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.

Addressing the Confusing Incentives of Shared Ownership

The tragedy which unfolded recently at Champlain Towers South, has also exposed some basic problems regarding shared ownership for physical properties. When it comes to shared ownership: the larger the relevant structure, and the closer its proximity to other installations, the more difficult it may be for all involved to resolve maintenance issues. 

Many who have paid close attention to these events in Surfside Florida, are at least gaining a better understanding re complexities in shared ownership responsibilities. As it turns out, when maintenance delays accumulate exponentially, the situation will sometimes prove impossible to successfully resolve. For instance, in the case of Champlain South, due in part to "extensive concrete deterioration and corrosion of reinforcement", Morabito Consultants indicated it would not be able to perform some much needed remediation that had been deemed necessary. There were also questions in this October 2020 assessment, whether full repairs might negatively impact nearby structural features. 

Hence Champlain Towers South became "a catastrophe in slow motion". An article from CNN discusses some of the relevant ownership issues:

The disaster appears to have exposed some of the limitations of condo associations, which are made up of condominium owners with a vested interest in the property but that seldom possess much expertise in structural engineering. And it has raised questions about whether other residential structures could be at risk in Miami-Dade County, where sea levels are rising, the salty air is corrosive and nearly two-thirds of all commercial, condo and apartment buildings are as old or older than the 40-year old edifice that went down.

Granted, the collapse doesn't necessarily mean excessive risk elsewhere, since much also depends on the degree of ongoing maintenance. Nevertheless, as Peter Dyga, the president of Associated Builders and Contractors noted,

We're probably going to overreact. But it's understandable--people want a level of assurance that their building is safe.

It's being said this is a "wake up call on many fronts" - one which basically translates into more laws, regulations and building inspections. But might this be our only societal response? How will additional regulations accomplish what is truly needed in this instance? Already, the condo residents were quite aware of ongoing problems due in part to regulations already on the books, not to mention ongoing inspections. Chances are, the main problem was finding a "meeting of the minds" in a timely manner. Of course, what would have been timely, given the extensive concrete issues?

These shared ownership issues are problematic in much of housing in general. Only considered for instance, how shared family ownership in single family housing (which may be further undermined by family law rigidity), often results in extensive housing deterioration. Clearly, the difficulty of achieving "meetings of the minds" can mean maintenance breakdowns for shared ownership in every capacity imaginable. 

For one thing, proactive market frameworks are needed which leave more room for individual decision making as to ongoing maintenance. In other words, more promotion of home ownership specifically for individuals. However, this post is primarily about problems in shared ownership and how they might be addressed. Perhaps the best possibility is a "meeting of the minds" in free market building innovation, to reduce need for intensive long term maintenance, altogether. Only consider that when ongoing maintenance is neglected, that often leads to a costly "starting from scratch" at some point. 

Meanwhile, we've been learning some hard lessons about basic 20th century innovations. Concrete maintenance is beginning to emerging as an important issue. Equally important however, are the long term maintenance problems of today's plumbing and electrical systems. Even though 20th century plumbing brought tremendous gains in health and public sanitation, much of it was constructed in ways which pose additional stressors for buildings of all kinds. Some of what is becoming obsolete, is not easy to remove and replace without compromising structural integrity. Equally important, is how the fact plumbing pipes and electrical wiring were installed behind walls and interiors, makes it difficult for lower income groups or (many) senior citizens to participate in basic maintenance responsibilities. 

Even when monies are available for extensive renovations in older structures, it sometimes proves impossible for people to live normal lives (in place) in these buildings, once extensive maintenance needs arise. For example, consider how even the desire of condo owners in Champlain South to keep their pool in use, is one factor which made complete renovations impossible. It's not difficult to extrapolate this example to deterioration in older homes that are continuously lived in and essentially co-owned by multiple family members, once electrical and plumbing systems near the end of their useful lives. Often when completely new beginnings are required for these systems - especially if they have otherwise damaged the buildings in some capacity - it may prove impractical to live in the affected buildings for at least a full year.

Ultimately, greater flexibility is needed. It's time to design external home components for plumbing and electrical which can be changed out as needed, so we won't routinely have to take jackhammers or axes to "permanent" building fixtures. Doing so is almost always a major inconvenience! As it turns out, much of our so called building permanence since the 20th century has been largely an illusion, especially in a time of climate change. The need for greater building component flexibility should be obvious to everyone by now, since the short life cycles of plumbing and electrical systems in interior walls are becoming more evident by the day -  let alone what occurs when concrete and steel are exposed to the elements! Let's build in the future, so that both interior and exterior mini-demolitions will become less necessary - likewise the major demolitions that can be such a relief, once failed notions of permanence get out of hand.

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.

Incremental Ownership Could Restore Hope for Millions

The COVID-19 pandemic poses problems not only for small businesses, but homeowners and renters as well - especially those with limited incomes. Indeed, according to CNBC, 28 million individuals could possibly end up homeless. For perspective, approximately 10 million lost their homes in the Great Recession.

Alas, when it comes to maintaining financial flows, rental costs are similar to the monthly obligations of mortgage payments. Both can be substantial enough to derail personal autonomy for renters and homeowners alike, if sources of steady employment are jeopardized. Given this reality, when income streams are disrupted for any reason, it's not always easy to regain one's footing afterward.

Incremental forms of ownership could do much to lower the risks of economic uncertainty for all concerned. And should employment opportunities prove unreliable, flexible ownership options could allow many individuals to gradually rebuild their lives without the undue risks so often posed by the costs of housing. By purchasing the most basic elements of living needs first, when income streams are sufficient to do so, ownership can accrue incrementally on terms that don't require debt. Fortunately, "pay as you go" ownership could lessen the monthly obligations faced by those with limited income and/or unstable employment sources. Once individuals are able to establish basic elements of ownership, temporary disruptions in wages would be less likely to derail the whole process.

Also, from a macroeconomic standpoint, flexible ownership arrangements could ultimately lead to simpler roles for monetary and fiscal policy. By reducing the contractual debt burdens of housing, monetary and fiscal policy would have less incentive for overreach. Greater flexibility for citizens could mean greater flexibility in policy responses. After all, since private enterprise in the U.S. has considerable flexibility to hire and fire at will, is it not logical to offer citizens that same degree of flexibility in markets for housing?

Given the wide variance in income levels today, incremental ownership could prove an advantageous response to economic uncertainty. Many citizens could thrive in environments where simpler living arrangements are possible - citizens who otherwise tend to struggle with what is presently required. Already, companies are starting to experiment around the world with a wide array of building materials and modular components. Hopefully, there will also be communities in the U.S. in the years to come, where simpler ownership options are welcomed and encouraged.

Basic Living Needs are Important for Long Term Growth

A quick economic recovery may prove more likely, if society does not neglect market potential for lower income levels. These markets tend to be built around basic needs as well. While I normally advocate for long term structural reform for low income levels, productive short term responses are equally important. If one isn't convinced this form of market representation really matters, only consider how companies such Dollar General and Walmart continue to prosper in pandemic times. These corporations share a similarity of willingness to provide for the needs of low income groups. Why can't more business models assume a similar useful approach?

It's not difficult to envision how market potential could be tapped, for basic needs in non tradable sector capacity. Indeed, entrepreneurs who are willing to invest along these lines, might also gain recession proof models as their reward. In particular, better market solutions are needed for low income groups which already faced substantial housing issues before the pandemic. How might one consider business possibilities for these groups?

