, governments have to come to terms not only with fiscal limitations, but also limits on their ability to assist the marginalized - at least through monetary means. As national budgets become ever more unwieldy, many protective roles for lower income groups might ultimately have to be set aside.

Some would argue, isn't this a positive, since governmental support often tends to cause more harm than good? It depends on whether the domestic markets of housing and services can evolve for a full range of income levels. In the meantime, consider the harsh realities faced by low income groups when it comes to living normal lives. These circumstance are largely due to environments which were put in place by public and private interests alike. As governments increasingly find their hands tied in terms of public assistance, will private sectors become more willing to live up to promises about free market potential? Or will private interests - along with the political left and right - instead pretend that economic and social freedoms are no longer possible?

Questions such as this are in need of valid answers, not vague posturing and excuses. In particular, when people struggle to maintain their financial responsibilities, they become ever more vulnerable to government overreach. It has seldom been difficult to correlate poorly functioning markets with authoritative and restrictive governments. Worse, it's as if societies have forgotten what market freedoms consist of. For one thing, inclusive markets are certainly not a matter of coercing lower prices from existing markets. Rather, market freedoms are about encouraging the design of new patterns and production systems which function alongside what already exists, but with simpler resource requirements and system inputs. Indeed, previously existing markets could in many instances just be recognized as market participants with preferences for serving higher income levels, for whatever reasons. 

When I think about production reform possibilities which have yet to see the light of day, sometimes I can't help but be angry such options never got the chance. If there had been good deflation in our domestic markets here in the U.S. we could have been better prepared for the extreme uncertainties of a transitioning global economy. In the past nine and a half years of this blog I've often highlighted people who've touched on these issues. Just the same, it's not easy to find individuals who are willing to commit to adaptive market evolution. Meanwhile I often find myself unable to tolerate the hypocrisy of left and right thinkers who always pretend someone else bears responsibility for what we've lost.

Instead of being cognizant of their own responsibility for free market evolution, many libertarians have stepped away from adaptive market patterns to take part in cultural battles. Small wonder that few really expect this to change anytime soon. Is it already too late to use markets to help the marginalized? Will libertarians stay focused on divisive rows and/or inconsequential details in the years to come? Why and how did we imagine libertarianism to have a ghost of a chance, if it was only about free markets for society's most powerful? As much as I wish for a better ending to this unfolding reality, alas, there are days I fear there might not be one. 

Are Charter Cities a Possibility for Migrants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inflation Relief Can't Address the Missing Market Divide

Despite what investors and others have hoped for, it's possible the Fed could continue with a 75 basis point increase after September. Hence some are asking, isn't the worst inflation behind us? After all, consumers seem to be fairly confident. And what of potential "fallout" from additional employment losses the Fed would impose?

Admittedly, personal perspective affects the framing of these circumstance. Even though low income groups can't readily contribute to monetary debates, many (such as myself) are even more affected by market gaps now, than was the case a year and a half earlier. Doubtless, others like me would argue for continued tightening on the part of the Fed, if they could. 

The Fed's job has become more difficult than before, since nominal income expectations started getting out of hand last fall. There's even some partiality towards higher than normal nominal income levels, but chances are these advocates don't have to worry about being priced of home ownership. Yet home ownership possibilities continue to slip away for low income groups. Unfortunately, thus far, few communities are reaching out with more forgiving accommodations in land use for manufactured housing and modular homes.

Even so, there's more at stake than missing housing markets. The higher transportation costs of missing auto production, doubtless contributes to rising income demands from low income groups. Both these in turn lead to employers paying more for the staff they are still able to hire. If these issue weren't enough, protectionism remains a structural problem for use of applied knowledge in lower income groups.

Missing markets particularly lead to losses in economic freedom for millions of individuals. It's this lack of participation in what are basic forms of production and consumption, which makes it difficult for low income groups to (productively) make their voices heard. Is it any wonder when supply side reform proves intimidating, how attempts for economic inclusion and participation get rerouted into cultural battles instead? Unfortunately, some free market proponents are migrating to these cultural battles, whenever supply side innovation for basic markets seems too daunting to pursue.

Missing markets leave unaddressed supply side issues which force the Fed to walk a fine line for appropriate monetary representation. Clearly, citizens need the inflation relief which central bankers strive to provide. Nevertheless, even the best that can be done seems hardly enough, for the Fed catches blame and undue expectations for problems that aren't their responsibility. I find it frustrating when market observers take this route as an excuse to shirk their own responsibilities. In particular, even the most appropriate inflation measures and relief can't address the missing market divide for low income groups. Only supply side production reform for domestic markets in housing and services can accomplish this! Alas, Fed responsibility for price stability does not equate to stability in basic market access. For this reason, there is only so much the Fed can do about political stability as well.

What does the Fed need to accomplish for nominal income (including hours worked) and output to maintain stable levels over time? Adhering to a stable nominal level in the present, will gradually mean less insistence and reliance on price making, beyond what originating wealth sources can fully support. In other words, societies need to practice applied knowledge in ways that no longer distort general equilibrium or lead to further income imbalances. A more rational approach is needed for knowledge based services, which provides more economic participation, not to mention economic freedoms. Granted, the Fed can't make full monetary representation possible for all comers in our dependent secondary markets. But there are ways to overcome this problem and it's time to get started.

Wants are Sometimes a More Relevant Form of Demand

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

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

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

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

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

The Freedom to Build, to Be, Yet Also Destroy

Since personal freedom includes elements of both creation and destruction, the freedoms that societies may hope to preserve are becoming more complicated. By way of example, not all innovations are the same. Some innovations which are oft described as societal improvements, nevertheless don't provide unalloyed benefits to all concerned. This particularly holds, when someone intentionally builds products specifically intended for destruction.

