"Medium Term" Concerns are Becoming Short Term Realities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't Forget About Basic Resource Scarcities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Political" Equilibrium is Not the Same as Natural Equilibrium

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

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

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

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

He continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Fragility of Economic Momentum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upstream Nominal Claims Matter for Equilibrium Balance

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

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

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

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

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

Our Meritocratic Knowledge Systems Are Quite Fragile

War can create many problems, and this time it includes difficulties for supply side circumstance, central bankers, and monetary policy. Some are also debating (although they are divided) how Putin's actions will ultimately affect global currency patterns. I'd suggest that while no one knows how long global dollar dominance could last, this is still an opportune moment for special interest groups to dial back on their dependence of global financial flows for monetary compensation. Especially since this decades long global positioning has added to income inequalities, many of which stem from administrative privilege. In particular, inequality in the U.S. is largely due to tax dependent secondary markets (and their associated housing valuations) where knowledge and skill are essential. 

Meritocratic organizational patterns in dependent markets have become like an endangered species, by aligning too closely with other aspects of elite tendencies (both left and right leaning) in advanced economies. Consider how this matters, for political opponents are now so opposed to each another that both sides are losing the ability to effectively function. This really matters for merit based organization, once profit becomes defined as the strongest limits possible to total applied knowledge participation. Even though the patterns we observe are more often knowledge use losses in rural areas, this is nevertheless symptomatic of continued losses for valuable skills in general, in all of society.

For decades we have taken administrative dominance for granted in the compensation of meritocratic time based knowledge. But unfortunately, administrative capture of monetary value for time based skill sets, creates extensive participation limits in terms of both supply and demand. When price making is used in excess of price taking in equilibrium conditions, the result is inevitably reduced societal coordination patterns (hence loss of mutual trust) for knowledge use. Indeed, our housing asset markets closely represent the pinnacle of what people hope to achieve in monetary compensation for knowledge and skill, instead of the compensation many citizens actually receive. 

The supply side conditions which allowed this circumstance have only been exacerbated since the turn of the 21st century. Small wonder that our educational and healthcare institutions now experience problems at systemic levels with few solutions on offer. Yet applied skill losses tend to occur in ways that aren't necessarily evident, such as in U.S. justice scenarios which greatly impact both lower and middle income levels. For that matter, much of the cultural resistance to vaccines took place in "red" states where rural areas have already long since lost their hospitals and other local healthcare settings.

Should we finally reform knowledge centered citizen participation, recall as well, how closely linked these time based services are with housing. States such as Texas (where I live) have been heavily dependent on property taxes to fund the services citizens rely on, for instance. There are other important economic connections between housing and services as well. A prime example is how the Fed frames housing as a transmission mechanism for monetary policy, which in turn affects the money available for services in given time periods. 

Hence when we highlight possibilities for greater housing affordability, it helps to remember that services access and participation would be closely connected to these efforts. Since services values are reflective of housing, only recall that good deflation in housing would require good deflation in time based services costs. This time based adaptation of local property taxes would only work for citizens if they can actually count on lower mutual time costs for group coordination. In many earlier posts I advocated for time as a formal economic unit. Fortunately, we could design means to connect economic time value to originating wealth or monetary value, via local building patterns for participating groups. I continue to hope that production and ownership reform efforts such as these, might be considered in the near future.

Polarization is a Problem for Progress in General

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wants are Sometimes a More Relevant Form of Demand

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

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

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

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

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

Is Time Arbitrage Feasible For Post Covid Economies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walkable Community Can't Happen Soon Enough

If only we already had more walkable communities! While they are occasionally found in high income locations, lower income groups could especially benefit from them. After all, local walkability reduces transportation costs, which in turn makes it easier to budget for local housing options. 

