"Medium Term" Concerns are Becoming Short Term Realities

Fitch recently downgraded the United States' long term ratings to AA+, but why? For many economists and policy makers, their recent report is both confusing and seemingly, untimely. Others however, such as John Cochrane and Olivier Blanchard, argued that the downgrade makes sense, and I agree. 

Indeed, there are good reasons for immediate concern. Among those but certainly not limited to, are higher interest rates on government debt, the rising debt stock, and rising healthcare costs. Unfortunately, in the 12+ years I've paid close attention to such matters online, these fiscal issues have often been scarcely noticed, other than occasional warnings to take heed and "do something". 

Consequently, the general lack of seriousness about the matter, made the the medium term seem as though something which would never arrive. In short, there's a broad based unwillingness to face fiscal burdens head on, which has left us with a government no longer fully committed to its debts. Alas, it is futile to insist "This is about Republicans" because - after all - Republican representation is part and parcel of our institutional makeup. Perhaps that explains why Olivier Blanchard declared our budgetary process is no longer reliable. 

There's little denying as well, how the world has changed after recent domestic market inflation which is far trickier to eradicate than tradable sector inflation. In his support of the Fitch decision, Adam Ozimek explains how excessive inflation made the world economy a heavier burden for many consumers. I get that for younger workers with good incomes, non tradable sector inflation is more of an irritation than anything. However, for many who have recently retired, such as myself, there's still a higher price level for housing and vital time based services which may be permanent, even if it no longer increases. This reality has dramatically changed the life expectations and trajectory of retirees who are mostly dependent on Social Security.

Again, much of what transpired relates to the secondary or non tradable sectors I've written about over the years. I still believe a lot of fiscally induced austerity could have been avoided in the near future, had proactive measures been taken for building manufacture and knowledge maintenance in domestic markets. Yet governments now focus instead on industrial policy which largely involves tradable sector activity. While some of this could turn out well, still recall how many of these institutions eventually find their way back to good deflation via internal means. Whereas we could have realized clear benefits from innovation in domestic non tradable sectors. Indeed, careful attention to the creation of good deflation in these markets, might have kept our government from becoming so unstable in the first place. 

In all of this, what if Fitch wasn't an "appropriate" institution to raise a fuss about government fiscal shortcomings? Axios wrote: 

There is no doubt that U.S. policymaking can be a messy affair and that the current deficit trajectory is problematic. But it's not as if credit analysts have special insight into the scale of those challenges or how likely they are to spill over into some kind of default or crisis.

Well, who else should have suggested taking action, in their stead? For that matter, what institutions have we created, that are specifically positioned to address such concerns? Perhaps one reason such warnings went unheeded, is that no such institution exists. What we have isn't designed for these tasks in the first place. It seemed every time institutional "onlookers" referred to the medium term problems of fiscal burdens - even onlookers with extremely important responsibilities - people reasoned how they should not concern themselves with such things. 

The result? We inadvertently destroyed much of the impetus that might have existed, to address "medium term" concerns regarding fiscal burdens. Nevertheless, kudos to those who continued to sound the alarm just the same. That said, talking about it was only a starting point. The real challenge in all this, was to start doing things, and often just simplifying things, so as to actually reduce daily living costs for consumers on a regular basis. Then, and only then, a real chance to reduce government fiscal burdens as well, in a way that likely doesn't necessitate punishing austerity. Is there still a chance of doing so? I have grown tired and weary, and I'm hardly the only one.

Low Income Wage Pressures in General Equilibrium

As the Fed's efforts regarding wage deceleration continue, the good news is unprecedented job growth which now holds greater responsibility than nominal wage gains. However, while nominal wages were rising, low income groups actually benefited the most. As Joseph Politano earlier noted:

Arguably, the only group to see real wage gains since the pandemic has been low-income workers, with workers in the bottom 10% seeing very strong real gains. The labor shortage has also enabled rapid wage gains for young, non-white, non-college-educated, and part time workers to a degree that is nearly historically unprecedented, and was helping break America out of the cycle of labor market underperformance it suffered throughout the 2010s.

How might one think about this phenomenon at a general equilibrium level? For one, even as the earlier low wage pressures affected nominal stability, the fact remains this group needed its real wage gains the most, since there's been too little supply side effort to generate housing and time based services for a full income spectrum. Just the same, the Fed was slow to react - and nominally adjust for - the fact many employers ended up "paying the price" to retain low income workers who otherwise would have gone elsewhere, or possibly exited the workplace.

Given this relatively brief but substantive rise in low income levels, why weren't there also real wage gains for higher income level groups? Indeed they've mostly missed out on this latest inflation cycle. One reason could be micro level pressures haven't been as strong as for lower income groups. Perhaps the lack of such pressures is due to (most) middle to upper income groups having sufficient economic options to remain gainfully employed.  