For that matter, in contrast with weapons meant to kill, the destructive urges of today's "cancel culture" are relatively benign by comparison. Am I wrong in suggesting that the cancel culture of the left, mostly lacks the violent tendencies of certain wannabe authoritarians on the right? While the political right is understandably frustrated with the cancel culture of the left, I doubt they are actually as afraid of extreme violence from the left (at least presently), as some pretend to be. 

Plus, when it comes to ideology, so long as mental capacity is engaged in actions which aren't overwhelmed by emotion, one at least hopes for less violence in political outcomes. Sometimes these realities are blurred though, when ideology becomes a convenient excuse for acting out, due to some form of massive grudge against various elements of society. There are additional dangers as well, should those in power actively seek support from people whose emotions clearly run counter to logical thought processes. 

Should politicians seek out future votes based on emotions rather than logic and rational thinking, we stand to lose even more of our freedoms. If politics mostly becomes a matter of besting one's perceived enemies, societies will pay the price through even more losses of personal and market based freedoms. Has Washington forgotten that markets still offer society's best potential for successful pursuits in creativity, imagination, identity, and the nature of our physical environments? Or, perhaps too many of these once free markets have already been reserved for the elite. If so, the additional result is more fuel for the fires of destruction. How many more would decide to act out in anger, should they continue to lack the legal ability to build a meaningful destiny? This is certainly a question worth asking in the U.S. given the realities of our gun culture. 

Chances are, we might still reduce the societal impulse to destroy, by restoring rights to personal identity and allowing citizens to build lives on more sustainable terms. Only consider why it has become so important to focus on careful market solutions, as Republicans now question the freedom of businesses to express their own political opinions. Imagine the good that could result, by making room in our markets for stronger production rights which focus on positive aspects of identity and freedom. 

It's time to support stronger production rights for all citizens, especially in terms of skill potential and innovative simple housing forms. Perhaps if more of our positive freedoms are restored, people will eventually become less inclined to act out their negative freedoms. When future innovation is discussed, much more is at stake than improvements at the margin. The innovations which matter most, have potential to improve the outcomes of average citizens in average places. Why not encourage the human impulse to build anew, in more positive ways.

Excess Regulation Reduces Diversity and Inclusion

How might we respond to excessive regulation - much of which stands in the way of personal potential and greater inclusiveness? Clearly, there are regulations on the books which not only reduce our most basic life options, but are also detrimental to long term economic growth and dynamism. Once regulatory environments begin to overwhelm and economic stagnation sets in, societies pay the price in lost market opportunities and a generalized loss of willingness to continue sharing in commonly held goals.

Some of the worst offenders in regulatory excess, are those which impose arbitrary limits on our own growth potential. In a services dominant economy, that translates into tangible losses of mutual assistance and support. If we can't help one another economically, what options are really left? Or how could we possibly know, the extent to which output loss in valuable skills instead stems from a supposed lack of personal ambition? Consider the many hurdles that people are expected to overcome, before they can make a concerted effort to reach out to others on meaningful yet economic terms. Not all those regulatory hurdles in particular, were put there in good faith.

We have yet to begin the crucial task of making it simpler, for people to create real value from their own personal attributes. Meanwhile, societies are seemingly caught in fruitless and demoralizing arguments, where some insist various groups lack the fortitude or ability to do what is "necessary" to achieve success in life. 

Yet much of our inability to transition to a better functioning knowledge based economy, is due to regulatory hurdles. These complicated rules of engagement make it exceedingly difficult for many people to fully engage with others in meaningful ways. Is this the best we can hope to achieve as a society? How many burdens could we be rid of, if we sought to eliminate regulations which get in the way of active and meaningful participation with others? What if we could be of use to others, without the small fortunes so often needed for full time work in a knowledge based economy? 

Chances are, our collective human capital has been limited by arbitrary regulations to a greater extent than is realized. If we continue allowing only the "best and brightest" in basic workplace responsibilities, we might be doomed to a future where diversity and inclusion are all but impossible. Let's do our best to ensure this doesn't happen. It's time to get rid of the arbitrary regulations which not only create immense holes in our social fabric, but leave many citizens unable to fulfill their own personal aspirations.

Flexible Ownership Frees Us. But Have Markets Responded?

To a certain extent, markets have responded - at least when it comes to building construction options. But apparently, at least for the duration of this pandemic era, there will be few zoned land patterns to provide the vital support so necessary for incremental ownership to flower. Without such patterns, a dearth of community options means additional burdens for lower income levels - especially given the uncertainties these workers often face. If more accessible forms of ownership were available, the clamor for a $15 dollar minimum wage would likely be muted. What can be done, to create more flexible ownership options in the years to come? 

New land use options would also be helpful for recent retirees such as myself. Once senior citizens try to downsize from traditional single family housing, they quickly discover other single family homes to be the main consumer choice available in the U.S. For example: Thus far I've only located three areas in the country where communities create ample space for flexible housing in a full income range for people over 55. Since many seniors are solely dependent on Social Security income, that leaves a tremendous amount of untapped market opportunity!

Granted, many baby boomers such as myself never thought to seek out manufactured housing when we were young. Doing so wasn't generally perceived as a necessity, for even blue collar incomes could still purchase traditional housing well into the nineties. Likewise: even though Buckminster Fuller advocated for (and designed) flexible housing, he continued to live in a traditional home during the course of his lifetime. Plus, many people never considered non traditional housing until they were of an age they no longer required extra square footage. Part of what's important in this regard, is that homes inevitably age alongside their occupants. Consequently, at the same time in life one anticipates rising healthcare costs, the costs of older home maintenance also rise dramatically. In fact, home renovations can turn out to be more expensive than the cost of new manufactured units.