One wonders whether this logic is included in billionaire Marc Lore's plans which could eventually produce a walkable city. Alas, his vision is only on the drawing board at the moment. Indeed, for anyone whose life could be enhanced by walkable community in the here and now, Lore's initial starting point of 2030 must seem a long way off. According to CNN:

The former Walmart executive last week unveiled plans for Telosa, a sustainable metropolis that he hopes to create, from scratch, in the American desert. The ambitious 150,000-acre proposal promises eco-friendly architecture, sustainable energy production and a purportedly drought-resistant water system. A so-called "15 minute city design" will allow residents to access their workplaces, schools and amenities within a quarter-hour commute of their homes.

For one thing, it's not helpful to frame these efforts as cultural battles, as Tucker Carlson recently did.  In particular, petroleum production will continue to be an important part of near future market patterns for all populations. There's no need to imagine petroleum production as mostly advantageous for rural dwellers and others who embrace the low population densities associated with automotive ownership. Hopefully, petroleum production will continue to enhance a wide range of global markets, even as other energy sources gradually come to the fore. In all of this, we can encourage free markets which represent a diverse range of population densities. If national governments are willing to remain open minded re diverse market preservation, we stand a better chance of preserving market freedoms at local and state levels as well. 

Nevertheless there's some wishful thinking in this latest city building attempt, which needs to be addressed. While "human centered" communities are a reasonable desire, who really knows what that means? Fortunately, a better understanding could be gleaned via the active discovery of individual and group time preferences, through markets for time value. Time based service markets would make it easier to discern preferences that could translate into local time and space design. A free market orientation for time value, is vitally important for any "15 minute city design" to function as intended. Otherwise, participating groups would struggle to effectively coordinate times and places for getting things done.

Mutually determined individual/group needs are key for services based markets in the 21st century. In all of this, intentional markets should not mean imposing specific group preferences on other groups with different outlooks and lifestyles. Rather, intentional markets could create better defined environments that respect personal choice, so as to broaden market possibilities for everyone.

The Role of Formal Education in Cultural Divides

What makes our formal educational institutions such a problem when it comes to long term economic stability? Unfortunately, they contribute to our cultural battles by dividing people into haves and have nots, when it comes to skill sets and access to vital information. While this is obviously a problem for citizens in mature economies, these educational divides impact lesser developed nations as well. 

For instance, when emerging economies lack sufficient wealth sources to fund high level human skill, formal education can become associated with "brain drains" or possibly even the need to escape one's country to achieve success. Hence such circumstance pose a threat to many in underdeveloped countries (alas, such as Afghanistan), where knowledge based skills are not yet a dominant factor for local economic activity. Indeed, how could "nation building" ever substitute for the economic pursuits which local citizens need to generate for themselves?

In advanced economies, cultural divides play out differently. All too often, the asymmetrical financial obligations of today's human capital, can crowd more direct wealth sources. Not surprisingly, battles over who even "deserves" access to high skill human capital, lead to social instability and polarization. This lack of long term monetary sustainability for high skill human capital, is already undermining national economies regardless of their level of economic complexity. Hopefully it is not too late to embrace a wide range of valuable human capital formation which doesn't require college degrees, familial wealth, or extensive monetary compensation for that matter. I believe it is still possible to make time use an integral source of wealth in its own right. With a little luck, our formal educational institutions may eventually recognize the need for such an approach as well. 

At the very least, nations now sense that nation building is not a reasonable option. What's more, top down "solutions" leave little room for the true potential of local knowledge and skill alongside tradable sector wealth sources. In order to bridge our cultural divides, new communities are needed, where local participants can generate sustainable sources for human capital formation. Such communities could actually function as knowledge priors, since participating group time could be coordinated symmetrically. Reciprocal time value would in turn allow new wealth to be built via knowledge and skill, without need of compensation from other forms of wealth. 

The monetary flows which exist between primary and secondary markets, affect our structural economic realities in ways that aren't always easy to understood. Let's observe more closely, the nature of existing originating wealth sources. Why do they already exist, and how might they be further augmented? Applied knowledge via coordinated time could serve as a more direct form of wealth creation, so that primary markets eventually come into better balance with dependent or secondary markets. Best, more efficient patterns for human capital formation, would make it possible to address the limitations of formal education which exacerbate our cultural divides.

