Low Income Wage Pressures in General Equilibrium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Might Good Deflation Counter Excess Monetary Demand?

What makes good deflation so desirable? It all starts when increased output is possible with fewer resources overall. Once price reductions per unit come into play, they in turn lead to real wage gains and higher productivity levels. I believe that good deflation could become a services sector response to counteract high inflation and rising interest rates. Given the many positives of good deflation, what accounts for such resistance to its potential in housing and time based services?

Even though both areas must deal with the natural scarcities of time and place, much of the bias against good deflation potential is inadvertent and political in nature. Not only are such biases protectionist, they discourage adaptive evolution in time and place based product - evolution which could otherwise augment their capacity despite their natural limitations. While time based skill and land as real estate are certainly not exponential in nature, they could still add additional output through flexible coordination of knowledge and land use potential.

Bias characteristics also differ depending on the markets and sectors in question. For instance, progressives and conservatives increasingly prefer a restoration of local manufacturing over global free trade. Fortunately - even though this anti free market bias will increase manufacturing costs to some degree - globalized manufacture should continue benefiting nations in the foreseeable future. At the very least, it's reasonable to expect good deflation to ultimately be restored in global markets. Once tradable sector resource access is more stable and predictable, it should become more cost effective as well.  

Societies are fortunate indeed, that tradable sector activity is often managed for full production efficiencies. Still, during times of high inflation, we're reminded of the dangers of taking good deflation in tradable sectors for granted. Indeed, relying on the serendipity of long term good deflation (along with the more recent low inflation pattern) made it easy to disregard the long term inefficiencies of non tradable sectors. These inefficiencies remain in place due to countless quality requirements, many of which have been exacerbated by government subsidies. 

Recall however, that these requirements end up as ever more inputs in relation to aggregate output. Even when quality gains are worth additional costs for some, other groups suffer efficiency losses which in turn require additional personal labour for non discretionary needs. Consequently when it comes to quality of life, some income groups are actually moving backwards. Again, constant calls for higher wages occur because lower income groups need to work more hours than is sometimes feasible to meet their financial responsibilities.

Fortunately there are already better production methods which could establish disinflation in housing - methods which could eventually lead to good deflation as well. Just the same, a considerable amount of social and political bias has prevented the majority of flexible housing options. In this restrictive environment, progressives tend to focus on time based constraints for meeting financial obligations. Whereas conservatives are more concerned about place based constraints, such as immigrants who are seen as competing for already scarce housing. 

Despite the protectionism that stands in the way of production reform, housing is still a simpler issue to solve than markets based on time and personal skill. Hence countering excess monetary demand could begin with more flexible interpretations of housing for all income levels. Otherwise, many individuals will remain subject to the first mover problem of providing valuable services for others by more accessible means, only to be locked out of the housing necessary for this to happen. For that matter, one of the main reasons wages recently increased for the lowest income levels, is that employers were faced with the fact no housing existed nearby which their employees could afford. 

Societies need to focus on non tradable sector production issues, since they are at the heart of recent inflation which is proving difficult to eradicate. However, there's something else important about productivity expectations which needs to be noted here. When productivity involves final product which is independent of personal labour, these areas do have capacity for exponential output. Since our economic time is not exponential, it often demands a higher price as a fixed quantity. In these instances, people rely on investments in knowledge and skill to increase their time value. Alas, institutions then tend to respond by substituting away from time based input, in order to meet their financial obligations! Despite the obvious drawbacks of this effect, our current understanding of productivity gains makes it a rational approach, especially if institutional budgets are already in jeopardy. 

How, then, could good deflation be achieved in skills use without having to substitute away from time based input? One way is to make mutual time commitments, or time arbitrage, a valid and measurable economic unit. Skill sets would be voluntarily chosen and independent of monetary value. However, group effort would also utilize monetary compensation as a base to keep the process in motion. Time arbitrage might help societies maintain and preserve what they build and create, plus the knowledge and skills involved would be simultaneously measured as cumulative gains. Time as an economic unit of value is also one way to overcome the Baumol effect and ultimately, achieve good deflation in time based services. Again, production gains would transpire on completely different terms in these settings. Once housing production reform begins in earnest, economic validity for mutual time commitments would be the logical next step.

"Political" Equilibrium is Not the Same as Natural Equilibrium

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

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

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

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

He continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inflation Relief Can't Address the Missing Market Divide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ownership and Output in Excess Nominal Claims

Excess nominal income claims are too common in local service markets which are not discretionary. Governments and special interests alike tend to limit these options, thereby reducing effective management for both our personal obligations and physical environments. If this unfortunate circumstance weren't enough, excess claims in these areas are starting to impact monetary policy as well.

Our potential for ownership and personal responsibility are sorely compromised, when too many markets for basic life needs are narrowly defined. The markets most affected are those involving human capital, skill potential and housing. Alas, these are now mostly intended for the use of higher income groups. What's left for ownership potential, includes traditional housing (with its legal benefits of family inheritance), financial markets for the traditional capital of wealth building, and the formal institutions which now link human capital to status and monetary gain. All of these are associated with equilibrium imbalance and excess nominal claims. 