Nevertheless, if only downsizing were as simple as a non traditional housing purchase! If more land were available for flexible ownership options, lifestyle simplification wouldn't be such a daunting challenge. After all, markets for RVs, manufactured homes and tiny homes have proliferated in recent years. Just the same, older citizens quickly discover that many communities - if and when they'll accept any form of non traditional housing - mostly zone for expensive versions of modular homes on permanent foundations. In other words, these costs can be comparable to what one expects for new traditional housing. 

Since many communities could remain reluctant to add a complete range of income levels to their tax base, the best way forward may be a creation of special zones which encourage flexible ownership for all income levels. Fortunately, there are also ways such communities could help establish trust among the groups which take part. Chief among such methods is making certain local citizens can readily create and maintain economic/social ties with one another. Ultimately, simpler ownership options make it easier for individuals to adapt to evolving economic realities. Plus, once communities become zoned for income diversity, more manufacturers would gain incentive to innovate, thereby further reducing costs for flexible building components on offer. 

One advantage to incremental forms of ownership, are the possibilities of extensive reduction in privately held debt. Less debt - especially for anyone who is burdened by debt - means greater community stability in the event of economic downturn. Once owners can buy, sell, and reconfigure building components as needed, they can better rely on their own resourcefulness, hence become less dependent on others. Reduced dependence in turn, encourages more societal interdependence. Consider how interdependence is valued in the mutual coordination achieved by higher income levels. Why - as a society - shouldn't we be able to extend new potential for interdependence to lower income groups as well? Clearly, in the foreseeable future, market options for flexible land and property ownership will only become more important, not less.

I've Been Disappointed in Myself. But What Does That Mean?

After the recent storming of our nation's Capitol, I've experienced some regret and dismay, regarding my own meager contributions toward more positive circumstances in the U.S. But I've also wondered: how could societies do a better job of preventing such calamities in the first place? It's one thing to express frustration when governments don't function well, and I believe we should. But attempts to destroy them is altogether another matter. It's certainly something I never expected to witness in my lifetime, here in my own country.  

Yet I've managed to shift from this generalized disappointment, to one more specific in nature. Why haven't I been more effective in the last 7+ years of blogging? Do seemingly lackluster results suggest I quit blogging and just call it a day? In spite of these concerns, I'd like to think the answer is no. While I'm occasionally tempted to disengage from it all, I hope to remain committed, involved, even stubborn if necessary. 

Still, it helps to remember that my main limitations are mostly age related. When I was young, I would hardly have confined myself indoors to write about supply side structural reform potential. I'd like to think that had I been aware of these issues decades earlier, my response would have included traveling across the country, while knocking on doors of those willing to listen to my ideas. At the very least, there's consolation in knowing I'm hardly alone in my age induced limitations. Many such as myself have gleaned practical tidbits of wisdom mostly in retrospect, after long slogs which occasionally included learning about life the hard way.

So how to proceed, given our most recent political impasse? For one, all citizens need a better understanding, how severe structural problems have contributed to our political reality. As a nation, we are increasingly constrained by land (place) and time scarcities which governments and inexplicably, even private citizens have yet to address. Today's fiscal policies in particular have been impacted. Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans support fiscal policies which take existing land and time scarcities into consideration. Since both parties instead promote the most costly market options possible, Washington faces severe limits in its ability to function effectively for our knowledge centered economy. Is it any wonder that - due largely to lack of market integration for all income levels - both parties are now inclined to engage in mutual destruction?

Those of us who have not given up on humanity, will continue to seek means for stronger free markets and organizational systems which work well for all citizens. Granted, it won't always be easy, since there are few clear paths by which either individuals or groups can create positive change. Fortunately, there are individuals who will remain stubborn in their efforts to build a better world. Even though it's not easy for all of us to directly participate, we will stay engaged from the sidelines of our desks, while cheering on those who are willing to stay with the good fight.

Economic Considerations are Vital for Sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could Production Rights Counter the Urge to Destroy?

One of the unsettling features of this recent election cycle, has been the oft stated desire to completely demolish the opposition. There's more at stake than belonging to the "wrong" team, since extremists on both sides tend towards a zero tolerance ideological approach. Even though some relief might be had from these cultural battles in the days ahead, how much "normalcy" is still feasible? Is the tribal urge to destroy only temporarily hidden from sight? 

By way of example,  a police chief in Arkansas resigned from his job, after promoting violence against Democrats on social media. Yet this is only a specific extreme example, in a broader backdrop of growing animosity towards "neoliberalism" in general. Indeed, reactions against various capitalist institutions took place decades earlier among the political left, and have since spread to others on the right. Consequently, the urge to destroy could remain an unsettling reality which continues to disrupt the benefits of globalization and an interconnected world. Even though - here in the U.S. - the presidential outcome provides a chance to catch our collective breath, this reprieve may nonetheless be short lived.

What can be done if populism continues to pose problems for wealth creation and economic stability? I can only hope that better defined production rights would ultimately counter the urge to destroy. After all, most individuals are naturally less inclined to tear down institutions and environments which have also been shaped by their own personal and financial commitments. Yet when we hear calls for greater responsibility on the part of all citizens, it's easy to forget, how domestic protectionist impulses limit the ways in which citizens are able to be personally responsible in any group context.

Hence one major challenge is ensuring that more citizens can fully participate in a modern economy. Too many now lack the economic freedom to fully contribute to their economic circumstance, meaning their personal realities often pay the price. When people have few opportunities to define the nature of their own environments, destruction all too often becomes the preferred response. It's time to build stronger supply side production options - options which can create more equality of opportunity and hope for a more inclusive future.