Is Social Mobility Not as Beneficial as Equality?

Like many - especially those of us with limited means - I believe social mobility is important for personal aspirations and economic access. Of late, the Olympics has been providing some inspiring examples. However, a recent post from Chris Dillow reminds how some on the left are quick to dismiss social mobility as a real positive. Their dislike of the societal need for social mobility, is something I've never quite understood. 

In his post, Chris Dillow presents a more nuanced perspective. He's also realistic in asserting that class issues will never be completely eradicated. For that matter, despite our occasional frustrations with meritocracy, at least it functions better than earlier aristocratic norms. Dillow sums up:

The point of all this is not to say that young working class people should not be ambitious. Instead, it is to suggest that social mobility is no substitute for genuine equality.

Perhaps more discussions along these lines would be worthwhile, especially if it could reduce our constant culture wars. It would be great if class perspectives and framing, could help reduce the excessive focus on identity politics. Nevertheless, people have different images in mind, when they conceptualize "genuine equality". For one thing, I believe that income redistribution should not be a primary focus in these matters. Even if societies could somehow wave a magic wand to reduce existing inequalities via monetary means, what would we get? Especially since our most pressing inequalities tend to involve resources which are aligned with time and space. Chances are, these are the areas we need to focus on the most.

When money is envisioned as sole solution for existing inequalities, too many intangibles and unknowns are left in the picture. How much income would ever be "enough" to pay ones basic bills, for instance? For one thing, societies are often inclined to raise prices for our most basic needs whenever local income levels rise. In other words everyone gets higher prices chasing higher incomes and we're essentially in the same position as before. 

Chances are, market solutions which lead to good deflation in non tradable sectors, might prove a more tangible and practical approach. In particular, good deflation in time based services would allow a wide range of other market prices to benefit from lower operational costs as well. Like the circumstantial nature of social mobility, market solutions could create tangible rewards that give small income levels more discretionary freedom. Supply side production reforms, much as social mobility benefits, would focus on what can be accomplished in the here and now, instead of getting lost in wishful thinking.

Production reform would be incremental and specific in nature, yet it holds considerable potential to create more positive outcomes. The long struggle to make various groups responsible for the welfare of other groups, is no longer working as well as it once did. We might accomplish much more, by creating better market opportunities for aspects of life which simply haven't responded well to income redistribution. In all of this, an important path to greater equality, is the creation of viable market options for everything we connect to specific time and place.

Let's make peace with the fact that money simply can't accomplish everyone that societies might hope for. Indeed, the sooner we make that peace, the sooner we could build markets in time value which surpass the monetary limitations of present knowledge providers. Plus, the sooner we make room for housing which is not imagined as "permanence", the less expensive it will be to maintain and reconfigure these structures once the need arises to do so. Why not build a better, more agile economy where everyone benefits from good deflation in non tradable sectors? Chances are, existing inequalities would also be eased. It's time to get started. 

Could Building Maintenance Become Less Costly?

The recent condo collapse in Florida serves as a reminder, that many concrete structures are overdue for millions in repairs. And already it's evident how rusting steel contributed to the condo's demise. But what makes steel rebar so important for concrete construction in the first place? Indeed, this is far more than a cost concern for residential condo owners, since much of a nation's physical infrastructure is also composed of concrete and steel. At the very least, a recent Axios article notes some possibilities which might lessen long term maintenance costs for physical infrastructure:

The rebar can be made more resistant to rust, by coating it in zinc, or passing an electric current through it, or making it out of glass-fiber reinforced  polymer, or carbon fiber, or bronzed aluminum, instead of steel. Such actions involve greater upfront cost, while saving a lot of money over the long term. 

It's even possible that some concrete buildings might not need any reinforcement at all, so long as the concrete is only under compression. No steel rebar means no erosion, after all. But that's still a step too far for most architects and engineers - and most buildings will always end up passing some kind of steel pipes through the external concrete, for things like water, gas, and electricity.