For one, mobility strategies are key. Nevertheless, clear usage models or patterns are necessary, to prevent confusion with business strategies geared toward middle to high income levels. An apt example re the latter, is standard RV park rental costs, not to mention the expense of purchasing recreational vehicles or other transportation heavy enough to tow camper trailers. Fortunately, there's a wide range of amenities in RV and camper markets which could be made more accessible for lower income levels, by making their manufacture more portable and less dependent on expensive infrastructure or transportation.

Why hasn't RV living provided reasonable options for lower income levels already? A Google search result concerning RV park costs (and posted in 2014), illustrates how this market has been mostly out of reach of low income levels for some time:

Overnight campsite and RV park fees with hookups typically range from $30 to $50 per night or more. That is $900 to $1500 per month. However a lot of full timers avoid paying anywhere near that much and average closer to $500 to $900 per month. 

Alas, good luck finding suitable camps close to one's work on the lower end of this range! Since transportation costs make additional demands on small monthly wages and fixed income, many individuals end up living in their vehicles while furtively seeking places to park overnight for no charge. This reality needs to be changed.

Nevertheless, one challenge for low income market representation, is the understandable safety concerns on the part of communities which hesitate to provide temporary residence for low income groups. Because of these concerns, when land use is permanently altered with the appropriate physical infrastructure, often the only way business proposals for RV parks can get through, is by convincing communities that only financially secure consumers (middle and upper class) will be allowed. This is an important reason why lower income levels have lacked sufficient access to many living options which would otherwise be more affordable than traditional housing.

Perhaps the most feasible way to overcome this impasse, would be to seek out land where portable physical infrastructure can be brought in, rather than imposing permanent land alterations on reluctant communities. As to RV parks and similar arrangements, what about empty parking lots where big box stores and malls are no longer functional? Portable infrastructure mobile units could be trucked in, allowing entrepreneurs and communities to experiment with trial periods to discover whether proposed operations can prove suitable for all involved. Since safety issues would be carefully observed during these trial periods, some of the inclination to disallow low income groups could be overcome.

There are multiple options for what might be tapped on site or else trucked in. In some instances, local electrical, water and sewer connections may still be operational. In other instances, parks could cater to people without RVs by bringing in trucks containing portable showers, toilets, kitchen amenities, and even platforms where building components are configured for sturdy yet temporary shelters.

Such possibilities could also improve economic access to cities and regions where housing markets have been restrained in recent decades. Plus, these suggested business arrangements for underutilized properties, might ultimately help alleviate much of the hidden homelessness which now exists.

Notes on Practical and Experiential Wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flexible Building Components Could Save Lives

Once extensive manufacturing innovation finally kicks in, flexible components might even make home ownership feasible with only an income of $12,000 per year. At least one can hope! Importantly, many different groups are closer to this level of income than it may seem, not to mention the fixed incomes of Social Security checks. Clearly, calls for "living wages" will continue, if our non tradable sectors are not able to build real wage potential via production reform.

Recall also, that $1,000 a month is a frequently cited basic income possibility, in the event of technological employment disruption. But what would basic income accomplish, if non discretionary needs are mostly out of reach? Alas, this level of income, significant though it may be for the provider, still leaves recipients too dependent on the assistance of others. Without a concerted non tradable sector response, millions could remain unable to create useful and productive lives for themselves. Indeed, deaths of despair often stem from such realities.

However, the pandemic provides a more straightforward example, how independent living made possible by flexible components, could save lives. As it turns out, the most dangerous transmission of the virus occurs via households where people regularly congregate under the same roof. According to medrxiv:

All identified outbreaks of three or more cases occurred in an indoor environment, which confirms that sharing indoor space is a major SARS-CoV-2 infection risk.

Even though transmission takes many different forms, repeated social interactions at close range is particularly dangerous due to increased viral loads. Consequently, healthcare practitioners often attempt to isolate themselves from family members, when risk of infection is exceptionally high. Yet being able to do so is not always easy. Indeed, some physicians make temporary living quarters in backyard tents, to mitigate the risks to their own families. At the very least, individuals sometimes loan recreational vehicles and travel trailers to healthcare workers, where zoning permits them to do so. Other communities are stepping in and providing hotel rooms for much needed isolation, as well.

Besides addressing these short term realities, flexible building components could also prove well suited for a longer term context. A recent Brookings article notes how the crisis only exacerbates the problems low income groups already faced, in their efforts to secure reliable employment and housing. All too often, when extensive virus transmission occurs under one roof, it is partly the result of individuals having doubled up with other family members, after they experienced difficulties tending to obligations on their own.

Not every community is willing to make room for mobility options in living and working needs, and NIMBY impulses will doubtless remain one of life's constants. Still, some communities may decide to take a new and constructive approach. Clearly, the same market potential which opens ownership capacity for a wider range of income levels, makes room for new definitions of dynamic community in the process. Should flexible building components be adopted in the near future, these ownership options could help create paths which lead away from the uncertainties of the pandemic. With a little luck, flexible housing manufacture might become one of the initial ways that societies overcome the economic uncertainties of pandemic times.

It's Time to Build Strong, Lightweight, Yet Affordable

As the financial repercussions of the pandemic gradually set in, more of us will become focused on "whatever it takes" to keep a roof over our heads. Towards this end, flexible building components of all kinds are needed - especially for anyone already experiencing difficulties with rent and mortgage costs before the pandemic even began. The more mobile options we have for physical infrastructure and buildings in the near future, the greater our chances of continued economic stability.

Where to start? Initially, until 3D printing becomes more widespread for local manufacture, building components and their associated infrastructure, could be designed and implemented in various locations around the country. Once these new markets start to go into effect, they would gradually assume retail connections in communities which can open their doors to the appropriate zoning and regulatory variance. I continue to hope that plastics manufacturers are already experimenting with materials suited for these purposes. Plus, the more plastics in production which can be recycled locally for more building materials and infrastructure, the better.

In contrast with the response of temporary fiscal stimulus for businesses and employment losses, affordable building components would be a gift that keeps on giving, via lower monthly financial obligations. And even though affordable building components can especially help lower income levels, they would also provide means to "start fresh", for many who face temporary setbacks due to the economic circumstance of the pandemic.

Ownership of flexible building components could take place incrementally. The most basic starter units, for instance, would include built in (manufactured) electrical and plumbing. This would be an especially important regulatory variance, since the costs of normally required skilled labour for electrical and plumbing, tend to prevent home ownership for those with limited income. These costs stand in the way of lower income levels being able to purchase traditional homes which are in extensive need of repair and renovation.

Initially, communities could connect building components with already existing infrastructure such as electrical lines and local water systems. However, an eventual community goal in many instances would be to create more flexible infrastructure options for energy, water and sewer needs. Only recall that when land can be used in ways which allow it to revert to simpler, less costly uses afterward (such as agriculture), temporary use zoning could prove simpler than zoning changes which require permanently higher land use costs.

Chances are, in the near future, job losses will make it difficult for millions of individuals to meet what are continuous financial obligations - particularly rent. Even though fiscal stimulus will provide temporary relief, it comes at the cost of additional long term budgetary burdens. What is really needed, is a long term approach for economic stability which does not create additional financial burdens. New patterns for incremental ownership, could create a targeted response to the uncertainties brought about by the current pandemic.