Alas, while lower income levels still have fewer economic options for workplace participation, their employers can only offer additional monetary reimbursement up to a point. Consequently, some time based services which people find valuable will gradually become more difficult to offer on monetary terms, which is one reason I've argued for time arbitrage. Unfortunately, many municipalities don't yet understand this general equilibrium reality, which especially matters in terms of housing options. Consider also that as many Baby Boomers retire, housing and time based services limitations affect them in crucial ways. Not only do fixed income retirees struggle to find affordable low maintenance housing, retirees of all income levels struggle to obtain home services, since many of these workers have understandably departed for more rewarding employment options.

There's another important aspect of secondary market domination in time based services for higher income levels. While employment options are plentiful now for these groups, this unprecedented scenario still obscures the fact aggregate price making in time based services is only feasible up to a point, given general equilibrium revenue needs for redistribution. Granted, such revenues were expanding alongside originating wealth gains in primary markets during the Great Inflation, and more recently, via redistribution which accompanied global dollar dominance during the Great Moderation. However now, aggregate revenue potential for secondary markets in time based services is plateauing in mature economies, which is why high income wage growth is more likely to result in inflation. Indeed, this helps explain a recent healthcare paradox in Britain, which was noted by Marginal Revolution:

Universities have been told they must limit the numbers of medical school places this year or risk fines, a move attacked as "extraordinary" when the NHS is struggling with staff shortages.

Lest this seem ridiculous, only recall how the conundrum is more evident for Britain due to the straightforward nature of its healthcare system. Less obvious are similar sets of supply side problems in the U.S., which are more difficult to discern due to numerous intermediaries between healthcare practitioners and patients. 

Nevertheless, underneath it all, the evolving general equilibrium dynamic is the same. Even though secondary market higher income levels have become relatively less likely to benefit from wage gains, lower income levels must deal with the reality of partial and incomplete non discretionary markets. It's these incomplete markets which can create financial obligations that are higher than wage realities. So much so, there will likely be more instances in the foreseeable future, the Fed needs to adjust monetary representation downward once again, should low income citizens need additional wages just to participate in work activities which citizens and businesses alike, continue to find important enough to maintain.

Don't Forget About Basic Resource Scarcities

Not long ago, some became convinced society's main problem was finding better ways to share resource abundance! But it didn't take long for a global pandemic and the vicissitudes of war, to remind everyone once again that resource scarcities are still part of the equation. For mature economies in particular, resource scarcities in the utilization of time and place are starting to impact how the Fed manages inflation. Limited markets in time based services are evident in high skill human capital, but this phenomenon is also emerging in simpler forms of (highly sought after) personal attention. Meanwhile, place based scarcity is reflected in the high costs of housing relative to actual incomes. 

Still, it's easy to forget how these imbalanced markets affect current underlying inflationary levels. Instead, macroeconomic discussions tend to alternate between employment issues or irresponsibility on the part of fiscal and monetary policy. At the very least, some of our supply side resource scarcities should resolve in 2023 via resource substitution, which can in turn help ease inflation. Unfortunately though, time and place based resources need to be framed in more understandable context, before the Fed benefits from supply side assistance towards monetary stability. In the meantime, the Fed is reduced to inadequate measures such as reducing traditional housing starts, when what is really needed is more accessible non traditional housing production!

One way to think about the natural scarcities of economic time and place, is determining how we created too many additional layers of artificial scarcity to the real scarcities we already face. It could also help to respect the rationale that existing institutions initially used for additional limits to market access, then move forward to create new beginnings from this understanding.

Respect for existing institutions which work with resources involving time and place based product, means fewer attempts to dismantle them, and more attempts to evolve production processes where these institutions are actually growing fragile. Consider for instance what it actually means when builders cannot afford to build affordable homes for low to middle income consumers! Recall as well the fragile nature of healthcare institutions which can ill afford to function in many areas which don't benefit from vast wealth holdings. Both of these are institutional fragility. New institutional efforts would do well to create alternative means of social support to address where older institutions can no longer easily function. 

Indeed, by not attacking existing institutions directly, we can still respect how they evolved to address different sets of social realities and historical contexts. For instance, Nimby based zoning allowed people to at least partially manage their personal fears around living close to others they didn't know enough to trust. Likewise, skills use limitations were a way to address people's fears about what might happen if they paid for services which turned out poorly. And enforced professional limits in human capital, also made it possible for professionals to live among others who already benefited from higher and more directly derived incomes.

Nevertheless, regulatory moves which increase artificial scarcity now mean basic non discretionary markets beyond reach of average consumers. Such markets also require a level of monetary representation which makes the job of central bankers more difficult. What's more, these domestic market income sources - not to mention their corresponding housing representation - contribute to an NGDP growth level which is currently too high to maintain economic stability. Clearly, more is now at stake than missing markets for lower income consumers, as this aspect of market dominance could compel central bankers to impose additional reductions in aggregate demand. Alas, doing so would further reduce the output potential of discretionary markets in more direct wealth origination sources as well. 