No one can reasonably expect politicians and policy makers to do the heavy lifting in this regard. Plus: Both Democrats and Republicans - despite their polarized differences - have been vested in forms of domestic protectionism which remain destructive for lower income levels. Is it any wonder this protectionism finally spilled out into the international arena?

Average citizens - especially those without college degrees -  are the ones who hold the greatest stake in the markets for services and physical infrastructure which now need to be encouraged. Fortunately, these new markets could be actively supported by economists and other professionals, who are starting to realize that millions can't support the fiscal and social responsibilities of a complex economy without active roles. Nor is it a simple matter to expect monetary redistribution from professional incomes for lower income levels, as was once the case via (a more dominant) tradable sector based revenue. Fortunately, time and knowledge can provide, what money is less prepared to accomplish in a services dominant economy. Let's extend better defined production rights to average citizens. By doing so, we might begin to bridge the chasms between prosperous and struggling regions which now stand in the way of peaceful democratic processes.

The Economic Freedoms We Still Need

Only in retrospect is it apparent how many economic freedoms we've lost - especially in recent decades. But how to respond, as special interests and legislators alike continue to place limits on our personal agency? 

In particular, consider how we seek to participate in the economy - not just as consumers, but as producers. As producers, we get the chance to experience economic freedom via active and meaningful roles with others. Consequently, the personal agency that derives from active use of skills potential, is more important for personal identity than is sometimes recognized. 

Our active participation in society is vital to innovation possibilities in both our physical and intellectual environments. However, realizing the potential of innovation, also requires that individuals keep a full range of production rights, so that such rights are not constantly diverted to preferred groups and associations. Not only do we need to protect permissions for personal management of physical resources, but also the necessary permissions which allow us to assist others through the use and application of knowledge. 

For that matter, our extent of personal freedom as producers and consumers, affects our ability to retain knowledge. In a recent study the authors discovered that people learn more readily when the relevant material is freely chosen. Despite the fact this education comes with a given bias, the bias framing lends greater meaning to the actions we choose. Indeed, according to the study, "the learning rates were slower in the forced-choice situation than they were in the free-choice one."

The economic freedoms that individuals need in their roles as producers and consumers, are crucial if societies expect to preserve a full range of economic access for all concerned. Production rights matter for ongoing activities which are practical and necessary, but also those which are aspirational and experiential. Perhaps one of the simplest ways to think about production rights is to consider a broader context in which economic freedom is possible. The simplest approach for me in this regard, is to envision how economic freedoms could contribute to the societal processes of maintenance, building, creating, understanding and healing. 

Maintenance is the foundation which supports all the others. From an economic standpoint, sometimes we struggle to maintain economic complexity, since maintenance activities in certain respects are the least compensated of the entire group. Yet even though some maintenance activities are basic in nature, they make it possible to sustain everything else, not only in terms of knowledge and information, but also our physical realities. When we lose crucial economic freedoms at a foundational level, our personal autonomy tends to be compromised in areas of higher levels of economic complexity as well. 

As lower level economic freedoms have been lost, so too society's ability to successfully engage in the higher activities of healing and mutual understanding. Only consider how activities in this regard could otherwise bring the actions of healing to a higher order in terms of positive societal intentions. Even our abilities to build and create are being blunted, and basic healing options are in disarray. In all of this: When people insist that intentions mostly lead to negative outcomes, only recall that intentions always begin at individual and personal levels, and they are both positive and negative in nature. It is only when positive intentions are disallowed, that the inevitable negative intentions societies also hold, come to the fore and gain the upper hand. We need to revive the positive intentions which can protect our economic freedoms, while there is still time to do so.

When We Forget How to Live and Let Live

Some resources are truly scarce. Nevertheless, other forms of resource capacity have become artificially scarce. Indeed, one reason capitalism is occasionally called into question, is that special interests too often maintain artificial scarcities in what are basically non discretionary markets. Unfortunately, when societies limit their own economic potential by doing so, the political centers which lend both economic and social stability, gradually lose their hold. Even though various groups and individuals continue seeking solutions for pressing issues, political polarization tends to drown out their voices. In other words, economic conditions may lead to circumstance in which people gradually forget how to live and let live. 

What can be done? Might the underlying structural factors which now get in the way of mutual understanding and civility, still be addressed? How could we make amends for the artificial scarcities which undermine economic stability, long term growth, and even human empathy? Hopefully we have not waited too long, for our present cultural impasse also stands in the way of possibilities for innovation. In a discussion with James Pethokoukis, Caleb Watney describes innovation as an engine and further elaborates:

one of the main things I try to stress...is that the components of the engine have been under considerable stress for decades. We really have not been supporting them through policy at all. In fact, we've been very actively working against them in some ways. But COVID might represent a breaking point of sorts. Sometimes, you can have so much bad policy going on for so long, and then you just need the final straw or a big enough disruption that can really make things start spiraling.

Watney also notes how people no longer feel the world is a positive sum place.

How can we make sure that economic growth does feel positive sum, that everyone's benefiting, that it doesn't have to be one person benefiting at the expense of someone else.

Alas, economists, policy makers and even most citizens grew weary of discussions regarding structural issues, once the economy rebounded from the Great Recession. Hence there was no real response insofar as reforms or other adjustments in organizational capacity. What few predicted, however, was the extent to which neglected structural issues would cause additional problems in short order, with the onset of the pandemic. Had those discussions a decade earlier not been abandoned so quickly after the Great Recession, perhaps we would not have reached the extremes which have surfaced in today's identity politics. Now, it is no simple matter to back up and begin anew. 