While the above recommendations could prove helpful, the higher upfront costs of those initial suggestions are less likely to be adopted in residential construction, where individual owners bear ultimate responsibility for both upfront costs and long term maintenance. What about the possibility of relying on compression instead of steel rebar? For one, I question the rationale that people should pass pipes and wiring through walls to building interiors for utility needs. Not only does this procedure mean higher upfront costs, but it includes long term maintenance requirements which have become prohibitive for lower income groups. 

Fortunately there are viable ways to avoid internal utility installations, altogether. It's time to explore the advantages of external utility compartments, which could be designed without "permanent" connections to building materials such as wood, brick, stone or concrete. Only recall how many of these connections have to be broken, sooner or later. 

External and detachable utility compartments would not only benefit individual property owners, but also those with shared ownership in multi level building construction. The adoption of such technology should make it simple to embrace concrete construction which relies on compression rather than steel rebar. While external utilities might limit design ideas for internal floor space and layout, that would be a small sacrifice, given the ultimate gains in both initial and long term building costs.

Much about future growth and prosperity, depends on our ability to improve building construction of all kinds. Let's contribute to the process with improvements in flexible design. Granted, as a older Baby Boomer, I know it's a bit late to expect innovation which translates into affordable housing retirement options for myself. Indeed, the main affordable "options" for many retirees are deteriorated older homes in need of extensive utility renovations! Small wonder some Baby Boomers are remaining in place (with sizable homes consequently kept out of the marketplace), when they would otherwise seek to downsize.

In all of this, recent questioning about the safety of old condos (many of which house older folks), puts additional housing supply pressures on communities which refuse land sales for tiny homes. This especially affects retirees who lack the stamina to start over with dilapidated housing stock, and recognize tiny homes as a cost effective, low maintenance way to avoid doing so! But who knows, within the next decade, communities might become open to zoning which better reflects retiree's needs. Plus, architects and engineers could also embrace external utility compartment design. If they do, that would benefit people of all ages and income levels, not just retirees. External utility compartments would also make it easier for people of all ages and incomes to renovate older housing stock, some of which otherwise is likely to be demolished due to long term neglect. With a little luck, perhaps the last of the Baby Boomers will finally gain real retirement housing options which retirees such as myself only dream about.

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.

The Importance of Economic Sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quality Product Isn't the Same as Rising Standards of Living

Often it appears that quality product gains and productivity gains are one and the same. However, might quality product occasionally detract from rising standards of living? Confusion about quality product as an aspect of productivity, deserves more attention than it receives. For example, recently Timothy Taylor opened a post re the productivity slowdown after 2005 with this observation: 

In the long run, a rising standard of living is all about productivity growth. When the average person in a country produces more per hour worked, then it becomes possible for the average person to consume more per hour worked.

But, how do we know when this desirable process actually occurs?  When might organizational processes to generate product quality, diminish aggregate consumer potential instead? Societies need better measuring indicators to determine how aggregate input/output requirements affect basic levels of consumption potential. Only recall how presently, many of the costs of excessive inputs for quality services are being shifted to future generations, via deferred debt and budgetary burdens. Indeed, much about our future economy, depends on the extent to which human capital contributes to exponential output gains, symmetric time coordination, or else the excessive time scarcities that today's knowledge providers have generated.

The differences in time versus exponential product designations, are vitally important for how we frame organizational capacity and the productivity which contributes to GDP representation. Nevertheless, these sectoral differences are difficult to conceptualize, because productivity is not often described in such terms. Consequently, the highly valuable yet costly product of time based services, poses undue financial societal burdens. Our lack of understanding as to the actual inputs and outputs that time scarce services involve, might consequently leave some of this future organizational capacity in doubt. 

Oddly, much of the present confusion, actually comes down to a one size fits all productivity perspective. Given the lack of more precise tradable sector and non tradable sector measures, the present combination is statistically confused as what an "average person in a country produces". Since this perspective doesn't distinguish between time centered output versus exponential forms of output, many forms of applied knowledge lack economic clarity. In particular, we still don't know approximate time increments that are expected of the average individual for the most basic aspects of non discretionary consumption. Before anyone gets sidelined by productivity factors such as leisure time or seemingly "free" consumption gains, basic non discretionary requirements are really the starting point for other productivity considerations. Plus, knowing a base level of expected consumption costs in relation to multiple income levels, provide clues how production input/output ratios matter most for consumers and producers. 