Should new institutions arise to create broader domestic market options, they would nonetheless need to acknowledge the main reason consumers tolerated earlier forms of market dominance for so long despite lack of access: trust. Many countless regulations arose in environments where social trust had been eroded at least to some extent. Hence people became willing to pay dearly (when and if they could) for specific quality promises in time based services and housing options. New institutions need to build much more than just greater economic access, for they would need to restore societal trust through time value which doesn't require the same level of monetary compensation as in decades past.

At the very least, we've been quite fortunate our current services sectors functioned as long and as well as they have. Nevertheless, we appear to have entered an era in which today's services sectors could impart undue burdens for inflation, should new domestic markets not materialize. For this reason I might add that when it comes to Fed inflation management, I would probably understand if they maintain a "hawkish" stance in response to continued supply side inaction. Especially should NGDP levels remain as high as is currently the case. 

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. 

"Political" Equilibrium is Not the Same as Natural Equilibrium

When might politically motivated budgets create too much confusion for general equilibrium conditions? Even though there's no clear answer, economic dynamism and long term growth potential may depend on how these matters are ultimately approached. It's now apparent that the fiscal dominance of today's service centered economies, could hinder progress in the near future.

Until recently, ultra-low interest rates were becoming taken for granted as inevitable. And not only did this prompt national governments to borrow in excess of earlier norms, it discouraged a rational general equilibrium framing as output driven. This loss of a quantitative understanding, has made it even more difficult to create productivity improvements in domestic markets. Instead, the fiscal "freedoms" of late are fueling the ambitions of multiple political parties. Alas, the results aren't encouraging, since fiscal policies tend to reward specific group preferences instead of positive market outcomes.

However, does fiscal irresponsibility account for a rising equilibrium rate, and might this impact equilibrium stability? Scott Sumner considers equilibrium effects, and notes: 

The "natural" or equilibrium interest rate also has multiple meanings, but generally refers to the interest rate that provides for some sort of macroeconomics equilibrium, such as stable prices. Throughout most of the world, the equilibrium interest rate has been trending lower since the early 1980s. Until now...

He continues:

A more complete model of the equilibrium interest rate might also account for the political economy of fiscal policy. Suppose that the natural interest rate falls so low that politicians become tempted to run larger budget deficits. Eventually, the deficits become so large that the equilibrium interest rate begins rising again. 

In retrospect, the new UK Prime Minister also went too far with the extensive tax cuts of her fiscal package.

All of this makes me wonder whether ultra-low interest rates are not a stable equilibrium, at least in most places. I still believe that low rates are a technically feasible equilibrium, but perhaps it is inevitable that politicians in many countries will abuse the privilege of almost costless borrowing - right up to the point where that privilege is removed.

Indeed, the Washington Post notes the new Prime Minister's predicament and adds

Across the supposedly advanced economies, the return of inflation has magnified the riskiness of extravagant political gestures. For the most part, however, politicians have not gotten the message.

How to think about all this? For one thing, I'm inclined to believe that fiscal policy (rather than monetary and supply side circumstance) would not be responsible for a rising natural interest rate, whether or not a government "crosses the line" in this regard. Especially since fiscal policy correlates with credit dominant outcomes which substantially differ from the time correlated aggregate output of natural equilibrium. 

In terms of aggregate output potential, total hours worked are an important part of the equation. Specifically, when considering equilibrium potential, one might ask: How much aggregate output is defined by exponential representation, versus the linear representation of (naturally scarce) time and place dominated output? Especially since fiscal dominance could eventually be undermined by expectations in the secondary markets of applied knowledge. And if service sector output doesn't presently appear linear, it's because areas of exponential gain are not being adequately defined in relation to the scarce resources of time and place defined product. In all of this, the fiscal dominance of political equilibrium is not well suited for the creation of a better defined and stable general equilibrium.

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.

Incentives Matter for Continuous Procedural Maintenance

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

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

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

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

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

The Fragility of Economic Momentum

Why do societies tend to label certain activities as "unproductive"? Or perhaps said another way, what's so special about "productive" endeavour? These questions matter in part, because they closely relate to sectors of the economy specific to equilibrium balance.

Activities considered most productive, are those which encourage further momentum and additional monetary gains. Whereas activities labeled "unproductive", regularly require other existing wealth sources for social continuity on economic terms. While some aren't convinced regarding this causation, ultimately it matters for the ability of mature economies to maintain productive economic complexity. When too many things go wrong, even the strongest economies can start to become fragile. And how can anyone really know where such tipping points exist? I believe it can't be stressed enough, how right Adam Smith was centuries earlier, to worry about the fragile nature of economic momentum. Otherwise, he might not have felt the need to describe "unproductive" activities in ways which can still offend readers of Wealth of Nations today.