In the future, whatever happens, let's hope that representative democracies become more cautious about resorting to cultural battles as a smokescreen for unaddressed issues of economic access and participation. Even though it can be tempting for policy makers to do so, citizens suffer once their governments play the blame game so extensively that little else gets done. Meanwhile, precious energy is being lost in fomented hatreds, even as citizens continue to lose economic access in basic areas of their lives. 

Just the same, if we can once again become willing to live and let live, we need economic context which does not force people to adhere to the same set of structural requirements. The income levels of today's societies are simply too diverse for such unreasonable expectations. Decentralized settings are only worthwhile when they are built so as to encourage a full range of human ability, aspiration, and personal motivation. Even though the gains of some groups would doubtless appear minuscule in relation to other groups, who cares and why should it matter! Just do it! These decentralized settings could still nurture human capital improvement and the preservation of applied knowledge, to the fullest extent possible for all concerned. 

Otherwise, the one size fits all requirements of today's general equilibrium settings, will continue discarding human capital seemingly "unfit" for purpose in relation to the best and the brightest. Fortunately, we have the ability to create a more positive approach to human capital potential. But the time to begin building more hopeful and sustainable settings, is now. We need to productively respond to extreme structural imbalance, before we completely forget how to live and let live.

For Progress, Basic Innovation Remains Necessary

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Flourishing: Make it Personal

Struggles of identify have once again come to the fore, particularly those of race and gender. One consequence of course, is that sometimes it's difficult to turn on the news without getting depressed. Yet I'd be lying if I suggested that class or gender based discrimination have never been problems for me. All the more so, whenever difficulties in maintaining steady work meant corresponding limits in personal freedom and autonomy.

Just the same: Despite how issues of inequality and social justice are often framed by politicians, activists, and others, I believe in practical solutions for complex social problems. Specifically, a strong supply side approach for production reform, could change lives for the better in ways people get to experience, rather than having to be convinced of. Let's strive for economic flourishing on real economy terms that go well beyond what money alone can accomplish. Why not create new free markets, to supplement countless local markets which have long been restrained and will continue to be so. Fortunately, it is within our ability to make economics personal in ways which matter for all citizens, not just the elite or perhaps well to do.

Don't get me wrong! Arguments for social justice are important, and perhaps some positive change may finally come from recent struggles. Nevertheless, these discussions and activities are somewhat different, from what is needed to generate positive change at a real economy level.

In particular, economists might come to recognize supply side approaches which directly benefit all citizens. While economists have studied the economy in great detail, they mostly utilize impersonal means which are consequently lacking in real economy results. Worse, the inclination of academics and pundits to emphasize what doesn't work - such as one's ideological opponent - means too few economists who are fully vested in contributing to real economy outcomes. Sadly in all this, economics is now mostly "personal" only insofar as people are angry at economic outcomes.

Make it personal by creating more positives, instead of focusing on existing negatives. This is all the more important, since social justice hardly comes down to moving existing revenues around, or some other temporary form of "inclusion". Real economic justice means ongoing economic inclusion, in terms of what human capital potential might still accomplish. We have already seen many times over, for instance, how making more revenues available for governments, is scarcely the same thing as creating real economic access for citizens from all walks of life.

We could make economics personal in ways which help to defuse identity struggles. This is particularly possible, when we refuse to constantly demean what has come before in terms of supply side structure. The real issue isn't about dismantling special interest advantages, but of creating and cultivating new markets where special interests lack incentive to tread. It's not necessary to put non tradable sector special interests on the defensive. And if we don't, we gain more chances to create new wealth and prosperity on more personal and meaningful terms.

Only recall, how much identity struggle exists because our present equilibrium needs new and stronger definitions of wealth. We can make economics personal again, by inviting all citizens to take part in wealth creation. How might individuals share their personal definitions with others? How might others respond? Each offering can better align the ones that follow. Let's get started. Why not focus on the commonalities of what we all want and hope for? We could still break free of the chains that emphasize our differences, with the unity of a productive economic response.

Knowledge Preservation In a Time of Pandemic

Many are understandably focused on the short term effects of COVID-19, and what needs to be done in the here and now. However, even though it's not easy to pause and reflect on broader concerns, there are possible long term effects of the pandemic which likewise deserve a careful response.

In particular, this pandemic exposes the fragile nature of how societies currently manage and reimburse their most important knowledge providers. History has made evident, how some pandemics culminate in events which undermine such systems. Skills arbitrage as the sole means of knowledge provision and application, is less sustainable over the long run than it may appear. All the more so, since compensation for these skills is compromised through over reliance on debt arrangements. Too many currently provided services, include vague expectations of reimbursement later in time from future generations. But what if something about this arrangement, should radically change? For instance, suppose future generations lack a sufficient level of income to fulfill yesterday's promises?

Whenever substantial levels of societal wealth are lost, pandemics tend to impact how people organize their lives at basic levels of operational capacity. These losses are only exacerbated whenever applied knowledge is too closely held in high density populations, as is currently the case in our productive regions. If the economic patterns of major cities are disrupted, productive capacity becomes all the more important elsewhere, to ensure that vital threads of current information and applied knowledge can continue. We need to ensure that knowledge and skill can be encouraged and maintained via a full range of population densities and intellectual abilities. The more places and settings where skills capacity is fully tapped, the better prepared civilizations could become, to face moments of crisis and uncertainty.