How might one think about this? What's most affected includes the framing of artificial scarcity. Recently a gap has opened between aggregate nominal income and the output of GDP. Might this gap have been induced by purposeful reduced output (artificial scarcity), while maintaining similar levels of income expectations? And how does artificial scarcity contrast with natural scarcity for such correlations? After all, when income is derived from production via natural scarcities, existing output is more likely close to what is feasible and consistent with equilibrium or GDP potential. Perhaps due in part to the contributions of production via natural scarcities, nominal income has closely mirrored aggregate output for quite some time.

I'd like to think that production reform for non traditional housing and applied human capital, could help diminish the unexpected gap between aggregate income and GDP output. Non traditional housing options and horizontal alignment for services coordination, could lead to good deflation. Eventually such reform could lead to better equilibrium balance with other sources of wealth.

Indeed we've been fortunate that equilibrium imbalance can take centuries to become a macroeconomic problem. It's interesting how Adam Smith worried about equilibrium imbalance in his framing of"productive" and "unproductive" workers (Wealth of Nations), before the closely related Baumol effect became a legitimate concern. Perhaps the fact this process took so long to evolve, is what makes it difficult to relate to in the present.

Just the same, much is at stake. We need to recognize and respond to the burdens imposed by the expectations of our domestic services markets. Should we instead elect not to change anything, even the best NGDP monetary policy scenario would eventually lead to less applied knowledge for societies in the decades to come. Excess nominal claims with no other market options, would mean a gradual loss of our capacity to fulfill the challenges of a modern economy. It's time to consider building a future on more viable and sustainable terms.

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.

Too Many Market Claims on Nominal Income

I've been anxious to start writing again regularly. However, much has come to pass since posts here were frequent, and not all of it has been good. Unfortunately, our political and social circumstance have continued to deteriorate. How will I proceed? How might others proceed? 

For now I'll need to focus less on how I feel things could be improved, and more on structural explanations why our unfortunate economic reality has come about. At the very least, a better understanding what led to this impasse, might encourage warring factions to lighten up on the destructive cultural wars. Nevertheless I've lost confidence that a cultural/political peace can be achieved during the course of my own lifetime. We simply waited too long to make supply side improvements at local levels, and the consequent fighting over scarce resources - even though many were artificially induced - won't be easily eradicated.

Meanwhile, we are in danger of losing more personal, market, and political freedoms in the years to come. While a relative few still defend free markets, the majority of these seek solutions along the margins. Alas, this approach mostly accrues to those who already benefited from recent sources of prosperity. Yet societies struggle to remain free, when economic progress doesn't occur in ways which lead to gains for all of society - not just those who have already won. 

In particular, the winners have all but cancelled the game for many participants, by making too many claims on nominal income. One reason this matters, is that the Fed learned the hard way decades earlier, what would happen once it allowed too many winners to insist on their excess claims! Yet the Fed monetary policy tool is a blunt tool. Meaning, the Fed can't choose who wins and loses once the monetary limits are drawn. For that matter, governments shouldn't have to choose, either. Instead, economic inclusion and the good deflation which encourages it, should be the responsibility of millions who participate in supply side activities. Yet many supply side decision makers have instead stood by, while societies lay blame - or excess expectations - in places where they really don't belong. 

Both the pandemic and the unexpected circumstance of primary market (originating wealth) turmoil, has meant hard lessons for this writer. Like many, I had taken "efficiency" aspects of primary markets for granted. What I never realized, was the fact such efficiency can take decades to achieve, in times of general equilibrium change. Plus, oil production is so central to how our most recent equilibrium became defined, in the first place. I should have understood well before now, that primary markets would need more nominal income space as absolute necessity, for wealth origin activity to continue as before. This, in contrast to the nominal income which secondary market participants demanded, in some instances for no better reason than knowledge providers were morally worthy of the sacrifice populations "should" make. 

As it turns out, our most direct sources of wealth have little choice but to make additional claims on nominal income, instead. Until now I'd believed secondary markets would try to keep pushing originating wealth sources out of their way, for Fed handouts. Instead, cutbacks in applied knowledge as it is currently utilized, are already underway. What recently happened to some of our most important markets, is also a reminder how peak oil finally arrived, despite recent fracking gains. Yep, we worried about peak oil decades too soon. 

Going forward, I will continue to focus on the lack of overall balance in general equilibrium conditions. For now, the Fed needs to make space for primary market evolution, but that doesn't mean citizens can't find ways to further evolve the human capital of secondary markets. Recall also that housing is a bridge between primary and secondary markets, for its monetary value represents both originating wealth and services generation. The paradox of traditional housing is that too many claims on nominal income now exist, while millions continue to need housing. Yet the Fed had little choice but to pull back early, well before existing need could be met. It's time for housing to further evolve. Due to its very nature as a bridge between primary and secondary markets, housing is paramount in equilibrium balance. Housing and its associated ownership frameworks must change into more realistic forms, or societies will continue to suffer.

Don't Blame the Fed for Supply Side Recalcitrance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Considerations are Vital for Sustainability

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

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

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

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

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

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

When We Can't Always Get What We Want...

Somehow I find it fitting that Mick Jagger of Rolling Stones fame, studied economics before joining the group. Indeed, the song "You Can't Always Get What You Want", is an apt reminder how we seemingly forget to build vital need based markets. Yet if our domestic non tradable sector providers paid more attention to these areas, perhaps people would be less inclined to question the integrity of today's economic and political systems.