Nations have always experienced political struggles regarding fiscal activity, so whatever is viewed as productive or unproductive, depends on cultural framing as well. Still: When it comes to wealth creation, "low productivity" maintenance services are necessary to preserve what people, businesses and nations build in the first place. Importantly, Adam Smith believed in the value of "unproductive" labour. For that matter he noted its worthiness in what was also a description of economic momentum: 

A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers: he grows poor, by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well as the former. But the labour of the manufacturer fixes and realizes itself in some particular subject or vendible commodity, which lasts for some time at least after that labour is past. It is, as it were, a certain quantity of labour stocked and stored up to be employed, if necessary, upon some other occasion. That subject, or what is the same thing, the price of that subject, can afterwards, if necessary, put in motion a quantity of labour equal to that which had originally produced it. The labour of the menial servant, on the contrary, does not fix or realize itself in any particular subject or vendible commodity. His services generally perish in the very instant of their performance, and seldom leaves any trace or value behind them, for which an equal quantity of service could afterwards be procured.

Productivity is a macroeconomic concern, because excess resource aggregation in areas which are not direct wealth creation, can eventually pull down areas which most contribute to economic momentum. Despite the fact societies aren't directly aware of such tipping points, much depends on how populations feel in this regard. When economic momentum slows, citizens begin to feel the difficulty of getting ahead and making the most of their lives. Plus, when free markets are held back for too long, people begin to assume it is also okay to take away the freedoms of their neighbors. 

Adam Smith lived when expanding economic momentum and free markets contributed to the hopeful expectations of citizens in his time. He observed that when people felt better about their own life options, they were more willing to give consideration and respect to other citizens. 

In other words, economic dynamism made people more civilized. Whether or not our own economic times have become more fragile, we already see how people have lost some of this consideration for one another. Perhaps we could give more credit where credit is due, for the earlier freedoms we've lost in full market representation. In particular, where some forms of work are deemed "unproductive", we can assign more economic value to our own time use potential, so that ultimately, less money is necessary for those activities to take place. If we work to regain free markets for all income levels, citizens might hope again for continued progress, prosperity, and personal freedoms.

Upstream Nominal Claims Matter for Equilibrium Balance

Will the Fed successfully curtail inflation in the near future? Fortunately there have been encouraging signs of disinflation, even if the causes aren't obvious yet. However, while the Fed uses monetary policy to tame inflation, in certain respects this is a technical result. In other words, "pulling back" won't address supply side shortcomings such as the perennial inflation contributors in our secondary markets. Unfortunately, these local markets are woefully incomplete in basic respects, with housing and skilled services as the most egregious examples. Consequently, were the Fed were to pursue nominal stability and a stable growth level (as a market monetarist "best case" scenario), this would only be a partial answer - albeit the monetary one - for optimal equilibrium balance. 

Indeed, the Fed has often emphasized how its hands are tied in terms of supply side reform possibilities. Despite the recent pullback on traditional housing loan activity, Fed members must be wondering now, who in a decision making capacity is really paying attention and ready to take action? After all, we need incremental ownership options for flexible housing and land use, before many citizens can lead more productive lives. Without such options, millions still function in their own "recessionary" economy, even as others move on. For that matter, tiny homes, manufactured homes, and modular homes are already available, but few communities remain willing to make room for lower income options. Alas, there's a relative few sad exceptions for flood prone areas which are often long distances from employment opportunities. 

While there's a growing understanding of supply side issues, supply side reform means different things to different people. Consequently we aren't ready to address how local secondary market deficiencies contribute to equilibrium imbalance. In all this, upstream nominal claims tend to define production and consumption landscapes, plus such claims are more locally supported than it appears at first glance. Upstream nominal claims come not only from profit and non profit decision makers, for the Nimby impulses of local citizens lead to surging property taxes as well - taxes for rising asset values rather than local service gains! How can the Fed keep a decent reputation indefinitely, if the constraints of artificial housing scarcity remain enforced? Yet since these claims matter for skilled services, communities often refuse newcomers who lack discretionary income for additional service costs.

In a recent post I noted the structural shift of additional nominal claims from originating wealth sources. Fortunately, some of these pressures are starting to let up, which should make the Fed's job a little easier. That said, problems of excessive expectations will remain with us. Only consider how some of those expectations might have come about in the first place. Part of the high inflation of the sixties and seventies was due to the introduction of higher costs for healthcare in general across the board - costs which could have been rationalized by increased fossil fuel wealth in the U.S. during that period. Now, imagine what might happen to those expectations should that fossil fuel wealth shift into reverse! For that matter, once the Fed finally reduced those earlier high inflation levels, recall how our healthcare institutions enforced hard limits on physician supply. Chances are this nominal structural shift was more than a coincidence. 