Clearly, we should no longer rationalize that it is somehow reasonable, to limit the use of valued knowledge and skill to areas of high population densities. But how to begin the vital task of reinvigorating small communities? Even though I've long argued for time arbitrage as a way to do so, admittedly a part of me is now overwhelmed by current events. I find myself wishing "if only" such processes had been put into motion earlier, so the preservation of already existing human capital, might also be a simpler matter.

Alas, I did not realize how the need for new knowledge use patterns, would become particularly relevant during my own lifetime. Like many others, I feel as though being swept along in a vast tide of change - one which makes me question my own ability to return safely to shore this time. And like many, I'm not certain whether it is still feasible to craft a fully effective response, or to safely bypass the political battles now occurring. If only new patterns of wealth creation had already been pursued in earnest! Dare we still hope that much of our wealth is not lost in the years to come? Can our most productive areas still reach out to other regions, in hopes of lifting them up?

Meanwhile, society continues moving in the opposite direction, as exemplified by additional closings of rural hospitals. As it turns out, hospitals - despite their institutional importance - are exceedingly fragile in economic terms. If we are to deal successfully with the present crisis, we also need for healthcare to transition from the fragility of skills arbitrage, to the open ended and simpler nature of time arbitrage. Time arbitrage would not attempt to offer "perfect" solutions. Rather, it would seek to remain present for all concerned. In time arbitrage, patients could hopefully express what they need from others, and perhaps gain a real chance of being taken seriously. Sometimes, when illness strikes, it's not so much survival which is at stake, but rather finding the most peaceful way possible to overcome one's fear of the unknown. Each of us as patients deserves in moments of fear, not to have to face those moments completely alone.

Healthcare could be envisioned as a most basic element of organizational potential, for all citizens of community. Healthcare provision in all its countless variations, deserves to be part of the reciprocity of mutual assistance. Such assistance could eventually be paid in the real time of people who are alive today, instead of future generations which deserve better than to be saddled with debt obligations of a past which never really belonged to them. We can build meaningful ways to be with others in their moments of greatest need, and yet do so without bankrupting anyone or anything. It's time to build anew, starting with more flexible versions of rural hospital organizational patterns.

As Marc Andreessen recently noted, "We're all necessary, and we can all contribute to building." Should we embrace the mindset of crafting stronger realities, we also gain the ability to create long term solutions which can benefit governments as well. We might finally be able to offer our governments a viable path to address the debt burdens they have already accumulated. Living with one another on reciprocal terms in the here and now, is no small matter. Let's get started. Again, we are all in this together.

The Hidden Danger of a "Fully Grown" Economy

Is there cause for concern, should mature economies appear to no longer "need" additional growth?  Perhaps so. Too much non tradable sector activity - much of which is also non discretionary - does not accurately reflect the reality of wide income variance. Since the need for full economic participation (at a basic level) is not taken into account, many citizens also cannot contribute, to what would otherwise be shared responsibilities. Indeed, these hidden losses indicate that a market gap exists which is far too significant to be addressed via aggregate demand "remedies". Essentially, non tradable sector requirements now demand more long term monetary revenue (and consequent need for higher monetary growth levels) than what is actually transpiring.

These systemic burdens are also faced by individuals in their daily lives. Many who aspire to success, come into adulthood convinced they have little choice but to do so on fully monetarily compensated terms. This, in spite of what many workplaces can reasonably expect to offer their employees. And while struggles for full access may suggest illogical meritocracy, consider what is at stake. Until non tradable sector consumption options become more flexible, one's decision to forgo a college degree, will often lead to a lifetime of uncertainty and excessive personal risk.

Despite this reality, even college degrees hold diminishing rewards. For instance, 33.8 percent of college graduates now work "in jobs that don't require a college degree". Given the high costs of non discretionary consumption, societies struggle to create more fully compensated wage capacity than their institutions can actually offer. Is there any wonder our political systems are creaking under the strain?

Yet in all of this, a stronger growth trajectory would be beneficial for reasons which go well beyond mere additional monetary revenues. In a modern day knowledge based economy, it is vital to make economic room for the growth and positive challenges of the human mind. That said, we need to think about doing so in ways which are not near as socially restrictive as the ones we currently rely on.

For these and other reasons as well, I question whether long term growth issues for mature economies are essentially "settled". And economists in particular, should be careful about this assumption. In one recent example, John Cassidy in "Can We Have Prosperity Without Growth?" highlights Dietrich Vollrath's new book, "Fully Grown: Why a Stagnant Economy is a Sign of Success".

Vollrath argues that slower growth is appropriate for a society as rich and industrially developed as ours. 

Of course, services play a major structural role in this circumstance. In 1950, services were only 40 percent of GDP, today they comprise more than 70 percent:

Taken together, slower growth in the labor force and the shift to services can explain almost all the recent slowdown, according to Vollrath.  

It is probably not safe to declare all is well in a "fully grown" economy, until most communities and citizens are at least able to take part at a basic level in economic activity. When citizens lack the ability to do so, their contributions to tradable sector markets are also disrupted. Does it really make sense to declare markets as fully matured, when millions of citizens remain in holding patterns and have yet to truly take part?

What might make it simpler to determine, whether the economy is "fully grown" to an extent it becomes obvious all is well? For one, citizens would be become less inclined to seek more extensive monetary compensation than systems can actually bear. Should non tradable sector activity become more reflective of actual income levels, fewer would be compelled to use higher education as a supposedly necessary signal. Granted, meritocratic preferences will always be important for some, as means to judge and reward accordingly. But merit should not have be the sole path, by which one might create a meaningful and productive life.

What Potential Does Libertarianism Still Hold?

Has old-style libertarianism bit the dust? Tyler Cowen suspects that changing times have made previous interpretations of libertarianism less relevant, hence debates whether state capacity libertarianism might be its most logical replacement. How to think about this?