Needed: Flexible Investment for Impermanence

One reason why people in the U.S. don't save enough, is that investment in the form of personal housing tends to be an all or nothing affair. But is that really necessary? And what if better ownership options could take the actual impermanence of many building materials into account? Incremental investment would also mean flexible building components which owners easily combine or dissemble. Owners could keep using components still in good condition, should a single component fail.

Ideally, many components could be simple enough to be maintained by owners, especially since many frugal individuals balk at the cost of hiring specialists to do repair work for them. What would matter most for some mass produced components, is ensuring that plumbing and electrical circuitry are simple enough to no longer need professional attention once they leave the factory. When it comes to living arrangements, in this instance an inexpensive product which is easily disposed of, could prove to be quite a relief.

Nothing about our lives is truly permanent. The paradox however, is that our physical environments tend to be built with an illusion of permanence, even as cost cutting takes place in ways which ultimately require excessive maintenance and renovation. Plumbing and electrical wiring are still being run through buildings, as if there were little worry of pulling the whole mess apart for major repairs at some point. Since many building materials get connected in ways difficult to amend, doing so is not necessarily worthwhile, unless a property is sufficiently valuable to qualify for gentrification. Consequently, communities end up with many dilapidated buildings which have outlived their purpose, yet there is often little incentive to tear them down and start over.

Flexible building components would make it simpler not only to start anew as needed, but also for the simplest possible forms of instant remodels. Such options would make it much easier for aging individuals to retire without excessive home ownership burdens. In particular, flexible components built with plumbing and electrical circuitry as detachable units, could help even lower income levels to better manage financial responsibilities while aging in place.

Many building components could be mass produced in ways which are far more amenable to decentralized ownership options than is currently the case. Given our present lack of ownership flexibility, consider for example what can occur when "temporary" solutions end up as permanent outcomes. Johnny of the blog "Granola Shotgun", explains a style of Russian apartments, and how basic elements of their construction are now common elsewhere, for oddly similar reasons:

These ubiquitous buildings were mass produced from standardized parts by centralized authorities and were duplicated by millions across the Soviet sphere. This was in response to a housing crisis in the mid twentieth century. They were meant to be a temporary stop-gap solution that would last for twenty five years until permanent replacements were formed, but many are still occupied decades later. As is so often the case everywhere, there is nothing more permanent than a temporary solution.

In all this, Johnny notes that he is less bothered by the aesthetics of bulk housing, than by a dependence on either governments or corporations to maintain them over the long run. Indeed, excess regulations regarding how residents might keep these dwellings fully functional, only makes such dependence worse. He adds:

If an aging apartment is in a desirable location and is occupied by a small number of people who are reasonably prosperous, the situation can be quite livable...If too many budget conscious people are packed tight in an identical poorly maintained flat in a crappy part of the metroplex, life can be unbearable. In other words, it's like any place else in the world.

Importantly, public and private entities sometimes arrive at similar destinations, particularly when it comes to mass construction of today's inflexible housing units. The result?

...institutions driven by vertical integration, economies of scale, regulatory compliance, and the demands of physics and engineering. So hold off on touchy feely assumptions about the left or the right. We're observing convergent evolution and constrained maximization at work here.

Johnny's post is an apt reminder, how twentieth century housing can put anyone with limited resource capacity at a real disadvantage when it comes to managing one's life. Just as more flexibility is needed in housing regulation, flexible options are also needed for the physical components of housing and infrastructure in general. Incremental ownership patterns could make it simpler for millions of individuals to build better lives for themselves. Flexible building options could provide more opportunities for low income groups, and also reduce their long term investment risks.

However, there's much more at stake regarding mobility, given uncertainties such as climate change and the evolving nature of our workplaces. By way of example, a productive response to impermanence with flexible building components, could allow people to regain normal functioning much sooner after natural disasters.

Again, mass production isn't the problem. It's when mass production only creates investment in which personal risk assumes an all or nothing dimension. Why not create mass produced components which can be added, subtracted, or reconfigured without need of massive renovation costs? And why not amend them locally with 3D manufacture? Even better for local community dynamism, would be 3D manufacture which puts local plastics to good (additional) use.

Plus, incremental ownership would be a decentralized option which groups could set into motion as needed after natural disasters, instead of waiting for governments to come to their assistance. Fortunately, it is within our power to make peace with impermanence. Doing so would give societies a chance to use many resources more efficiently, as well.

The "Greener Pastures" of Market Flexibility

With the advent of NIMBYism and protected knowledge sources, we sometimes forget how earlier forms of market flexibility made it easier for individuals to move more freely from place to place. How might we recreate "greener pastures" for new economic opportunities, especially for those with the greatest incentive to put them to good use?

The mid twentieth century U.S. economy was a time of considerable market flexibility, which helps explain some of the nostalgia surrounding this period. Clearly, its tradable sector dominance also contributed to social mobility. What were relatively flexible organizational patterns and divisions of labour in particular, helped local environments adapt to changing economic and social circumstance. Small business production was extensive, and it made feasible a wide range of wealth creation diversity. Even the smallest and most isolated of communities were often able to create their own roles, in what was an open and dynamic domestic economy.

Chances are, today's sticky domestic markets are a bigger problem for social mobility than is generally recognized. While social mobility is more often described as realizing income gains over time, our ability to move about freely as needed without accruing excessive costs or personal risks, is likely just as important. How much social mobility is negatively impacted, by the rigid requirements of non tradable sectors? Especially since these sectors tend to set the rules for economic participation in general. Even though tradable sector factory closings are an obvious hardship, citizens of hard hit regions face additional long term difficulties, when they try to start over in new environs only to find the costs of economic engagement beyond their reach. Unfortunately, non tradable sector rigidity is shutting off too many economic opportunities in domestic markets.

An interesting way to think about these issues, is the nature of risk taking in light of current market barriers. How so? Presently it is not uncommon, to hear that people aren't as willing to invest or take risks as was once the case. Yet this supposed lack of desire to invest further for continued economic progress, links economic stagnation with an assumed unwillingness on everyone's part. But why expect millions who are basically satisfied with their lives, to be the primary risk takers in society?

Plenty of individuals who are willing to assume risks and invest in new possibilities, aren't being noticed. Paradoxically, many who seek greener pastures are derided for doing so. Supposedly they aren't the ones to be pursuing better realities! Perhaps instead of expecting the already successful to do the heavy lifting of innovation and furthering progress, we might ask them instead to have more patience with others who aren't quite as content with present circumstance. We might discover how people who are content with their gains, could become more willing to make room for others who wish to create successes in their lives as well. In many instances, it simply isn't necessary for everyone to struggle with competing platforms and goals in the same physical locations. No one need force extensive market changes on those who understandably resist, when new spaces could be freed instead, for greener pastures of economic opportunity.

Can Economics "Raise Its Game"?

Tim Harford wonders whether economics could become more broadly relevant for populations in general, so poses some questions:

How can economics become a more insightful discipline? Should it aim to be more like physics, with its precision and predictive power? Or should economists emulate anthropologists or historians, immersing themselves in the details of the particular and unquantifiable?

Clearly, while more attention of late has been given to precise measure, both matter. Harford noted that the economist George Akerlof believes too little attention is being given to "soft" questions which aren't easy to answer on mathematical terms. That said, I respect the "hard" approach, and likely would have utilized it, had life circumstance been different. Unfortunately my interest in economic issues didn't gain traction until middle age, which proved too late to learn the (now) necessary math. Not only does math has its own intriguing qualities, it sets up Twitter economist conversational patterns which are generally beyond my comprehension. For one thing (among many), I would like to have understood in concrete terms, how dependent service sector markets (in a dominant revenue position) influence the natural interest rate.