It's hard to imagine secondary markets giving up much ground to primary markets in terms of monetary representation, or for that matter acknowledging their dependence on originating wealth sources. But that doesn't mean new market institutions aren't possible - markets that are more free yet don't present direct challenges to the old. New sets of expectations would not include the same excessive nominal demands as the old. Instead, new institutions would make room for flexible ownership and time value as wealth. Good deflation and skilled knowledge use in local markets, could be our best chance for greater market freedom and equilibrium balance in the near future.

The Baumol Effect: Benefit, or Problem?

Is the Baumol effect a positive contributor to economic activity, or is its frequent description as the "Baumol Disease" more realistic?  Perhaps much depends on who and what is involved in the discussion. Timothy Lee (in a January post) explains how a negative framing can be unfortunate:  

From my perspective as a parent, it might be a bummer that child costs are rising. But my daughter's nanny probably doesn't see it that way - the Baumol effect means her income goes up.

Lee explains how productivity gains in some industries may mean higher wages in areas with a more personal focus, via time based activity. He sees this as beneficial, for humans are social beings who often value personal experiences with others over robot encounters to get things done. Indeed, time based product is subjective, which is why it can be more highly valued than products requiring more technology than labour. Personal instruction is a good example, particularly when a given subject is actively and voluntarily sought out by avid students. 

Nevertheless, a concerning issue re the Baumol effect, is its uneven equilibrium dispersion which impacts both short and long term outcomes. As it turns out, well paid and fully functioning service markets are generally limited to places where originating wealth plays a dominant role. Despite the fact many scenarios lack this level of economic complexity, it's easy to assume the societal coordination of the Baumol effect is more widespread than is actually the case. Yet anyone who spends much time outside the more prosperous regions, will notice a dearth of markets for many important skills sets and services. Since applied knowledge and its related maintenance are necessary for modern economies, places where the Baumol effect is largely missing, tend to lack social cohesion and community purpose.

Hence we need to come to terms with the Baumol effect as an incomplete societal coordinator, not really capable of generating the level of applied knowledge which is crucial for modern day economies. Granted, the Baumol effect functions as a positive where it does contribute to economic dynamism. However, time based services run the gamut from the mundane to what are far more aspirational goals. Fortunately, many people remain willing to pursue their higher aspirations on non pecuniary and even solitary terms. That said, not all that is necessary and mundane in our lives is accomplished this way, particularly when recognizable markets for time value remain missing. We need to recognize where personal freedoms are too often lost to cultural expectations - expectations where many are pressed to sacrifice the whole of their lives for mundane and necessary tasks, while others remain free to pursue broader goals or perhaps higher callings.

Consider again the fortunate nature of free market framing, which at least has created partial equilibrium compensation via the Baumol effect in today's secondary markets. Since Timothy Lee could afford to pay his daughter's nanny (who accepted this work voluntarily), that created tangible benefits not only for the nanny, but Lee's family also in terms of their own expanded time use options at home. 

Alas, it's a shame the Baumol effect is often missing in places where it is needed most. Which is why we are challenged to bring stronger economic value to a wide range of time use options. Let's face up to the fact we can't always achieve interpersonal goals through money alone. Without a broader range of economic options, societies stand to lose even more voluntary societal coordination, to what are often outdated and rigid cultural "norms".

To sum up, the Baumol effect is problematic due to what it can't readily accomplish for a majority of citizens, despite what people hoped for via monetary and fiscal policy potential. This is one of the main reasons I've promoted time arbitrage as an economic option, especially whenever the Baumol effect falls short. Let's make certain that free markets can be preserved in the meaningful use of our time, and that voluntary economic coordination remains a real possibility for the foreseeable future.

Polarization is a Problem for Progress in General

Today's lack of political good will is worrying enough, but it also comes with plenty of economic ramifications. For that matter, both NIMBYism and culture wars tend to reduce economic dynamism. Just as the "not in my backyard" mentality turned housing markets into major headaches, it even affects technological change such as transitioning to electric vehicular transportation. Many aspects of our lives and environments come down to what people of all political stripes don't want us to successfully engage in, as opposed to what could be accomplished.

In all of this, whatever happened to the hopes and dreams of centrist politicians and citizens? After all - even a decade earlier - moderates were still a meaningful part of public dialogue. While centrists occasionally held alternative views, they were often able to bring opposing parties to the table to get things done. 

Indeed, moderates have been important for societal progress up until recently. A relative few remain who still highlight economic progress and the benefits of growth. Unfortunately however, the majority of such gains became associated with prosperous citizens and regions rather than average citizens - let alone those with limited incomes.