In a post titled "(Adjective) Libertarianism", John Cochrane responds. Granted, he agrees with Cowen that many State activities are necessary for obvious reasons. Citizens need states that are capable of performing crucial tasks "competently and effectively".  However,

Libertarianism consists of many different ideas, and is clearly in need of some adjectives.

Cochrane also asks why Cowen assigns most blame to Democrats instead of taking a more bipartisan approach. All too often, we observe how support for individual liberties evaporates among Republicans, should that support become inconvenient for any reason. Cochrane notes some other (minor) differences in perspective, then adds,

While I like the basic idea, I think "State Capacity" is a poor adjective because it isn't that self-explanatory. Libertarians have awful marketing skills, as evidenced by the fact that such demonstrably correct ideas have such little traction.

Still, no other explanatory choices are obvious as a descriptive update. While adjectives such as constitutional, conservative, rule-of-law, empirical, and globalist have their uses, "...adjectives like these just define a set of ideas as antithesis of their opposites."

After considering John Cochrane's reply, I wondered whether "pattern" as an adjective might be useful. For example, what kinds of overall economic patterns either promote or possibly deter economic freedom, depending on how resources are utilized within participating groups? Plus, it's the non tradable sector patterns of our modern economy which now cause so many problems for lower income groups. New non tradable sector patterns could give a more important role to time value in particular. By clarifying resource use patterns and making them more recognizable, citizens could better coordinate resources already at their disposal. Large governments often stumble in this regard, by assuming responsibility for activities which citizens lack the ability to support via resources they can personally manage.

Alas, I found Tyler Cowen's referenced Cato essay from 2007 (in his above linked post) a bit problematic, since he could not visualize libertarian roles for intellectual property. For me, that lack of imagination tends to translate into a lack of libertarian context for applied knowledge at the level of economic freedom. But why should the State bear such responsibility for intellectual property, when doing so creates budgetary discrepancies that only accumulate and leave citizens ever more indebted? What's more, this leave it to the experts approach only further reduces individual rights in what is essentially a knowledge based economy.

Why can't libertarianism help to restore production rights to individuals, instead of leaving the bulk of those privileges to states and experts? Why can't libertarianism take part, in what would ultimately be a reduction of political struggle over excessive subsidies re skilled services? What if libertarians could just be getting started on a brighter future, instead of calling it a day when it comes to individual liberties? If libertarians appear to have somehow gotten cold feet, or are otherwise being disregarded, perhaps it is because some of them have not yet taken seriously, the dramatic transitions of a services dominant economy. Yet libertarians could still meet this challenge, by reducing the dependent market status of time based services, in a quest to make them more direct sources of wealth. Libertarians could take applied economic solution sets more seriously, which would help others take libertarian concepts more seriously as well.

If libertarian ideas are to escape theoretical abstraction, the contexts of economic freedom will need more direct application in the real world - especially for countless communities which don't want to be left behind. Libertarians could encourage economic patterns that create greater freedom for people of all income levels - not just individuals who already enjoy considerable wealth and liberty. Libertarian ideas could become a viable part of future supply and demand for time based services markets. Such an approach to individual liberty would be relevant for millions, who previously might not have imagined libertarianism as a true pragmatic source of greater economic freedom and prosperity.

Exit, Voice, and Skills Arbitrage

What benefit can we expect to gain, if we elect to exit malfunctioning economic circumstance, should it become difficult to express voice or loyalty in these environments? In a recent post, Tim Harford explains that while exit remains an option for citizens in mature economies, many feel more constrained in this regard than was once the case. Hence he asks, "What should we do when things go wrong?"

Typically, we think of exit and voice as complementary. Your complaints will be taken more seriously if you can credibly threaten to leave, as anyone who has called to cancel a mobile phone contract can attest. But sometimes exit can silence voice.

Unfortunately, as Harford also notes, one's ability to exit isn't particularly threatening to political parties, "especially not the hardliners who would rather lose than compromise." Alas, when "extremists are delighted" and "moderates quit in disgust", political paralysis is often the result.

The political nature of exit, voice, and loyalty, tends to affect the market potential of nations as well. For instance, since U.S. healthcare is such a commanding portion of GDP, one can forget these markets were constructed so as to intentionally leave market potential incomplete. Just as politicians lack concern for citizens who choose exit over voice, so too the special interests that prefer human capital requirements to restrict market capacity. Even though much of healthcare market exit is far from obvious, there's one important exception. In recent years stories have emerged regarding people in public places who are clearly in need of emergency care, yet they refuse ambulances and assistance to ensure they do not experience financial difficulties afterward.

Skills arbitrage has become one of the main mechanisms responsible for encouraging market exit. Where once people arbitraged their time for mutual assistance, some are more likely now to arbitrage skill sets in highly specific ways that require extensive human capital investment. However, the time based services markets which have resulted, are not near as efficient as one might expect. As "the best of the best" become the last ones standing in formal assistance roles, more citizens become resigned to abandoning services which they no longer have permission to actively provide for themselves or others.

Again, it also helps to consider skills arbitrage roles in the general equilibrium circumstance of national governments. Large nations in particular struggle to coordinate the skills arbitrage of knowledge providers, since only so much of any nation's wealth can be redirected towards full monetary compensation for human capital.

For purposes of general equilibrium, skills arbitrage has largely cornered value in exchange activities, at least for now. Even so, this need not prevent a reemergence of value in use healthcare in the form of time arbitrage. New organizational capacity could make it feasible for participating groups to build much needed skills, as formal value in use economic settings. Defined equilibrium options could help restore a fuller use of knowledge and skill in society. Even though skills arbitrage sometimes results in extensive market exit, time arbitrage might provide ways to ensure that citizens don't continue exiting healthcare markets - especially in moments when they need them most.