Granted, many producers face the temptation of raising the bar on product definitions where possible, so that product and services reflect consumer wants more closely than actual need. After all it can be quite profitable to do so. Unfortunately however, if too many non tradable sector producers choose this route, markets gradually become destabilized. What might be done? Again, cue what Mick Jagger and Keith Richards wrote:

But if you try sometimes you just might find

you get what you need

It's time to get serious about creating more accessible free markets in our non tradable sectors. We are confusing too many experiential wants with what is essentially necessary in order for citizens to thrive. For one thing, taxpayers face additional burdens, due to negative externalities caused by low income workers who lack sufficient income for even limited sets of non tradable sector costs. One indicator we have procrastinated too long in this regard, is that middle class citizens are beginning to seek "living" wages for non discretionary needs as well. Domestic protectionism might be out of control for instance, when a general lack of basic markets encourages politicians to mandate wage floors. And higher mandated wages only make it more difficult for employers to realize profits. We need to focus on production reform in markets where it matters most, to stop this destructive cycle.

Alas, even with fewer profits and businesses in operation, we can't always get what we want when it comes to "livable" wages for all employees. Yet today's workplace offerings are thought of as "meaningful" mostly when when abundant wages are part of the package. Perhaps it's not surprising that the most negative responses to my work thus far, have been due to my advocacy for good deflation in time based services income.

However, good deflation in time based services might be the only way to increase the use of workplace knowledge in more meaningful and accessible ways. Let's just admit it: Great wages are one of those societal wants which is impossible to fulfill for all citizens, via either fiscal means or private sector mandates. The sooner we face this reality, the sooner we can move towards a future of restored hope, as millions gain the right to inclusion in more productive organizational settings. For one thing, good deflation in time based services would do much more than simply address consumer "affordability". Good deflation in income and building requirements, would give us the legal and social grounds to share the work which people find most meaningful in life. 

One reason citizens expect so much from fiscal policy, is that governments are expected to be responsible for meeting many societal needs. The problem in this regard, is how governments and private interests raised regulatory and price bars on basic needs too many times. Each time these bars were raised, governments incrementally gave up their ability to influence or fiscally support citizens and economies, one unfortunate rule and regulation at a time. Now, many basic needs go unmet, as regulatory rules mostly accrue to the societal benefits (wants) of higher income levels. Among the sacrifices in this regard are the one time effectiveness of fiscal policy. Where once it held a valid role in addressing societal needs, now it is closely bound with specific political aims. 

Consider why this matters for inequality and applied knowledge preservation, as well. Fiscal policy now only holds a minor role in smoothing income differences. But more importantly, it is losing its ability to fulfill the role of spreading and supporting knowledge for the use of all citizens. To a large extent, these roles are diminished by the fact redistribution mostly augments the wants of specific high income groups. 

Which is also why I find it difficult to understand, the high hopes attached to fiscal policy "remedies" such as MMT. Even if political support for Modern Monetary Theory should turn into a policy option constant, what might its adherents hope to accomplish in any concrete sense? And that's not even considering the disparaging attacks MMT advocates tend to make on monetarist views. To me at least, Modern Monetary Theory advocates appear mostly concerned with middle class wants, rather than any need based structural issues faced by lower income levels. Granted, there is some good which can still be achieved via fiscal policy. However, we should let go of believing fiscal policy can actually address existing inequalities, let alone the productive use and preservation of knowledge in society. 

 

Hopefully, my readers won't get the impression I view wants as a societal negative. I absolutely believe that wants can be positive as well. However, let's be careful to ensure basic needs are actually met, first. What's more, do so without changing the goalposts so as to obscure basic needs once again. For instance, don't insist that smartphones or credit use are absolute necessities. I don't need either in order to thrive, plus opting for these things would reduce my spending capacity in other crucial respects. Indeed, once basic needs are met, and one finally gets to breathe easier, the occasional wants of a tradable sector (retail) splurge need not break the bank at all.

When societies forget what it actually takes for lower income levels to survive, they also lose track of the extent to which progress actually takes place for societies as a whole. At the very least, tradable sectors have given us excellent examples for full needs based markets, especially when luxury adaptations come from basic commodification structures. Whereas non tradable sector activity, due to the existing scarcities of time and space, tends to leapfrog need based offerings for what may appear as societal progress, but in certain respects is instead luxury mandates for low income levels which can ill afford such requirements. 

Profit is integral to businesses and sustainable economies in general, but profits should not be sought by needlessly obscuring the differences between want and need. Too much of society is presently paying the price for this approach. For one thing, it is a simpler matter to determine basic survival needs than some imagine. Once we become willing to highlight the real differences, innovations for our physical environments in particular, could proceed from this understanding.

Until we realize good deflation in time based services and building requirements, these areas of our lives will remain structurally fragile. As things currently stand, the domestic markets of our non tradable sectors demand too much in terms of debt levels and redistribution, for governments and citizens to successfully shoulder these burdens in the near future. Let's commit to innovation in need based markets. Even though societies can't fulfill every thing their hearts desire, we could still do a much better job of market creation which addresses actual needs.

Time as Journey, Money as Destination

Why is economic time an important consideration, especially in terms of GDP measure? Recall that today's GDP is all about what transpires in the current year of our economic journeys. After all, few aspects of life capture this process more effectively than the time commitments we assume, in part to meet our financial obligations. For anyone who doubts the significance of time based participation as wealth creation, the close correlation of nominal income with aggregate spending is an apt example. 