Hence I was surprised that the late Gary Becker, as a college student (according to Harford's post), found sociology "too difficult" and consequently remained with economics studies, where he provided useful mathematical framing for specific sociological issues! Indeed, some perennial economic problems haven't responded well to a hard approach. Some examples from Harford:

What are the obstacles to social mobility? Where does innovation come from? Can we strengthen the institutions that matter for prosperity?

What also prompted today's post, was a recent Politico article which seems to speak to these concerns. Diego Zuluaga emphasized how loans supposedly meant for those with low income levels, have instead been given to higher income customers. In the process, neighborhoods gentrify as older homes in desirable areas are renovated - a process which gradually pushes out lower income levels altogether. Yet some of this isn't the fault of the banks, given their incentives. How has the Community Reinvestment Act fallen short of its intentions?

Banks are supposed to lend in low-income areas without incurring additional risk. Absent this safeguard, public policy would cause banks to make ill-advised loans, leaving taxpayers to pick up the eventual tab. Even with the statutory language, some evidence has accumulated over the years showing that the CRA does sometimes encourage risky lending. But by directing credit to higher-income "gentrifiers" in CRA-eligible areas, banks can meet the letter of the CRA without increasing the amount of likely losses on their balance sheets. 

This practice may, however, unwittingly end up accelerating the displacement of poorer residents. Consider, for example that in five tracts in D.C.'s Park View and Petworth neighborhoods, more than 80 percent of mortgage loan volume in 2017 went to borrowers earning more than the CRA threshold, even though all of these tracts have median incomes well below that threshold.

It's bad enough that so many among the marginalized end up displaced. But even worse is the fact they have so few reasonable options afterward. Where might they go, that is safe and offers reasonable hope for a good life? In particular, how can they contribute to wealth building via institutional tools for incremental ownership, instead of loans? The lack of dynamic options where those with limited resources could successfully engage with their world, is a problem crying out for a productive response. All the more so, since low income levels will be part and parcel of our economic realities for the foreseeable future. As long as improvement is framed in a "living wage" mindset, we're essentially stuck. Real wage gains depend on real economy innovations which take local consumption potential into account for community design.

Even more important: In order for economic dynamism to further evolve, the marginalized will need to work with ownership potential on terms that are well within their reach. By way of example, old housing in need of extensive remodeling is not always optimal for those with limited resource capacity, even though it is less expensive than new traditional housing. The fact gentrification has already continued apace for decades, informs us that conversations re simpler ownership options are long overdue. Further, outside investors aren't necessarily well situated to create environments where the marginalized might gain new purpose. Yet all too often, outside investors have been expected to perform this miraculous feat, even if it supports a status quo not necessarily amenable to social mobility and innovation. When ownership is deemed the social responsibility of high income levels, further economic evolution can become difficult indeed.

So how might economics raise its game? I believe it would greatly benefit from a more practical and applied approach - one that could also redress the sectoral imbalances which now impede long term growth. Both human capital and physical capital need simpler formats for ownership potential, so that wealth creation remains viable at all levels of skill and income.

And despite the relevance of math for economics as a discipline, it is still a conceptual tool which responds to broader conversations of social meaning. Said another way: Math illustrates concepts, it is not the actual concept. If economic thought is guilty of suppressing its own important conversations due to a preference for math, chances are that vital conversations are being suppressed in other areas of life as well. Likewise, some citizens now shun the value of knowledge in a society where "losers" supposedly don't even need to work with knowledge. Economics may in fact need to broaden its purpose, if for no other reason than citizens now question the hard won economic logic that has contributed to centuries of prosperity.

The Cost of the Conduits is Too High!

One might easily imagine the dispersal of knowledge through society as freely flowing through conduits - much as pipes for electrical wiring or channels for water. But how effective are flows of knowledge today, since knowledge protection via rival use means diverting channels to pay the bills? What happens, if conduits for knowledge dispersal in society become so limited, that citizen participation essentially dries up like a river which no longer meets the ocean? Already, we observe where limits to productive agglomeration in prosperous regions are cutting off other avenues for getting things done - not just in the U.S. but across the globe.

That said, by no means are today's knowledge conduits the only ones faced with excessively high costs. Main Streets in general have similar requirements for getting things done. Unfortunately, when the sought after "show horse" versions of retail landscapes don't function as planned, full scale working horse versions aren't often permitted in their stead. Johnny of the blog Granola Shotgun, describes the "working horse" model and how simple it could be to implement, if only it were feasible to do so. He recently visited a flea market which was

composed of an old asphalt parking lot, tents, and portable shipping containers. There isn't anything about the place that costs much to build or maintain yet it functions like a traditional human scaled Main Street with mom and pop shops. 

This was no "fashionable" flea market, either. Rather, it contained essentials and much more:

Quite a few vendors were selling tools suitable for small scale businesses. Landscaping equipment, carpentry implements, compressors, and restaurant supplies could be purchased by people looking to start their own micro enterprise on a tight budget - possibly right there at the same flea market. The whole place was one giant interactive incubator. 

There were plenty of tasty meals to choose from and even inflatable slides for the children. He continues:

This place is a work horse. It grows small businesses from scratch without recourse to bank loans or government subsidies. It provides products and experiences that are genuinely needed in the community. And it costs almost nothing to create compared to the usual economic development model meant to induce artificial prosperity through tax holidays and subsidies for mega projects. Notice how any parking lot is instantly ADA compliant for people in wheelchairs who require a barrier free environment. This is amazingly good urbanism built in the absence of complex bureaucratic proceedings. 

So why don't local governments embrace more of this sort of pop up grass roots mom and pop enterprise? Officials are in a trap that requires them to boost the tax revenue to pay for all the attenuated infrastructure and municipal overhead that's accumulated for decades.  

Alas, municipalities are caught in the same show horse mindset for time based high skill services. Granted, there are vast troves of information and retail possibilities in the digital realm for individuals to access, especially when Main Streets are missing in action. But these economic options don't even come close to replacing the economic dynamism and person to person interaction that were once taken for granted at local levels. Apparently these timeless versions of free market activity could only be recreated by citizens who inexplicably now need exclusive permission, not only to take part in simple physical retail, but also today's knowledge centered economy.

To be sure, some overhead costs have evolved as ways to minimize "riff raff" and security risks. But the perceived need to keep up appearances has completely backfired for countless communities and millions of individuals who wish to take part in local business and service opportunities. More flexible building and infrastructure components, and permissions for knowledge use are needed. Chances are the new landscapes for retail and services wouldn't often resemble the flea markets of yesterday, but they still need to be equally simple to assemble.

Affordable components and permissions for living and working, would mean millions more can get back up and start over, even after they've assumed risks which proved too extensive. Who doesn't want to appear successful, especially since appearances have been legally required in most environs? Hence it's somewhat understandable that business people take excessive risks for the success signal, up to a point. Yet just the same, many individuals with successful flea market operations ended up making the leap to brick and mortar locations, then had no thriving flea market to return to, afterward.