If polarized landscapes weren't already dangerous enough, what might that mean for younger generations? Indeed, will they eventually become receptive to the idea of civil war? Don't forget also that younger generations aren't convinced of the future viability of Social Security in the U.S. Even though I hope Social Security continues to function as a glue for economic stability and common purpose, one can't be too certain. Should Social Security benefits be reduced in the near future, that might further destabilize political desires to remain united.

Polarization also represents a loss of what was once known as Third Way political thought. For instance, when I was much younger, Bill Clinton's presidency was associated with this line of reasoning. Alas, other than environmental protection, who still believes such rationale is relevant? From Wikipedia:

The Third Way supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capabilities and productive endowments while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this. It emphasises commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity which is combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, the decentralisation of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement and promotion of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, preservation of social capital and protection of the environment.

Why was much of this abandoned? Part of the problem is how advanced education became a place for elite dialogue at the expense of economic dynamism. Meanwhile, active knowledge use - since it lacks any grassroots equivalency - is being confused with information and flawed logic mostly meant to circumvent action. Formal education is certainly not the place for increased distribution of skills and capabilities! Instead, the "gateway to the good life" hoards its limited slots according to what monetary compensation might amply reward. Worse, few policymakers remain willing to balance budgets, since abandoning financial restraint means squeezing a few more lucky participants onto the gravy train of human relevance. And decentralisation? The only decentralisation my state government is interested in, is the powers it can remove from both Washington and cities which might otherwise function better if they were allowed rights to do so. 

I continue to believe the best way to overcome polarization, is to create a knowledge based economy that can bypass the culture wars of educational access. However, while I remain guardedly optimistic, my hopes have radically diverged from what many once considered optimal paths for abundance and success. Is it still possible to use knowledge in more practical ways, instead of wielding it as the ultimate weapon for income divisions and urban rural divides? Perhaps we will find out soon enough. 

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.

Is Time Arbitrage Feasible For Post Covid Economies?

Even though time arbitrage would be a complex undertaking (particularly for large scale versions), today's time based services are nevertheless being called into question, as post Covid realities gradually emerge. Plus there's plenty of unknowns in time based service markets which represent a wide range of knowledge, skill, and yes, physical activities as well. How will societies ultimately respond?

While problems were already evident in secondary markets such as healthcare before the pandemic, there's also recent troubles for time based services that are directly linked to originating (primary market) wealth. For instance, both manufacturers and home improvement retailers have limited incentive to compensate the time based labour involved in installations and repairs at private residences. Worse, these resulting service labour shortages are amplified by resistance among service workers who were never really keen on commuting to outlying areas in the first place! Indeed, a CEO for Whirlpool expressed concern that labour shortages may in fact be structural. Likewise, Zillow, recently had to stop purchasing homes when it struggled to secure sufficient timely labour in order to resell at a profit.

More specifically, what can be done at local levels, should time centered services become increasingly difficult to procure from a distance? Just as time arbitrage could function as a primary market substitute for some of today's secondary markets in knowledge and skill, it could also shore up missing services associated with traditional primary markets. In many instances, time arbitrage could benefit coordination patterns in local services where strength and physical stamina may be just as important as knowledge and skill. Since many manufacturers and retailers have become compromised in terms of services employment potential, they could shift towards establishing commodity and goods specific educational support for their product to local community levels. Doing so would also allow local citizens to more meaningfully incorporate home renovation and appliance maintenance needs in their (time symmetric) educational settings Even though local citizens would not be employed by home improvement manufacturers and retailers, they still have incentive to work with these firms for an outcome that would help both groups. Best, a hub and spoke (or city to country) educational approach could help recreate formal services economies where they are most needed. 

Better use of coordinated time symmetry could eventually help restore structural balance to economic conditions in general. Chances are, efforts to bring time value to the table for market outcomes, would result in greater general equilibrium representation for direct forms of wealth creation than is presently the case. After all, there's a good chance that 80 percent monetary representation for services was too much to begin with, to maintain long term economic stability. Only consider the prominent example of structural imbalance in our healthcare knowledge use patterns. Even Noah Smith recently challenged "shoveling money at overpriced service industries", hence has become one of many who wonder why governments continue to subsidize vital services purposely made scarce in the twentieth century.

Long term economic stability may well depend on whether societies are able to make time value a more important component of formal economic activity. All the more so, since many communities already struggle to provide the kinds of local services which are so beneficial for citizen outcomes. When it comes to general equilibrium dynamics, time arbitrage might at least be able to reduce the discrepancy between monetary representation for services versus traditional wealth sources, to 70 percent versus 30 percent. 