Nevertheless, some of the more obvious forms of wealth end up as destinations such as buildings and other physical assets. Real estate in particular tends to be passive holdings that aren't closely associated with economic dynamism, once they are constructed. Despite their reliable qualities in terms of asset values, passive holdings are mostly indirect contributors to current economic circumstance, and their value fluctuates accordingly. 

Since money naturally flows toward real estate holdings, this passive tendency helps explain why monetary representation isn't completely straightforward in the measure of GDP. Meanwhile, much of our aggregate time value lacks monetary equivalence. Despite the importance of time participation in the measure of GDP, aggregate time value is so unevenly represented, that consumer inflation does not readily correlate with asset inflation in general equilibrium. 

If we are to achieve greater economic stability in the near future, more emphasis will be needed on the journey itself, and not just the destination. By no means is the measure of GDP unimportant in all this, for it is closely connected to how we go about our economic lives. Should economic time become a valid measure alongside money, not only would this increase the overall value of GDP measure, it could create additional market depth for the time value of all citizens. 

Our focus on economic journeys is especially needed for the long term preservation of applied knowledge. By far the most important aspect of economic time, is its ability to function as a vessel which carries experienced knowledge from person to person. Time is the vessel which gives societies the ability to carry forward applied knowledge in recognizable patterns. Even though money preserves activities for applied knowledge to some extent, money will always be better suited for ends than means. Alas, when money is the sole representative unit of economic value, so much of it eventually flows into passive economic destinations, that not enough remains for the actual journeys of our lives. 

Fortunately, time arbitrage patterns could supplement money by ensuring that more economic activity remains in active roles, instead of excessively flowing to passive destinations. Time arbitrage as a valid unit of economic measure, could help ensure that important knowledge flows can be maintained even in historical moments of budgetary and financial limitations. Hopefully, we will be able to create new means to sustain full levels of economic participation in the near future. Time as an economic unit of value alongside money, could bring better balance to the activities of our journeys and their eventual destinations.

Is the Fed Committed to a Stable Growth Trajectory?

Does the Fed have full confidence in long term growth potential? Alas, it is difficult to know for certain, since their decision to opt for an average inflation targeting policy, does not include a commitment to a level growth trajectory. Instead they opted for what amounts to a more discretionary approach, after a lengthy period of open discussion in this regard. Something I have found myself wondering as well: When it comes to long term growth potential, could the Fed's reluctance to commit to a nominal level target, also illustrate a degree of uncertainty about the recent dominance of intangible capital as a source of wealth?  

At the very least, the Fed is now willing to take bygones into consideration for the first time, as David Beckworth noted. That's a good first step. Nevertheless, the Fed lacks specifics how they intend to go about the process, and it's a shame they did not provide more clarity. As to the level of discretion they instead chose, Tim Duy lamented - "You can drive a truck through the holes in the average inflation targeting policy." 

While market monetarists certainly have cause for encouragement, the Fed's vagueness as to how the new framework will function, is still concerning. After all, this would have been a good opportunity for the Fed to embrace NGDPLT, and had they done so, we might all have a greater degree of certainty about near future prospects and economic stability. Insofar as their willingness to make up for earlier shortfalls, George Selgin wonders, how far backward is the Fed willing to consider? For that matter, Marcus Nunes is concerned the Fed's continuing inflation framework may end up resembling that of the last three decades. After reading opinions which dissented even more than those expressed by market monetarists, I questioned whether the Fed's desire to maintain a high level of discretion, might have undermined some of the goodwill they sought to gain from market observers and the public in general.

Perhaps the Fed's worries about employment issues prevented them from taking more decisive action. Future employment uncertainty is also affected by the recent dominance in intangible capital. And even though intangible capital exacerbates existing inequalities, by no means is that the only problem. Unfortunately, these organizational patterns also function as an economic divide between prosperous regions and everyone else. In a recent post, Michael Spence explains how a pandemic economy further supports the dominance of intangible capital in relation to labour. He stresses that even though markets do a good job of matching expectations for real returns to capital,

When it comes to measuring the present value of labor income, there simply is no comparable forward-looking index. In principle, then, if there is a significant anticipated economic rebound, the outlooks for capital and labor income could be similar, but only capital's expected future would be reflected in the present.

But there is more to the story. Market valuations are increasingly based on intangible assets, not least the ownership and control of data, which confers its own means of value creation and monetization. According to one recent study of the S & P 500, stocks in companies with high levels of intangible capital per employee have recorded the biggest gains this year, and the less intangible capital per employee companies have, the worse their stocks have performed.

In other words, incremental value creation in markets and employment are diverging. And while this was true even before the pandemic, the trend has now accelerated. 

Let's hope the Fed can keep the faith and not worry too much about things outside of their control. Again, what is needed is a strong real economy response to ensure sustainable forms of employment, well into the future. And chances are, we would have an easier time of recreating reliable sources of tangible wealth, than attempting to bring intangible organizational patterns to small communities and towns. Ultimately, the real economy needs new patterns which make tangible wealth creation a possibility for all communities. Just the same, the Fed will need to do their part through steady and sure monetary representation, so that real economy potential is not needlessly lost.

Wrap Up for July 2020

Can the U.S. sufficiently recover from its present decline?