What is not understandable, is the lack of economic options with safety valves that cushion the hard landing of individuals who unsuccessfully assume risk. Without those safety valves, individuals exit only reluctantly after many attempts to stay connected, and their lives can be irretrievably lost to solitude in the process. We need a new version of opportunity zone, one which makes far fewer exits necessary. Opportunity zones could create flexible permissions and incremental ownership options for those who are directly invested, not just outside investors who are expected to maintain the high cost status quo. It should not always have to cost so much to participate in economic life. People should not have to give up on vital connections years or decades ahead of schedule. All the more so, since demographics have shifted in ways which include needing to remain employed as long as possible.

Implicit Land Rent as Potential Real Wage Gain

Why would land rent value be important, in terms of defined equilibrium settings which could contribute to the spending power of real wages? Today, productive agglomeration is in short supply, because much of it is limited to high income locales. What, then, could help implicit rent become a more affordable fixed component of the production function for knowledge based endeavour? Both questions matter for communities which seek to generate productive agglomeration for a wide range of ability and income. How would one define "affordable" specific land value which doesn't run counter to the wealth of local income realities, for instance?

Since the two most important factors for those with small wages are generally housing and services needs, it helps to consider how these two could also be interconnected, via implicit land rents. In a defined equilibrium for example, time based services would provide much of the initial aggregate economic value of a start up community. Nevertheless, in general equilibrium, the services to land rental value link is merely a starting point - given the many aspects of production which also contribute to local aggregate income. The more productive complexity that exists in any given setting, the more it is represented in local income and real estate values. However, not only has this process raised the costs of economic access for local landowners (and renters), by necessity it excludes many more who wish to participate on similar terms. Again, the Baumol effect has its natural equilibrium limits.

Defined equilibrium would approach land values in ways that allow applied knowledge to function as an accessible starting point for economic community. To this end, local land value would particularly reflect the maturity, or lack thereof, of local services generation. Management of implicit land rents as a local consumption standard, could provide an institutional response to the present day lack of productive agglomeration. Presently, productive agglomeration mostly exists where both salaries and implicit land rent are already high.

The core of such an equilibrium would consist of flexible infrastructure and building components, and an applied knowledge continuum for a full range of services generation. In order for a defined equilibrium to maintain access to lower income levels, much of what otherwise would be represented by monetary value, becomes correlated with aggregate time value as measured by gains in local skill and and economic diversity in services. Not only would this value in use process help preserve services complexity in the event of severe economic downturn, it makes possible a free market approach for time value in general.

However, in conceptualizing these possibilities, it helps to reflect on what is normally the starting point for monetary economic value in local settings. How does rent factor into the costs of production? What does implicit rent mean for one's opportunity costs as a landlord, especially given what has been necessary for home ownership in a knowledge based economy? How does local aggregate income level correspond with local production (what local property generates), or the real estate which also reflects local aggregate income value? Indeed, which comes first? Paul Samuelson offers ways to think about this in Economics (page 527 and 528):

Since rent is the return to an inelastically supplied factor that would still be supplied to the community even at much lower prices, the direction of causation is as follows: The prices of goods really determine land rent - rather than having land rent determine the prices of goods.

Okay, for us this would mean the aggregate value of services helps to determine land rent, right?

But at this point we must avoid our old enemy "the fallacy of composition". What appears as a cost of production to each and every small firm using a particular kind of land may, as we have seen, be to the whole community merely a derived, price-determined rent expense rather than a price-determining one. More than that, suppose the land is specialized and can be used only for the production of one industry. If a grade of land is inelastically supplied to one industry and has no place else to go, it will always work for whatever it can earn there; then its return will appear to every small firm as a cost like any other.

It turns out that relativity of viewpoint matters as well, because even though land is inelastic, to any one firm or industry the supply is elastic:

To conclude: Whether rent is or is not a price-determining cost depends on the viewpoint: that of a small firm, small industry, large and even exclusive-user industry, or whole economy. What is a price-determined rent return to a factor which is inelastic in supply to the whole community or dominant industry may, to each firm and to any small industry that is only one of many potential users, appear as a price-determining cost.

In normal circumstance land values accrue gradually, especially as communities build up permanent forms of infrastructure. Much of their success depends on the degree to which infrastructure of all kinds can be maintained. The better they become at the process, the more limited their access may in fact become, especially if the land contains special natural attributes.

Cost "containment" or management in defined equilibrium, would depend on many things. Even though land can be kept "affordable" by generating similarly accessible services, each part of the process depends on the other. And while such communities would generate economic activity which goes well beyond time based services, flexible infrastructure makes it reasonable to pursue short term economic strategies which need not require extensive monetary investment.

Since - in a defined equilibrium - much of the local economic value would reside in the time continuum, the best way to reflect this is to ensure that local ownership remains flexible and incremental. This way, local system infrastructure would not bear such high access costs that lower income levels become barred from participating in a knowledge based economy. Recently it has been difficult for those who struggle to invest in human capital or access highly productive regions, to contribute to productive agglomeration. Fortunately, this could be changed with a defined equilibrium which aligns implicit land rents with real wage potential.

Build New Realities That Reflect Where We Are

And by extension, what society already has, not to mention previous accomplishments on the part of individuals and groups alike. Continued economic prosperity need not be as difficult as some are inclined to make it out to be.

Ultimately, our economic settings are about much more than participation and contributions at the cutting edge of applied knowledge. For that matter, the biggest part of our working lives is composed of what we've already learned and done - albeit in new contexts. How might we ensure that the profits from the the cutting edge don't always have to be redirected for the ongoing maintenance of utilitarian knowledge and skill? If shared workplace activities are to be sustained wherever people choose to live, those activities need to contribute more directly to wealth creation. New organizational methods which combine workplaces in more accessible settings, could help ensure we remain able to pursue our life objectives and intellectual challenges well into the future.

Alongside the new knowledge of cutting edge endeavour, we also all have the good fortune to be "standing on the shoulders of giants". It's this wealth of preexisting knowledge and skill, which could revitalize so many communities that lack the ability to contribute at the level our most prosperous regions now experience. The earlier efforts of untold millions who came before us, hold plenty of relevance for what we continue to pursue in the here and now.

What's more, much of what we've already accomplished as individuals, could often be useful to others as they pursue their own paths in life. How might we make our own self improvement efforts more relevant to others on economic terms? Economic inclusion is not about forcing everyone to certain forms of skill and ability which present institutions may not even need, it's about exploring the possibilities of what we already have. Further investments in human capital for what we assume workplaces might need, aren't necessarily the human capital others would seek from us in a better aligned economic framework.

Formal aspects of human capital investment in particular are being questioned, as the bar for social and economic inclusion continues to be pushed ever upward. Today's definitions of quality product tend to come with assumptions that our already existing attributes are somehow "never enough" to take part in society as we are now. Still, when our time value is only allowed as exclusive quality product, even the most routine of services based activities are expected to transpire on these terms. In the process, societies end up budgeting for these forms of quality product in ways that further exclude those who don't meet the qualifications as they presently exist.

For these reasons and more, I sometimes find myself overwhelmed by posts and articles which call for higher wages as supposedly the most important guarantor of continued prosperity. Granted, substantial wage increases have been with us for a long time. But how much of these wage increases were actually derived from the output gains which resulted from centuries of tradable sector dominance? Is it not time to design environments which more accurately reflect the forms of resource capacity we presently hold? Because much of that capacity is now more closely aligned with the experiential nature of scarce time based product, instead of the output gains associated with tradable sector activity.

What prompted this post was an article from Daron Acemoglu for Project Syndicate, which left me somewhat deflated. In "Where Do Good Jobs Come From?", he writes:

Historically, no known human society has created shared prosperity purely through redistribution. Prosperity comes from creating jobs that pay decent wages. And it is good jobs, not redistribution, that provide people with purpose and meaning. 