A more reasonable sectoral balance could improve the long term odds of good economic complexity in our formal activities. One way to think about the processes involved, is how such efforts might ensure reliable forms of societal coordination to transfer knowledge and skill which can be understood by most citizens. Otherwise - if and when service markets become distorted - people understandably react with DIY measures instead of - for example - benefiting from healthcare services provided by others. Granted, DIY is often the most practical strategy. But done in excess, extreme self reliance might put the long term preservation and transfer of knowledge use through society, in doubt. And should too many of us end up resorting to DIY, when might the process eventually evolve into a tipping point of informal economic activity, even in places where it was never expected? Alas, informal economies have their problems (such as oppressive amounts of gang activity) and often prove difficult to change once entrenched. If we can avoid it, let's just not go there. Hopefully, societies will learn to better coordinate services so that knowledge and skill can be preserved, hence remain part of our formal economies in the foreseeable future.

Don't Blame the Fed for Supply Side Recalcitrance

While there's a common refrain re "easy money" in a recent AEI article, this one comes with a twist. According to Tobias Peter and Edward Pinto, the Fed is also at fault for a growing divide in terms of inequality:  

The Fed's easy credit policies are widening wealth inequality as they fuel persistent home price inflation.

That's a serious charge. But how true is it? And does Chairman Powell - or the Fed for that matter - really not understand "how price inflation differs from inflation for commodities and services"? Granted, the authors have a point about current home price instability. But I believe these particular assertions against the Fed to be unsubstantiated and a convenient diversion from what's at stake. There's been plenty of times when it was appropriate to accuse the Fed of wrongheaded moves, but this isn't one of them. Rather, I'm encouraged by the Fed's recent maintenance of monetary velocity, especially given the difficult transitions of a post pandemic recovery. 

And insofar as the supply side is concerned re housing, technological innovation need not be as insurmountable as the authors imply. Of course builders struggle to meet demand due to high prices for labour and materials - not to mention NIMBY considerations! But when has this not been the case? Fortunately for all of us, a great deal of private sector activity has adapted and evolved, when faced with resource constraints. It's time for building sectors to do likewise, in shifting to manufacturing strategies which include more flexible means of ownership and land utilization. So we are within reason by asking at this historical juncture: if not now, when?

Also, consider the awkward policy expectations which Tobias Peter and Edward Pinto contribute to (re Fed obligations), by asserting:

The Fed's easy credit continues to drive housing demand higher, but has done little to boost supply.

Does this mean the Fed should somehow become more responsible for supply side circumstance? If so, in what capacity? The last time I checked, the Fed's primary responsibility was nominal in nature. Indeed, should they assume market activities currently neglected by other private interests, who is going to be comfortable with such an outcome? Hence even though this is an illogical assertion, it must seem occasionally "useful" anyway, since it implies private interests need not lose sleep over damaged markets. 

Another sad aspect regarding inappropriate blame, is that many in the Fed do take such criticisms quite seriously. Indeed, how often does Fed "meddling" actually mean members of the Fed are losing sleep on behalf of others less concerned? This is no minor matter, given the nature of present day structural shifts in the economy.

Just the same, one must be careful in assigning blame to today's non tradable sectors, despite their exacerbation of social inequality via quality requirements and lack of innovation. All the more so, since structural fault lines and their resulting disequilibrium, aren't easy to understood. What's at stake however, is that we start making up for lost time. Ultimately, it's real economy conditions instead of the nominal realm, which cause such social and political unrest. 

What about high house prices, then? Don't get me wrong, I dislike today's high house prices as much as the next person. But I'm not fool enough to imagine that tight money - let alone the possibility of bad deflation - would somehow make me more "equal" to anyone else. I don't want everyone to lose in this scenario, via the money illusion that would make it appear I was somehow getting ahead. Consequently, I'd rather not sacrifice the nominal stability that does more than anything else right now, to prevent an unraveling of mutual financial obligations and societal trust.

Sure, it would be great if I could find retirement housing that was more in line with my actual Social Security. But I'd still rather not witness millions of citizens facing a world of financial hurt, in the event of bad deflation and seriously falling house prices. Deflation simply isn't a good thing, unless it positively impacts output so as to make life better for all concerned. So, let's get serious about building homes and workplaces which take advantage of centuries of innovation. We've absolutely run out of excuses, and only further the damage all around by pretending it's not feasible to do so.

The Importance of Economic Sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could Time Arbitrage Stabilize Medium Term Growth?

Many have spoken of the need to build new growth and employment strategies, for even our medium term economic reality is somewhat uncertain. I remain convinced that time arbitrage could ultimately contribute to economic stability, in part due to its advantages as a continuum for local services generation.

Symmetric alignment for the time based coordination of local communities, could add to wealth in the here and now. What's more, locally generated time arbitrage would gradually reduce the need for the future fiscal obligations so many services now require. Since decentralized markets for time value would evolve as direct sources of wealth, they could create positive long term effects in terms of total factor productivity gains. 