Like the coronavirus, the debt problem didn't just "come out of nowhere".

Illegal immigration has not risen since the Great Recession.

Don't start a cold war with China, it's just not worth it.

"...NGDP is still 5.3 percent below its pre-crisis path even after 2022."

Keep NGDP on target, for supply side conditions to remain as stable as possible.

State bankruptcy would be complicated. But what makes it compelling?

For police, the danger imperative is paramount.

MMT is too focused on a particular causal relationship.

Dixie cups were the breakout startup of the 1918 pandemic.

"...even prior to 2008, there were important splits in the field of monetary economics."

"Simplification" for citizens, or for bureaucrats?

What can be learned from the laboratory of state experiments?

Bitcoin and ham radio "are both clunky and old-fangled" However, their decentralization is their strength.

Rich countries benefit from a "citizenship rent".

Credentialism is still a problem.

COVID-19: "I'd say at best, we're a quarter of the way through this thing. This is unsettling, which is why people are rejecting reality."

K-Briqs is one example of several recent brick innovations.
Also, a bricklaying robot in action.

Birthrates aren't likely to rise any time soon.

How is COVID-19 similar to a natural disaster, for healthcare systems?

"What will bounce back after the pandemic, and what will never be the same?"

An interesting reading list from Sarah Skwire.

"The United States has more pervasive licensing requirements than most European countries."

COVID-19: Symptom data helps estimate risk levels.

Nicholas Crafts discusses the long productivity slowdown with James Pethokoukis.

How does the Swiss political system manage to avoid political polarization? For one, "Voting necessarily means understanding that things are never clear cut."

Conservatives are not in agreement about zoning reform.

When it comes to urban design, experiences matter.

We shouldn't expect past economic momentum to carry us through the present crisis.

How would Medicare reimburse hospitals and other Part A providers if the fund runs out of money?

Timothy Taylor highlights a recent Brookings series which explains how COVID-19 could change the economy.
Also from Brookings, Bernanke and Yellen on COVID-19.

"Unschooling allows kids to follow their own interests and define their own curriculum."

"The Closing of the (Urban) Frontier"

Cancel culture is pervasive.

Experiments are important. So why do we hate them?

Assortative mating and income inequality.

Good news for plastics recycling.

The best coronavirus tests are frequent, fast and cheap.

A road map for reemployment from AEI.

Tech is becoming a regulated industry.

COVID-19 may worsen public perceptions re finance

International trade: "The high watermark really was around 2008, just before the financial crisis."

"The Henry Fords of Healthcare" Standardized procedures for better group coordination. However, this approach is not always politically viable. In this instance the process creates (mostly) middle class access.

Some of the recent fiscal stimulus will certainly help. But how much of it is properly aligned with actual need?

"Working as an ICU nurse is like flying a plane."

Claudia Sahm interviews David Beckworth: a discussion about NGDP.

Bookkeeping operations by the Fed still can not "conjure up real resources". And more needs to be done to avoid moral hazard.

Libertarianism has become dysfunctional, but liberty is as important as it ever was.

Some early data for the pandemic effect on world trade. Also, a loss comparison between the U.S., the EU and China.

Arbitrage Potential Includes Time, Resources and Systems

How does arbitrage function as a component of economic dynamism and long term growth? While many associate arbitrage potential with monetary gains, this feature is only a fraction of what arbitrage is capable of. Indeed, one might envision monetary arbitrage as a residual effect of aggregate efforts and time based priorities. After all, the nominal representation of general equilibrium depends on the extent to which all resource capacity gets defined. What matters most for monetary provision is its continuous accurate representation as a level nominal target, so that all arbitrage potential might remain stable as well.

As humans, we are naturally inclined to make improvements on whatever resources happen to be at our disposal. Three arbitrage possibilities are especially important: physical resources, time arbitrage (human capital potential), and systems arbitrage. In particular, time arbitrage could benefit from stronger market patterns and commodification. Only recall that when service offerings become highly specialized, by definition this limits access and commodification, as is currently the case with many high skill services.

Today, wealth creation as systems arbitrage has become mostly associated with movers and shakers in prosperous regions. Yet only a century earlier, individuals in millions of small communities were also direct contributors to wealth creation processes. Much of the earlier participation in physical resource arbitrage was decentralized. Even though it offered sustenance for local individuals and communities, these production patterns did not always generate sufficient additional output to be readily captured for broader economic activity. Time arbitrage existed alongside resource arbitrage in these settings, often on even more limited terms of monetary representation. As time arbitrage becomes more important in the near future (once again), it needs to return with a formal baseline monetary representation, to create additional incentive for local community trust and mutual reliance.

The physical resource arbitrage of yesteryear, gradually transitioned into immense wealth that negated the need for local production in countless communities. Unfortunately, even though small town populations gained in terms of tradable sector consumption, they still lack the ability to fully participate in high skilled time based services. That said, the need for decentralized services generation in the present, is vastly different from the production patterns societies once utilized locally. And since time based product is naturally limited, it is the logical employment replacement for tradable sector production - given the latter's centuries long history of exponential output. Even though time arbitrage would include microeconomic characteristics, it still offers a macroeconomic solution set to help solve long term employment issues.