Articles such as this seem to come with underlying assumptions. One would expect that wages "must" go ever higher for all concerned, so that we as taxpayers might continue covering the ever increasing costs of our governments and maintenance of our environments. It won't be easy to dissuade these high cost expectations for the sum total of our living and working environments, even though ever higher wages are only feasible up to a point, especially now. Plus, these expectations stemmed from centuries of tradable sector dominance which made extensive and costly forms of building capacity/infrastructure possible in the first place.

How can we build more flexible environments which are more responsive and better suited to changes in output scale, during times of non tradable sector dominance? Today, continued progress depends on a better alignment of overhead costs and gains from scale in applied time, alongside what money can contribute in terms of ongoing output. Much of this process means creating physical infrastructure and building components on more lightweight and flexible terms. By way of example, walkable communities will definitely need to include building elements for living and working needs which are transportable by means other than automobiles and trucks.

Fortunately, it is also within our ability to create good work with meaning, even when such work does not come with well compensated salaries. Importantly, however, meaning is subjective. What is fulfilling to one person might just be an aggravation to the next, and selection processes need to be more closely aligned with individual preferences. Time arbitrage in particular, should always be a voluntary process for flexible forms of work association.

In his article, Daron Acemoglu noted that "no known human society has created shared prosperity purely through redistribution". I would add that redistribution isn't just about money, because we can't redistribute applied knowledge from those whose time based product is among our most scarce resources. The only way that knowledge can be increased in society is through active dispersal via time increments - not just via education but in terms of actual use and economic validity. As to the latter, increased participation is necessary, if it is to happen.

Economic inclusion means less judgement as to what is "supposed" to take place in time based experiential product. Indeed, if we can come to terms with this possibility, there could consequently be less emphasis on lifetime education as means to survive a demanding society, and more emphasis on lifetime learning as one of many ways to meaningfully live in a society. With a little luck, this approach could lead to communities which accept widely diverse levels of knowledge and skill as valid paths to economic participation. Let's build stronger economic realities based on what we have already become.

Resource Flexibility Requires Investment Flexibility

When does private ownership actually hinder allocative efficiency? Generally, ownership makes it possible for individuals to put resources to good use. Even so, ownership of property in particular, remains legally designated in ways that sometime make it a blunt instrument for personal intentions versus actual outcomes. In other words, present day legal property constructs aren't quite as optimal as one might expect.

For instance: Over the years I've observed too many properties sitting in limbo indefinitely, once ownership is cut short through death or other forms of separation. Even though surviving heirs can sometimes reach agreement re property settlement without discord and hard feelings, often the process is difficult for all concerned - including the communities which contain these properties within their boundaries.

Among the reasons I've sought flexible and incremental ownership means, is the fact legal property disputes can sometimes make the difference between personal success and failure, in the course of one's lifetime. Today's inflexible ownership patterns also encourage people to assume others aren't capable of committing to ownership and responsibility. But often, many individuals could live more meaningful lives, if ownership options were constructed so as to allow people to build wealth gradually - thereby creating stamina for potentially broader personal commitments at the same time.

These market design priors on my part, encouraged me to take note of property arguments in a recent publication, "Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society" by Eric Posner and Glen Weyl. Since I've not yet had the chance to read the first chapter (which is included with the above link), I plan to read some of the book reviews whenever possible. For instance, Diane Coyle wrote:

It's extremely thought provoking and clearly brilliant - yet also barking mad. This is the territory of thought experiment rather than policy proposal.

At the very least, some thought experiments could be tried in local decentralized market settings - they just don't need to overturn general equilibrium scenarios and fully functioning municipal frameworks. Vitalik Buterin's review of the book has some particularly useful perspective about the investment problem of market efficiency and allocation:

As it turns out, it is absolutely possible to have a system that contains markets but not property rights; at the end of the year, collect every piece of property, and at the start of the next year have the government auction every piece out to the highest bidder. This kind of system is intuitively quite unrealistic and impractical, but it has the benefit that it achieves perfect allocative efficiency: every year, every object goes to the person who can derive the most value from it (i.e. the highest bidder). It also gives the government a large amount of revenue that could be used to completely substitute income and sales tax or fund a basic income.

However:

Re-auctioning everything once a year completely solves this problem of allocative efficiency, but at a very high cost to investment efficiency: there's no point in building a house in the first place if six months later it will get taken away from you and re-sold in an auction.

Even though it's not reasonable to subject traditional private property to yearly auctions, some aspects of yearly auctioning could apply, should people use building components to spatially organize for mutual workplace patterns. While spatial organizational patterns for resource flexibility have long been part of business organization, we've yet to apply these organizational options to the broader coordination of time based service activities.

How to envision a starting point? Any planning for walkable densities needs careful consideration for those whose could especially benefit by closer proximity to core economic activity. New communities might structure around a double core - one with more traditional forms of zoning options, alongside a service based core where young and old alike would be able to purchase and manage their own areas for daily interaction with others. Instead of being institutionally segmented off elsewhere, away from the general public, many who are now arbitrarily marginalized, could finally take part in life on more spontaneous terms. In core settings for services generation, perhaps a yearly auction for property arrangements would come in handy, so that participants could use the process to pay for the yearly operational costs for the relevant properties.

Again, what would make the auctioning process possible for yearly operational costs, would be the ownership of flexible building components which could be moved about across the utility grids which these communities already have in place. While the latter would also be a form of incremental shared ownership, as far as I can presently discern, this form of ownership has a continual aspect which would need to be constructed quite differently.

Granted, the forms of investment suggested in this post, may not have the path breaking quality associated with "cutting edge" investment opportunities since they're intended for individuals who are less concerned with monetary reward than gains in lifestyle options. These groups wouldn't be investing for "more of everything", but using resources already at their disposal to create something which might otherwise not have been possible. While it's not feasible to preserve investment flexibility for some resource capacity, fortunately, alternatives are possible. As Ian Hathaway wrote:

So before continuing down The More of Everything path, consider an alternative. Sometimes the answer is more of something. But often, a more relevant question is how well something is being done. Are you getting the most out of what you already have? What can be done to improve community cohesion today? To what extent are the existing pieces integrating in a productive way?

In my experience the answer to these questions comes not from adding, but from activating and transforming...It's not always the big moves that get you where you need to go.

Sustainability Coexists With Wealth and Market Options

Why aren't economic options more widely discussed which could address ecological concerns and generate new wealth at the same time? For instance, dialogue re carbon taxation as a response to climate change, is problematic in that it would be yet another form of internal wealth redistribution. Is this as inventive a market approach as we can get? Still, there's no need to be as pessimistic as Ivan Ascher, who in a recent Project Syndicate article concludes:

Ecological devastation should be expensive, and the world no doubt needs workable strategies to move people away from dirty sources of energy toward greener, more sustainable alternatives. But to defer to markets to overcome the environmental woes of capitalism is a blueprint for disappointment - and a recipe for planetary suicide.

If - as Ascher believes - there's no market solution for climate change, what is realistically better? Why not build broad based market options that don't impose single solution sets on everyone? Indeed: How would we negotiate with one another to organize mutual priorities and obligations, if we didn't have market platforms by which to do so? Why do we act as though earth always has to be compromised by the process? Chances are, it's possible to create wealth which takes climate change into account, and do so without further redistribution of general equilibrium revenue.