Should tradable and non tradable sectors gain more accurate forms of input/output representation, it would become simpler to think about the differences in approach these groups really need for purposes of long term productivity gains. All the more so, since when non tradable sectors focus on quality product, thus far they've inadvertently done so in ways which detract from further consumption options in the marketplace. 

Ultimately, even though quality product isn't the same as rising standards of living, that doesn't mean time based forms of product aren't important. Not only are many forms of time based product desirable, the time scarcities of production and consumption are among the most important considerations for total or multi factor productivity. Even though organizations logically seek to "save" time (via traditional productivity reductions of time/hours in relation to other inputs), there's still our personal motivation to "use" our economic time in the most significant ways possible. 

Occasionally, the best choices in this regard turn out to be experiential time spent with others. For the most part, we seek to balance the economic time we hope to gain from others, with the economic time we hope to share with them. Rather than leaving such decisions to a relative few professionals or possibly artificial intelligence, the best approach really comes down to the kinds of economic time that all citizens hope to take part in.

The Freedom to Build, to Be, Yet Also Destroy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Might Macroeconomic Theory Be Incomplete?

Surprisingly, given the structural changes which have taken place in recent decades, macro theory still takes a back seat to other factors in our economic debates. Even if theoretical issues are highlighted, they generally lack the depth of theoretical discussion which took place during the Great Recession. 

While this is unfortunate, perhaps it also indicates that something more is needed in terms of stories and explanations. In particular, some believe that macro theory should further evolve in order in to remain fully useful. However, mainstream economists are reluctant to advance the horizons of economic theory, indeed some have also noted that economists are the only ones with "rights" to do so. Inexplicably, this approach means economists are becoming more inclined to follow the lead of policy makers. And since the latter have become quite polarized, economist are also less inclined to agree among themselves about theoretical constructs.

In particular, the lack of attention to general equilibrium dynamics in a time of non tradable sector dominance, makes it difficult for economists to productively respond to long term fiscal budgetary burdens. For instance, excess fiscal policy means more taxation later on. Scott Sumner recently mused on what this means:

I don't think the fiscal stimulus is a good idea, but not because I expect much inflation. The inflation rate will be determined by the Fed. Rather, it's a reckless policy because it will lead to higher tax rates in the future and won't do much to generate growth beyond Q3. (Deficits do cause higher interest rates, but only slightly higher in a country like the US.)

And continued: 

For 250 years of American history politicians have held the peacetime budget deficit in check because of fears of either inflation or higher interest rates (or perhaps a loss of confidence in the gold standard). What would happen if they began to sniff out that the actual risk is not inflation or much higher interest rates next year, rather the risk is higher taxes in 20 years, after they've safely retired. How would they respond to this information? I fear that we are about to find out.

Meanwhile, many policy makers are drifting towards an MMT rationale, despite its lack of theoretical validity. Noah Smith notes the lack of academic depth in current discussions, and suggests: 

it seems fairly clear to me that the reason is that everyone quietly stopped believing in the usefulness of academic theory.

Tyler Cowen in turn responds to Noah Smith:

His whole Substack post is very good, though I give the entire matter a different interpretation. I do not view contemporary macroeconomics as wonderfully predictive, but it does put constraints on what you can advocate for or for that matter on what you can predict. I saw the Republicans go down this path some time ago, and now the Democrats are following them - it ain't pretty. I think what we are seeing now is that (some, not all) Democrat economists want Democrats to be popular, and to win, and so they will rearrange macroeconomic thinking accordingly.