In particular, time arbitrage may prove advantageous for medium term gains by stabilizing workplace participation for those who engage in person to person service offerings. As things currently stand, technology is beginning to replace the digital tasks which many came to rely on during the pandemic. And while pandemic circumstance initially led to losses in lower income employment (due to social distancing), continuing technology gains will ultimately result in losses of higher wage work, also. Recently, Bryan Walsh of Axios noted that software bots are "learning" to perform tasks previously assigned to office workers. He adds: 

Bots can make digital work more efficient by taking on onerous and repetitive white-collar tasks, but the better they get, the more competition they pose to skilled workers who might have thought themselves exempt from the job-disrupting effects of automation.

What's at stake in this development are continued efficiency gains, and why they are often deemed not just desirable but necessary. Granted, the efficiencies of earlier automation tended to be more closely associated with tradable sector activity. Over the decades - as these processes unfolded - the wealth gains of automation meant that "excess" tradable sector workers could subsequently find work in areas of non tradable sector activity. All the more so, due to additional wealth in circulation via exponential levels of tradable sector output.  

Nevertheless, eventually there would be no escape from the sectoral wealth shifts which eventually transpired. As the overall balance of GDP representation shifted from tradable sectors to non tradable sectors, it gradually became more difficult for tradable sector redistribution to support non tradable activity, given the compensatory claims the latter tended to require - especially when its organizational patterns were hierarchical in nature. 

Even so, much of today's non tradable sector endeavour is just as important for productive economic complexity, as what occurs in tradable sector activity. Unfortunately, many nations no longer have the full range of monetary flexibility they once had, for preserving the applied knowledge which modern economies need. Consequently, the challenge is to recreate more of this vital work on direct and reciprocal terms which are less hierarchical or costly to sustain. Time arbitrage is one way in which we might eventually make this possible. 

Increased efficiencies will always be a necessary component of getting things effectively done. And there is much efficiency to be gained through symmetric alignment which balances human capital inputs and outputs for time based service product. With symmetric time alignment, societies will eventually face fewer financial burdens which stem from the excess input requirements of human capital, in relation to time based services output. Time will always be our most scarce and precious resource. We can all realize productivity gains, by aligning our time with others in ways which make it simpler to meet markets for supply and demand in time based services generation.

Extensive Price Making is an Equilibrium Outlier

Even though many of us take extensive price making for granted in time based services, this set of circumstance is actually an equilibrium outlier among many nations. For instance, history provides ample evidence that systems of knowledge centered agglomeration which depend on other sources of wealth, can be quite fragile in the long run. All too often, when citizens can't utilize knowledge via non hierarchical means, they end up missing basic or critical steps which could help them achieve daily goals. Worse, they lack any viable patterns of participation in the institutions which bear responsibility for continued knowledge preservation. 

Since direct reciprocity has only become more difficult for services generation - especially during the 20th century - societies increasingly rely on asymmetric participation, production and consumption for a wide array of knowledge based activity. Alas, this approach has led to sectoral imbalances and accumulating debt loads. Much in the way of applied knowledge is publicly supported. However, this means that much of today's day high skill activities are financial obligations for future citizens, rather than market based production and consumption options for people who need them now. Despite the fact this set of affairs can't continue indefinitely, we still lack any Plan B which could stabilize and lessen budgetary burdens many nations face for knowledge based needs. Perhaps it's the fact no Plan B is being actively discussed, which encourages major political parties to completely ignore the possibility of imposed austerity and hardship in the near future.

A major challenge in all this, is to once again relearn how to use knowledge and skill through more directly reciprocated patterns. Not only would symmetric time use mean greater market participation for all citizens, reciprocal time matching can create more immediate wealth, thereby lessening the perceived need for governmental redistribution of all kinds. Time arbitrage is a viable Plan B which would build a more complete framework for time use potential in local community groupings. The local adaptation of production and consumption settings for knowledge, could ultimately transform communities which otherwise find themselves left out of knowledge production and consumption in urban markets.

The group time of local mutual assistance would function as a form of internalized market pricing. Since the majority of time use potential becomes accounted for in a market context, time begins to function as a valid price taking mechanism for participating groups. Likewise, being able to price take makes good deflation possible for services generation, such as extensive price taking in tradable sector activity has led to good deflation in countless forms of resource capacity.  

Consider how defined equilibrium settings can gradually restore sectoral balance by allowing participants to coordinate time more fully. Importantly, this market option makes time based services more sustainable over the long run. Meanwhile, however, the U.S. may be experiencing even more political polarization than other nations, since healthcare price making is more extensive than what generally occurs in most nations. Indeed, our healthcare organizational capacity actually makes U.S. healthcare more of an outlier, in relation to other mature economies. This extreme dependence on national support also helps to explain why it is often so difficult for both the production and consumption of healthcare in the U.S. to remain in a sustainable position, possibly even for the medium term. While price making is always an understandable urge, fortunately we can recreate market options which make room for the more sustainable practice of price taking, in the use of highly valued skill and knowledge.

The Decentralization Which Matters Most

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

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

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

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

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

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.