Local community infrastructure design could provide market options, especially for those who value environment settings which aren't presently associated with today's ownership structures. One could imagine - for instance - a mutually tended wildflower meadow community which includes an interesting variety of knowledge based challenges as well. For anyone who switched up home ownership patterns over the course of their lives just to see what different arrangements felt like, these market options would make sense.

Just like the challenges of intellectual endeavour, environmental design is a form of experiential product which could integrate time value commitments (arbitrage) as a "cost of local living" component. This approach would provide a wide spectrum of market based options for multiple income levels and lifestyle choices. A few years ago one often heard "there's an app for that". Wouldn't it be nice to hear, "there's a community market setting for that."

Fossil fuel is likely to remain a highly valued transportation option in the near future, especially since it would allow individuals to pursue solitary adventures at long distances which lie well beyond the commuting patterns now envisioned by purveyors of automated transportation. Hence most walkable community options would seek traditional transportation at the periphery, even as they include central core designs that allow groups to coordinate weekday work activity within walkable distances. To imagine how a 21st century society may want to envision transportation priorities (other than electric and/or automated), note four basic sets of transportation preferences:

1) Weekday walking for daily and ongoing activities with others.
2) Weekend (or vacation) walking possibilities for experiential activity.
3) "Traditional" fossil fuel means for daily commuting needs.
4) Fossil fuel means for the transportation of weekends and other exploration.

Much of today's dialogue remains centered around the third transportation option. A recent post from Scott Sumner is a good example, especially since he stresses the importance of expanding equilibrium potential wherever possible.

Since the first two categories are only partially addressed in the present, the equilibrium corporation would give them priority in potential infrastructure design. While the first set of activities is designed at the core (with special emphasis to include children, elderly and disabled), the second and fourth considerations would be placed in a broader set of networked design perspectives. One example could be networks of natural corridors that could extend between community locations at long distances. Corridors such as these would make it possible to walk (or bicycle, for instance) from one community to the next, either on weekend trips or possibly longer stretches of time.

One way to think about these possibilities is the fact that setting aside land for private aspects of shared preservation, recreates travel and local communities as desirable forms of experiential product. While "solid" buildings have been at the center of infrastructure focus for as long as anyone can remember, a 21st century network would highlight flexible building components as supportive of individual and group activity. Already we have begun this virtual process with digital means. By creating ways that people can pay for experiential product with time commitments, it becomes possible to bring variations on public good ideas into a private marketplace - one which makes it feasible to sustain miniature versions of enjoyable and desirable environments, through shared and incremental ownership.

Some Thoughts on Dynamic Property Ownership

Part of the decline in economic velocity over time, can be attributed to difficulties in making the most of property ownership, especially for properties which are mutually owned by family members. Even though housing has mostly become associated with consumption in the present, some still rely on mutually owned personal (family) property as primary production means for goods or services.

However, it can be especially difficult for lower income levels, to successfully work out disputes regarding the use and/or control of mutually owned personal property. Due to the inflexibility of legal ownership guidelines, family owned resource capacity can end up utilized at a fraction of its true potential. Too many people have lost everything - time and again - for no better reason than family members could not, or would not, agree among themselves regarding common usage for mutually owned property.

In recent years I've suggested a flexible institutional structure for property use, which could make more dynamic forms of property ownership possible - especially for physical assets as utilized by individuals. Property ownership of participants within an equilibrium corporate structure, would function like the pieces of a dynamic jigsaw puzzle, which allows property holdings to adjust for group and individual work/life patterns, as they change and evolve. The ownership process begins with each participant's basic level of property acquisition, which corresponds with entry into time arbitrage via peer to peer educational assistance.

These base property holdings would function as a form of group insurance, via replacement base building components in the event of natural disasters and the like. Basic levels of services access in the course of one's lifetime, would coexist alongside this (time value backed) property insurance pool.* While specific locations are sometimes important in their own right, often the specific geographic location is a second consideration. This way, each group is able to retain its ability to shift holdings for life and work patterns so that families and individuals who have shared time based obligations, can remain in reasonable walking and/or commuting distance from one another.

Often, ownership is not so much about a specific building component or property, but one's ability to utilize buildings and property so that their personal efforts and risks in relation to others, aren't unduly compromised. If specific properties in this setting function as dynamic jigsaw puzzle pieces, one might imagine building components in this context, as similar to Lego pieces. While many properties would closely correspond to changing life/work settings, other more permanent property designations would provide ample room as well, for the personal expressions which personal ownership can beautifully impart to the landscape.

Dynamic property ownership would reduce the legal problems which arise when physical property ownership is subject to the inevitable risks of life. While divorce is among the greatest risk for lower income levels, these groups are at greater risk from the vicissitudes of nature as well - particularly floods. With more viable options for individual ownership, it would become a simpler matter for many individuals with small incomes, to remain economically engaged for the full duration of a lifetime.


*Additional ownership beyond the base insurance levels agreed upon by individual communities, would function as more normal aspects of property ownership.

Asset Ownership is Key for Base Velocity

In particular, stable levels of base velocity are necessary, for lower income levels to reliably participate in the economy. One might also distinguish this base velocity from low income discretionary spending, which is of a more random nature.

One way to generate stronger base velocity, is to support knowledge use as an ongoing economic learning process which begins in youth. Asset formation would take place alongside mutually held time commitments, while time arbitrage contributes to personal autonomy by allowing shared daily routines to function as incremental economic processes. In recent years, I've suggested incremental asset ownership for individuals who sometimes struggle to maintain a full plate of financial obligations. Simple and flexible building components, could encourage individuals to discover and maintain levels of ownership and participation which work best for them, at different points in their lives.

When ownership options such as these are lacking, many individuals tend to end up in solitude and dependence, who otherwise could have remained socially and economically engaged. It's a reality which creates problems in terms of both basic levels of economic velocity, and production potential. Since this lack of full economic participation has yet to be addressed, the fallout of lost access generates additional burdens for higher income levels - both in taxpayer obligations and the additional costs of social separation. In some instances, a dearth of productive economic environments, ultimately translates into indirect but real lost wage capacity, for higher income level groups.

Structural considerations such as these should be taken into account, in that they provide a broader framing for related concerns regarding future wage potential. The Hamilton Project is just one of the latest groups to convene and discuss "What can and should be done to promote the economic growth that will lead to higher earnings for more American workers?"

Without sufficient base velocity for lower income levels, there are general equilibrium effects which negatively impact both nominal and real wage potential. When supply is already restricted for non tradable sector product, wage increases do nothing to increase access to non tradable sector product. This is the supply side reality in basic amenities, which consequently impacts discretionary income for higher income levels. If supply remains restricted in basic housing assets or time based services, wage increases alone cannot contribute to marketplace formation.

Tyler Cowen noted an example of supply effects on general equilibrium in a recent post. He stressed that relatively lighter regulatory environments can create positive "unseen effects", which increases supply so as to reduce the pressure on the most expensive markets within the same general equilibrium.

What Cowen highlighted in terms of housing, has a similar general equilibrium equivalent in terms of taxpayer obligations for the negative externalities attributable to those who lack economic access. A better way to address wage issues, is through equilibrium growth potential where it is most clearly missing. Again, attempting to do so via the demand side is misleading, since government redistribution doesn't create additional supply for either housing assets or time based services formation. A more appropriate government role, would be to give a green light to new institutions which generate dynamic economic conditions for lower income levels.