Time arbitrage in the form of new markets for human capital, could also expand general equilibrium in ways that money has only been able to partially represent. Consider why this matters. Skills arbitrage, though certainly a reasonable approach to human capital investment, becomes unable to fully maintain a strong growth trajectory once tradable sector dominance gives way to non tradable sector dominance. Hence the need for further systems arbitrage, which instead of replacing prior systems, would function alongside them. Economic time reciprocity would give applied knowledge the conceptual space to function as a more direct means of wealth creation.

Many communities struggle to take part in time based services production today, since high skill services tend to rely on the redistribution of residual wealth. More often than not, this limits the most important facets of useful knowledge to prosperous regions. New forms of systems arbitrage, would allow time reciprocity to expand human capital roles beyond their present reliance on wealth redistribution. Once applied knowledge takes place via direct means, it can also serve as a valid source of community building. Systems design for new communities would establish knowledge priors as prime reasons for community origin. Flexible building components and infrastructure, would give these communities added mobility which is similar to what private firms are capable of. These components could be reconfigured according to the knowledge priors which are most readily coordinated during any given time period.

Since time based services markets lack the ability to grow exponentially in terms of output, we need ways to regain time arbitrage as output defined in quality gains for all human capital potential. Time arbitrage has the capacity to directly coordinate mutual time priorities. Indeed, systems of time arbitrage make it possible to utilize human capital as a lever in the production equation, so that less intense human capital investment is necessary in the first place.

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.

Monetary Stabilization Needs Real Economy Stabilizers

When recessions call for extensive monetary stabilization and fiscal stimulus, also consider how real economy factors tend to either support or undermine the process. Or, more specifically: Given the importance of reliable long term financial flows, a flexible real economy approach could help to ensure they are maintained.

The current recession is somewhat different from many earlier recessions, since extensive supply side disruptions have also come into play. If this weren't problematic enough, without NGDPLT as a guide, the Fed lacks sufficient rationale for the temporary inflation levels that could smooth and maintain the current monetary trajectory.

Despite the initial stimulus, additional fiscal and monetary assistance are being called into question. Some are now asking, who is really going to benefit? Likewise as Scott Sumner recently noted, the Fed is beginning to falter in what recently appeared a strong commitment to a level trajectory. And unfortunately, increased public skepticism could derail what is still needed for sufficient monetary stabilization. It doesn't help that losses in the current trajectory could mean more extensive business losses than otherwise would have been the case.

Even though monetary policy can't do the entire job of economic stabilization, it is still the primary consideration for what is needed in macroeconomic terms. A level nominal trajectory ensures that real economy efforts have the greatest chance of overall success. What contributions from the real economy, then, might contribute most to continued stability?

The real economy particularly suffers from a lack of structural flexibility. It lacks the ability to respond to what are also rapidly changing events. Consequently, too much economic participation ends up undermined by excessively rigid rules of engagement. Since these rules also result in limited economic options, recessions invariably leave millions of participants on the sidelines, afterward. All too often, many individuals never fully gain the economic and social connections they once enjoyed.

Structural change - in order to be truly effective - would make room for more flexible forms of ownership and financial obligation. One way to think about such processes, is that each example of non tradable sector good deflation, would also function as a real economy stabilizer in times of recession. In other words, good deflation would mean greater stability for business formation and employment in general. Production reform could make it easier not only for businesses to stay afloat, but also for employees to remain gainfully employed.

Recessions are difficult enough, without the structural rigidities that make it difficult for societies to carry a full load of financial obligations. Fortunately, there are ample opportunities for making real economy circumstance more resistant to recession. Greater structural flexibility, especially for building and time based services options, could give investors and average citizens alike more confidence in continued economic dynamism. Let's not forget, how basic aspects of supply side potential could be configured in ways that restore hope for a better future. Such options are especially needed now, to help recover confidence not only in monetary policy, but in real economy potential as well.

Fiat Money as a Framework for Human Capital

Why hasn't fiat money turned out to be a better suited tool for complete levels of economic coordination?

Much of the problem in this regard, is that skills arbitrage emerged in the 20th century as a partial equilibrium component of human capital potential. As circular economic activity became more closely aligned with time based services generation, intangible forms of wealth created additional demands on money, which had previously had been associated with originating sources of wealth. Once fiat money expanded the range of monetary representation possibilities, sectoral imbalances became more prominent. A wide range of knowledge providers used skills arbitrage for extensive price making in markets, which gradually reduced general equilibrium revenues for additional coordination in these vital areas. Alas, this process has finally reduced the aspirations of millions who once hoped to participate in the economy on similar terms. For reasons such as this, I continue to advocate for time arbitrage as means to further promote a fuller use of knowledge and skill, for all citizens.

Nevertheless, there are fairly obvious and pragmatic reasons, why social coordination patterns for the use of knowledge emerged through such limited terms of engagement. How else might societies have readily brought together widely divergent market participants, so as to live among one another and combine revenues for common public goods? By way of example, commonalities in local real estate value made it simpler for high skill service providers to maintain integrated economic relationships, with those who were directly involved in wealth generation.

Only now is it apparent these earlier processes are not enough, to fully sustain a modern day knowledge based economy. How might we address the fact that fiat monetary systems - in and of themselves - aren't sufficient to maintain widespread integration of skills and services for all concerned? Even though skills arbitrage never was a long term solution for complete economic integration, it could still function far more effectively if time arbitrage could function alongside it, without unduly expanding what general equilibrium revenue is capable of. Time arbitrage could create a new measure of economic value which in turn would lead to more horizontally aligned workplaces. New patterns such as these could effectively disperse applied knowledge beyond what price making and skills arbitrage has achieved in a system where money is the sole determinant of economic value.