Some also appear to believe that revision of macroeconomic theory is needed, so that economists might feel better about their profession. But is that really enough? I suggest that a better understanding of macro theory could provide more insight, how 20th century general equilibrium dynamics allowed nations to introduce knowledge based endeavour for citizens. Alas, this was only an introduction! As it turns out, these methods are insufficient for more complete levels of economic integration in the 21st century. Will we, can we, meet the challenge?

In short, macroeconomic theory may not prove truly useful, until it creates potential for all communities, not just the economic prospects of governments and prosperous regions. Part of getting to a better place in this regard, is understanding how no level of fiscal policy is going to address the aggregate demand realities of regions which were left behind. No economic theory is going to be complete, if it does not take today's built in supply side limitations into account. All the more so, since many future attempts to pour fiscal policy into the bottomless buckets of supply side constraints, will be doomed to fail. It's time to bring supply side considerations to what have become the general equilibrium equations of the 21st century.

Time Based Product and the Profit/Productivity Conundrum

When it comes to service organizations, an investment approach such as private equity can sometimes lead to problems, if personal time is an important component of final product. All the more so in healthcare, should patients need individualized attention for successful outcomes. How might we respond, if and when profit gains result in less personal time with patients in particular? 

For example, a recent NBER working paper, "Does private equity investment in healthcare benefit patients?" highlights the issue of patient neglect. In the abstract, the researchers note how

Our estimates show that PE ownership increases the short-term mortality of Medicare patients by 10%, implying 20,150 lives lost due to PE ownership over our twelve-year sample period. This is accompanied by declines in other areas of patient well-being, such as lower mobility, while taxpayer spending per patient episode increases by 11%. 

An article from Vox further elaborates:

The researchers studied patients who stayed at a skilled nursing facility after an acute episode at a hospital, looking at deaths that fell within the 90-day period after they left the nursing home. They found that going to a private equity-owned nursing home increased mortality for patients by 10 percent against the overall average.

As it turns out, the result was more pronounced for patients who were relatively healthier, since sicker patients benefited from time based regiments deemed too necessary for targeted reductions. Whereas other services appeared more amenable to time adjustments. So private equity changes

include a reduction in staffing, which prior research has found is the most important factor in quality of care. Overall staffing shrinks by 1.4 percent, the study found, but more directly, private equity acquisitions lead to cuts in the number of hours that front-line nurses spend per day providing basic services to patients. Those services, such as bed turning or infection prevention aren't medically intrusive, but they can be critical to health outcomes.

The researchers noted an increase in the use of psychotics which could have substituted for personalized care as well. This study is certainly getting attention, for instance Matthew Yglesias referenced it as an example of meritocracy issues in a recent post. He stresses how smart people may be inclined to do "bad things":

Why do private equity takeovers kill so many people? It's not because the Wall Street boys are dimwitted. Their job is to look for companies that, for whatever reason, are not managed in a way that maximizes shareholder value...There's a lot more you could say about this story looking specifically at the lens of nursing home operations. But I'm interested in meritocracy. And the point here is that things can go awry not despite, but because smart people are in charge.

Indeed, it is easy to frame the unfortunate circumstance of nursing homes as a morality play, and there are countless other time relevant service examples which can be told in similar fashion. However, getting caught in these stories, instead of finding positive ways to respond, ultimately depresses us all. 

Why not try a more dispassionate view in the form of a total equilibrium perspective? Money cannot be expected to accomplish all things equally well, for everyone involved. More specifically, unsettling things will occur when money occasionally fails in its coordination tasks for time based services generation. Again, I can't stress enough that money is problematic when it is expected to remain the sole representation of economic value. For that matter, should we elect to create valid service markets for a full range of personal time potential, people would gain more opportunities to meet the needs of their loved ones, when existing organizational capacity does prove inadequate. And family members would not have to shoulder the entire load of caring for loved ones (outside the time limits of today's services institutions), once community members can freely participate in local platforms for services generation.

By no means would time arbitrage supplant existing meritocracies and their associative hierarchies. Rather, horizontally aligned communities would work alongside meritocratic organizations, meanwhile reinforcing the positives which merit based hierarchies do hold.

Could Time Arbitrage Stabilize Medium Term Growth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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