Does Cooperation Lead to Greater Inequality?

In a recent Marginal Revolution post, Tyler Cowen appreciates "the virtues of greater cooperation" but adds, "Be careful what you wish for!" In some respects, it appears that more cooperation among participating groups could actually lead to greater levels of inequality. For instance, Cowen noted how high skilled individuals gain more benefits from mutual cooperation, than those who utilize lower skill levels in the workplace. Another oft cited example of late, are growing levels of inequality between different firms. How might one think about this conundrum? Could cooperation turn out to be just another expression for the wealth capture of collusion, or the exclusive nature of tribalism?

Fortunately, mutual coordination is too basic a human survival instinct, to be associated solely with either positive or negative outcomes. Plus, the references in Tyer Cowen's post were somewhat broad, in that his examples were more indicative of correlation than causation.

Nevertheless, when it comes to apparent inequalities, much depends on the extent to which specific resource coordination can disperse beyond directly participating groups. And since our time is naturally scarce, so too is time based product. Indeed, the only way to multiply high skill markets for time based services generation, is to invite more participants to the process. Otherwise, mutual cooperation in supply side chains which are limited by design, will only continue to exacerbate existing inequalities.

Until now, tradable sector dominance has proven far more capable of spreading wealth in societies, than has been the case for non tradable sector time based services. However, with time as a component of economic value alongside money, this problematic sectoral imbalance could ultimately be addressed. Time arbitrage would also be able to address the human capital investment problem by greatly lowering its costs. Presently, high human capital investment costs have become difficult for society to carry, since many time based services are reimbursed via debt and tax based redistribution.

Granted, the coordination potential of time arbitrage can't change the underlying problems of limited non tradable sector revenue. After all, the scarcity of time based product translates into aggregate output limits for these activities as well. What time arbitrage could create, however, is greater accessibility to services marketplaces in terms of production and consumption. One reason this ultimately matters so much for existing inequalities, is that millions now need a high income level just to access basic - yet vital - skilled services. In short, there are organizational means whereby mutual cooperation could create greater equality for all skill levels, once time value gains validity alongside monetary value.

Transportation is Both Basic and Discretionary

How do we categorize the importance of transportation in the context of everyday life? More specifically, what do we need to utilize transportation for, in any given moment? By clarifying differences between basic and discretionary transportation options, we could better determine, how the physical layouts and transportation grids of new communities could reflect such roles as well.

As it turns out, commutes for daily routines vary considerably, from the transportation networks we now rely on for longer road trips. Alas, 20th century transportation networks - designed with automobiles in mind - created spatial settings which don't really distinguish between the two! Consequently, the same highway systems that can be so advantageous for discretionary and occasional travel, tend to be commuting headaches wherever people routinely come together to get things done. Some basic rethinking is needed, to retrieve commuting options which take less time than what is now frequently necessary.

What are some differences in transportation needs? One might imagine a spectrum which on one end contains daily non discretionary travel commitments, versus a totally discretionary "vacation of a lifetime" on the other. Points along the middle of our transportation spectrum could be occasional visits to friends and family at a distance, plus similar excursions of limited duration and expense.

Fortunately, the more discretionary aspects of this transportation spectrum are still served reasonably well by state and national highways, here in the U.S. Even so, some disparage today's interstate systems, and reason we would have been better off had they never been built. While I'm convinced many highways are practical and useful, they've still muddled how we once went about getting from point A to point B on a daily basis. Since roads for automobiles went through so many cities and towns instead of around them, the physical proximity people need for many daily interactions has long since been compromised. Yet for now, what's done is done. Many local commutes will remain lengthy in the foreseeable future, and millions will bear responsibility for high transportation costs, since so much private property fronts the thinly spread densities where people expect to get things done.

Ultimately, greater efficiencies in local commutes would involve a rethink for private property coordination, so that closely spaced population densities will once again prove feasible in small towns. What many new communities would want to achieve, is greater accessibility for services workplace densities in particular. It will be interesting, to observe whether some settings might eventually prove similar to walkable communities before the automotive era. How might neighbors shift what were earlier coordination patterns for physical production, towards new combinations for time based services production?

One major challenge is the need for more flexibility in private property ownership, so that optimal densities for current life goals and responsibilities are feasible in a community core.  How so? Consider that in many private property arrangements, getting from point A to point B takes more time due to the need to commute around residents who reside between those points, but aren't part of the coordination factor therein. Indeed, some residents who aren't locally engaged during normal work hours where they live, lose valuable time commuting elsewhere as well! If short commutes to get things done (by all concerned) is understood as an important community goal, flexible ownership patterns toward this end, could prove easier to achieve. Property ownership deserves commute considerations such as these.

Granted, millions of individuals will continue to prefer the spread out densities made possible by automotive transportation, and understandably so. Still, many others could benefit tremendously from walkable communities which don't require automobile ownership. Desirable though it is, automotive transportation should no longer have to be necessary for individuals to maintain their autonomy and personal connections with others. Recall as well, that while public transportation, taxis and new companies such as Uber are viable options to auto ownership in cities, they simply aren't practical in many small places where it can be difficult to make a profit.

Walkable communities would make life more affordable for those with limited sources of income. Plus a simpler infrastructure approach would lessen the burdens of many a municipal budget. Doubtless, plenty of exploration will be needed, before new communities can transition to walkable core settings which restore economic engagement at all levels of society. In time, however, closer densities for living and working could lead to newfound vitality and more sustainable small towns.