Also, time arbitrage as a horizontally aligned system, would not demand so much monetarily as to further compromise what central bankers can reasonably accomplish. Time as a valid unit of measure, could compel us to more closely examine how intangible wealth sometimes distorts monetary roles, particularly when money is expected to function as the sole source of economic value.

Time value as directly generated wealth, could allow a majority of human capital to eventually flourish. Economic time options are all the more important, now that fiat monetary systems face too many competing demands for citizens to fully take part in the economy. By allowing time to function as a more precise form of economic value, fiat systems might eventually benefit from greater economic stability, as well. Ultimately, we can have higher hopes for a brighter future, by defining wealth creation in economic terms which go beyond what money can buy.

When Monetary Representation Becomes Fragile

Can monetary policy retain a stable and relatively constant level (near to mid term), given the uncertainties of the pandemic? Since this most recent recession began with extensive supply side disruptions - subsequently impacting aggregate demand - no one knows for certain. However, even though the Fed has yet to adopt NGDPLT, the Mercatus center has created a new measure called the NGDP Gap, which among other things will highlight nominal income stability. This new measure could help people determine how closely the Fed adheres to representing economic activity without undue gaps or changes in valuation.

Nevertheless, overall monetary representation may remain somewhat fragile in the years ahead, even if central bankers adhere to an optimal course. Only consider how prior to the pandemic, monetary policy became compromised by structurally uneven equilibrium coordination between tradable and non tradable sectors. The latter is more prone to price making than the former. Plus, they represent human capital in highly different ways which have yet to be fully accounted for. By way of example, the marginal revolution which is so important to tradable sector activity, is less a determinant of economic outcomes in non tradable sector activity. Ultimately, better defined economic roles are needed for all human capital, before non tradable sector activity ceases to detract from equilibrium balance and optimal monetary representation.

Extensive price making in non tradable sectors tends to compromise aggregate output, which in turn makes it difficult to align aggregate output with a stable nominal income trajectory. Since price taking involves better coordination of all resource capacity, it has proven simpler for monetary policy to represent tradable sector output, during long periods of relative tradable sector dominance. However, once general equilibrium is dominated by price making outcomes, assets tend to experience additional pressure as well. As asset values rise, some become convinced that monetary policy is too "loose", even though this actually may not be the case. Rather, when full economic participation is limited to subsets of given populations, the consequent output reductions impose higher prices elsewhere, thus making it appear to some that monetary policy has become too expansionary. In short, monetary policy may struggle to contribute to optimal aggregate output, once price making becomes dominant in general equilibrium.

Fortunately, this sectoral imbalance could be addressed through a broader interpretation of human potential in the marketplace - one which includes more price taking for time value in equilibrium context. By bringing greater economic value to all human capital potential, we could also do much to stabilize monetary representation. A better representation of aggregate time value, would make it simpler for a level nominal target to serve as a reliable snapshot or historical memory of economic value. Toward this end, the adaptation of time use potential as a valid economic unit, might help to restore money to its vital role in defined economic wealth and value.

Further, time use as an expression of economic value, creates more space for a wide range of maintenance functions which otherwise become limited in mature economies, as budgets are strained by competing objectives. Time arbitrage would not only preserve time value for society as a whole, it could contribute to maintenance activities involving a broad spectrum of knowledge and skill, so as to better preserve already existing wealth.

Three Basic Ingredients for Economic Stability

While there are many ways to envision what contributes to economic stability, the current pandemic suggests a closer look at basic ingredients. Should it prove difficult to maintain current wealth levels, a focus on the essentials could also lead to sturdier safety net options. I find it useful to think about three elements in particular: First, the importance of stabilizing what is nominal. Then, building a simpler framing for physical and non physical aspects of the real economy which the nominal represents.

As a market monetarist, I also believe it is vital to maintain a level nominal target, so that general equilibrium will (hopefully) remain stabilized. And even though level NGDP targeting is not the stated approach of the Fed, central bankers have more closely adhered to nominal stability since the mistakes of the Great Recession. The greater danger now, however, is that monetary stabilization could be threatened by extensive supply side disruptions. Adjusting for optimal aggregate demand will be quite the challenge, since present supply side uncertainties - unlike many previous shocks to the real economy - are due to factors too numerous to understand.

Consequently, despite what it can accomplish in the near future, monetary policy still needs to adjust to lost general equilibrium capacity, at some point. In other words, accurate nominal representation also depends on what the real economy is able to accomplish. Clearly, there is a great deal of interdependence between the nominal realm, the physical realm, and human oriented aspects of our economic lives.

Again, consider what present uncertainty consists of, insofar as many chains of financial obligation are being disrupted. How will society respond? Understandably, fiscal policy also seeks to stabilize general equilibrium conditions. Nevertheless, doing so is only feasible up to a point. All the more so, when fiscal stabilization attempts to include many activities that are not essential to getting things done.