Granted, higher income levels sometimes face wage constraints which impact discretionary income. But the main reason for this reality, are non tradable sector supply side limits on production requirements and economic participation. Even so, quality control requirements such as these should not prevent higher income levels from full economic participation. Whereas, when lower income levels lack economic access, they are less able to contribute either to non tradable sector activity via base velocity, or tradable sector activity via discretionary income velocity.

Kevin Erdmann continues to press for broader ownership of housing assets as well. Recently he wrote "This is your occasional reminder that the stagnation we are experiencing is housing." Nevertheless, this lack of housing for individuals and families alike, is matched by a lack of personal participation in services generation. Indeed, services capacity which is capable of creating new wealth, would likely contribute more than the 1 to 2 percent of additional GDP which Erdmann believes would be possible through better housing access.

No discussion re aggregate wage levels is realistic, so long as economic velocity remains too low to generate economic complexity for lower income levels. This loss of economic capacity affects income potential along the entire spectrum. Even though general equilibrium is too tightly defined to accommodate incremental growth, new growth is possible via defined equilibrium settings which would once again generate base velocity for lower income levels. Once lower income levels become better able to meet working and living requirements, these groups will gain new options for discretionary income. What's more, discretionary gains for lower income levels could eventually translate into positive effects for the discretionary income of higher income levels, as well.

Maintaining Strong Tradable Sector Connections

By tradable sector connections, I'm referring to the need for individuals and groups which take part in knowledge use systems, to support as many tradable sector activities as possible.

Plus: An important aspect of discretionary income for these participants, is ownership in the building and infrastructure components which are integral to equilibrium corporate structure. Not only does this ownership supplement the base commodity (time arbitrage) wage, it is flexible and need not be specific to a single (tradable or non tradable) sector application. Options include shares in company manufacture (also for markets beyond knowledge use communities), and the ways in which components and infrastructure are locally applied.

While time arbitrage does not compete on the open market in general equilibrium settings, the building components of equilibrium corporate activity, would function as a part of any markets which permit the necessary regulatory adjustments for their use. These products don't pose a direct threat to other markets, because their function and purpose is quite different from dense and heavy building materials which are designed solely for specific settings. Knowledge use systems would also align with traditional forms of tradable sector activity, to provide as many lifestyle and traditional employment options for its residents as possible.

Why are tradable sector links so important? Even though time arbitrage creates a platform for mutually sought skills and challenges, this form of wealth generation is nonetheless limited by the finite nature of the time at our disposal. There are good reasons, why economic thought has emphasized tradable sector activity over services. Even though personal services have always been important, were it not for the spread of tradable sector activity, the path to opportunity for so many, would have been exceedingly difficult. Tradable sector wealth led to centuries of gains in living standards, and generated positive global connections. When local communities did not have sufficient room even for the inclusion of their own, the spreading wealth of tradable sector activity, often meant the possibilities of new horizons for these individuals.

Tradable sectors would benefit, from the use of knowledge as an interdependent role. Time value as new wealth, allows for the dispersal of knowledge in ways which are no longer dependent on availability of tradable sector revenue, in order to take place. Importantly, this would allow both employment and output to develop via more natural means, without the crowding out effects that often occur between tradable and non tradable sector activity. Presently, no one really knows the level of output that is possible, because of the ways these dynamics play out in general equilibrium conditions.

To sum up: while our time links to other individuals provide discretionary choice for services generation, our tradable sector links provide discretionary choice for the resource capacity which has so contributed to the progress of recent centuries. No one can afford to confuse goods coordination, with the coordination of time based services. These forms of resource capacity, are different in every way imaginable.

Governments in particular have stumbled, by trying to mix the dynamics of non random time with random resource capacity, in centralized settings. Governments lose entirely too much fiscal policy potential from tradable sector revenue, given their extensive requirements for non tradable sector participation. It is vital to understand how the output of time and place might be encouraged locally, so as to prevent unnecessary output losses in tradable sector activity at global levels.

Nirvana Fallacies and the "Enemy of the Good"

As NIMBY preferences make inclusive communities less likely, nirvana fallacies also lessen the chances of new productive agglomeration, due to "one size fits all" infrastructure requirements. Stated another way: not only is it difficult to make room for more of us in the productive agglomeration we already have. It is costly and cumbersome, to establish new settings where additional productive agglomeration could occur.

Among other problems, nirvana fallacies don't consider the decades old reality of wage stagnation. Yet how much stagnation was truly necessary? Non tradable sector production reform, would have meant substantial real wage gains for all concerned. What's more, many aspects of production reform, should not have to be complicated - especially those which make it simpler for individuals to coordinate their lives in closer proximity to one another.

With production reform, millions would be able to embrace simple transportation options that could be designed for local community levels. Meanwhile, too much transportation dialogue centers around "perfect solutions" such as autonomous vehicles. Such a reality might also be imposed on communities which don't particularly want them. Worse, it might become difficult to build new, wage responsive communities, should all regions be expected to bear the infrastructure costs of autonomous transportation as the "perfect" solution.

Why are non tradable sectors so reluctant, to respond to the shifting wage distributions and lifestyle preferences of the present? Had these sectors been open to technological innovation all along, worries about wage stagnation would never have been necessary. Proactive measures would have resulted in real wage gains, which reduced the need for government revenue at the same time. Of the nirvana fallacy, Wikipedia wrote:

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic idealized alternatives...It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem...By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous - which at the same time being completely implausible - a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect.

Doesn't the reality of real wage losses, especially given the consequent effects on city budgets, deserve a more practical approach? Nevertheless, cities become flummoxed when citizens take matters into their own hands. For example, Toronto residents had already experienced mishaps on a steep trail in a community park, before a citizen went ahead and built a $550 stairway. Since a stairway which met city standards would cost approximately $65,000, the privately provided stairway may be torn down.

In this instance, the city should have little difficulty funding a stairway built to bureaucracy code. But what happens when existing regulations make it difficult for populations whose income levels are better suited for less costly options? Also consider how Wikipedia describes perfect, as the enemy of the good:

A widely accepted interpretation of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" is that one might never complete a task if one has decided not to stop until it is perfect. Completing the project well is made impossible by striving to complete it perfectly. Closely related is the nirvana fallacy, in which people never even begin an important task because they feel reaching perfection is too hard.

Non tradable sectors are particularly exposed to both of these problems. While the human capital investment requirements for time based services of healthcare and education are affected by the "enemy of the good", physical infrastructure suffers from the nirvana fallacy. The "perfect as the enemy of the good" has also become a problem, for matching potential between employees and employers. When jobs dialogue is caught in the polarization of employee obligations versus employee costs, much of the underlying rationale for high reservation wage requirements - on the part of the potential employee - is missed. To what degree does the nirvana fallacy in present day infrastructure, contribute to one's personal high reservation wage?

The one size fits all "perfect" solutions of many a rule and regulation, leave little room for the incremental growth and ownership that would strengthen the hand of those with limited income. I have suggested time arbitrage as a form of incremental growth, which could make good use of skills as they are being developed.

Likewise, incremental ownership would be possible in time arbitrage settings, through the flexible arrangements of building components which can be reconfigured as lifestyle needs change. No one's "perfect" dream would have to be shattered, every time a personal commitment or investment doesn't work according to plan. At the very least, we can make room for flexibility at the margins, where millions await their own chance for full economic participation and productive lives.