In all of this, many small businesses won't survive, and some Main Streets could end up even less dynamic than before. For instance, one third of Americans missed their rent payments in April. This means problems for renters and landlords alike. Stephen Cecchetti and Kermit Schoenholtz explain what financial institutions also face:

Banks will not be able to dodge the financial fallout. Many borrowers are likely to suspend repayment soon, presaging widespread default. We will not know the extent of the damage or who will ultimately bear the costs, for some time.

Yet this time really is different, as they further note:

Rather than the financial system undermining the real economy, it is very much the other way around. With few exceptions (like Sweden), advanced economies have entered a form of suspended animation. As a result, households and business are losing income that they can never replace. The hope is that the COVID-19 crisis does not trigger a full-fledged financial crisis, exacerbating what is already destined to be the most severe global downturn since the 1930s. 

Many households and businesses are going to need financial options in the foreseeable future, which rely on lower monthly expense levels. Hence when considering basic ingredients for economic stability, simplification of everyday living circumstance is key to making this possible. By way of example, in my most recent post , I suggested flexible building and infrastructure options as a way to address structural physical aspects of the real economy.

Likewise, broader options for economic participation and use of human capital, are needed for non physical aspects of our environments. We need locally applied time arbitrage, to rescue what are increasingly endangered knowledge chains. Two recent articles offer unsettling examples. From NPR:

According to a report released this month by the Chartis Center for Rural Health, nearly half of rural hospitals were already operating in the red before the COVID-19 crisis.

Further, Dylan Scott writes for Vox that hospitals are cutting staff "just when America needs them most". Even though the initial healthcare losses took place largely outside of hospitals, staff cuts are beginning to spread inside of these institutions. Only recall that much of this problem stems from the fact today's healthcare is heavily dependent on existing wealth - much of which is in jeopardy at least in the short term.

Let's create simpler procedures and settings for ownership and economic participation, so that individuals and businesses aren't jeopardized every time a month's revenues fall short. Ultimately, we could end up struggling to maintain general equilibrium in its present configuration. But even if existing wealth is somehow diminished, imagine what could still be done, to strengthen and preserve its core.

Why not make our physical and non physical environments easier to access for all concerned. If we can shake loose structural rigidities how productive activities are "supposed" to occur, oppressive financial burdens could be lightened as well. A direct structural approach today, would be better than the indirect response of a debt jubilee later on. Perhaps debt jubilees of the past also reflected the unwillingness of societies to relax their own expectations for working and living requirements. Debt jubilees may have been no real panacea, if they left in place the same rigid requirements that negated the economic participation of millions - even in good times. Let's work on reducing unnecessary barriers to ownership and economic participation, so that a better new normal might eventually emerge.

Some Considerations re Economic Stability

Already it is evident that pandemics don't provide easy answers, when it comes to maintaining economic stability. How to know, who or what could most benefit from assistance over extended periods? Appropriate fiscal policy is no easy feat, yet governments have few options to directly address workplace losses which have occurred practically overnight.

Granted, fiscal support for pressing healthcare needs will remain crucial in the immediate future. Access to testing and other vital services, will also play roles in the time it takes to regain normalcy. But while support for healthcare systems is paramount, some aspects of financial stabilization may not prove optimal in the months ahead.

Determining where financial stabilization could help most, is even more difficult in a time of growing budgetary pressures and extensive long term debt obligations. Hence two questions on many minds at state and local levels, basically come down to this: Which spending options are discretionary? Or, which spending is absolutely essentially for individuals, firms and organizations - regardless of what happens? It helps to recall that while fixed production costs are generally associated with private firms, individuals and families have relatively close equivalents, in many instances.

Washington has finally completed its deliberations for a massive stimulus package, yet this might only be the first. For example, James Pethokoukis expressed concern that the current round of fiscal stimulus may only address a months' worth of necessities.

Fiscal assistance for supply side losses is all the more challenging, since policy makers are tasked with taking the fixed costs of businesses and citizens alike, into consideration. Still, governments still have little choice but to pick favorites, with a fiscal policy approach. Even now, there are ways in which monetary policy functions more efficiently, to "get in the cracks" where fixed cost remedies can't be readily ascertained.

Nevertheless, monetary policy will face its own challenges, due to extensive supply side disruptions from millions of people staying at home. Given this reality, will central bankers remain willing, to preserve full monetary representation at present capacity? In particular, rising unemployment is going to be a real issue in coming months. A record 3.28 million workers filed for unemployment last week, and as the WSJ noted, "The long run of American job growth has ended." Gred Mankiw adds further perspective from data compiled on hourly employees. Already, "hours worked by hourly employees is down by more than 50 percent", and this is approximately 60% of the labour force.

Fortunately, there are improvements to unemployment claim processes in the stimulus package, which will provide additional access for small businesses and the self employed. With a little luck, once people start to return to their workplaces and the economy begins to improve, today's short term fiscal assistance can gradually transition to the broader stabilization methods of monetary policy.

Will monetary policy prove capable of restoring long term growth, once employment levels normalize? Hopefully, yes. Just the same, perhaps better methods are needed, which can take into account the non discretionary obligations which all citizens face, regardless of workplace participation levels. These non discretionary obligations are vital to general equilibrium dynamics, and the act of recognizing them, might better ensure that full monetary representation continues to take place. Non discretionary fixed costs in our daily lives, are an important focus of current fiscal policy. But hopefully, a broader range of non discretionary obligations will gain prominence in monetary policy, once fiscal remedies are no longer necessary.