Thoughts on Supply Shocks, Unemployment and Inflation Avoidance

Last week Timothy Taylor posted "A Primer on Ukraine's Economic Troubles", which is one of the more thoughtful commentaries regarding Ukraine's present struggles. In particular, this paragraph stood out:

Because Ukraine's trade deficits are large, Ukraine depends on large flows of capital from other countries, and thus has high and unsustainable levels of debt service to pay. A potential answer here is to devalue the currency, and there was a 40% devaluation back in 2008. But when so much of what a country buys and sells is in world markets, a large devaluation of your currency is wildly unpopular--in effect it makes the costs of all exports rise and the costs of all imports rise.

Admittedly I want to contrast some aspects of this scenario in what are relative terms, and what follows is somewhat random. Even though Ukraine's economy is only partially developed, its citizens are as resistant to inflation as anyone: such as the disgruntled shopper I highlighted in a recent post. Many nations now rely heavily on what is bought and sold in world markets. However that is more beneficial for any nation, when economic interdependence is more a matter of choice than one of necessity. When the dependence is perceived as necessity, that just adds to supply shocks - especially when political ramifications are involved. Another consideration is that supply shocks can have more complex monetary implications, when a nation does not have a fully developed service sector.

Indeed, monetary expansion can be somewhat risky for any country whose "natural" rate of unemployment appears to be increasing: something which has been on my mind since Taylor's post. Again, this goes back to aggregate participation in the economy or lack thereof. Any nation which seeks to replace human labor with technology has to consider potential negative monetary effects. Plus, economic participation on the part of all citizens, means fewer problems for nations which seek a higher growth trajectory. That should hold true for a number of reasons.

Even developed countries may not benefit from imports to the degree it would seem. For one thing, those with fixed incomes are more exposed to inflation in general. That means they often resist the optimal and efficient prices of discretionary goods, because of the degree to which their income is already captured by local and not so efficient non discretionary product. Part of the problem is that much of what is clearly efficient production (capable of good deflation), often falls into imports and exports categories. Whereas local economies with "captured" consumers may not have the same pricing incentives to reach global consumers. Some medical complexes in the U.S. approach this differently, however, with appeals to consumers worldwide which are not necessarily offered to local consumers.

What's more, policy makers don't always have the appreciation for good deflation values which some imports represent. Instead, imports may be seen (still) as competitors for local production which - again, often has the ability to produce for a higher cost than what the import would represent. This can have repercussions in other areas of production as well, such as the effects of higher sugar costs for U.S. food production.

These are just some of the elements which reduce the benefits of good deflation where it does occur. Therefore the consumer is left with a consumption basket more heavily weighted with less productive elements from government and special  interests. If that were not enough, central bankers still try to skim inflation away by further reducing nominal income potential. All of which leaves the consumer more aggravated at headline inflation, which takes much of the blame for what could be better and more efficient adjustments all around.

Some Postings Suggest Balance...

...in terms of perspective. That is, lots of interpretations are possible, between two posts which caught my eye this morning. These two links made me think about what appears to be a return of a more traditional society, of which I have yet to come to terms with. However my concern is not for the reason that some may think. Rather, I fear that elements of traditionalism suggest economic regression - even if it would not appear that way to some. And admittedly I'm not quite ready for any regressions: after all I grew up in a time frame when it seemed as though the march towards modernity could only continue. I also touched on these thoughts in a recent post, and wondered what these social (and economic) changes could mean.

First, as to the contested point which was made by Jared Diamond in his most recent book. What are we to make of the idea that in traditional societies, people are more likely to kill strangers? While the author's context was lifted from earlier traditional societies, one cannot help but think about other possible correlations. Indeed, for anyone who has lived for some time in a limited economic environment, the premise can be a bit unsettling.

Only think of the civilizing effects of economic life that Adam Smith spoke of, for instance. Studies have shown that people are suspicious and less trusting of others, when they live where economic activity is either discouraged or otherwise inadequate. My own experience in such an environment for a full decade, was an apt reminder, how precious a full range of economic options really is. Recently in a search for regional economic connections, I confronted the "Don't Tread On Me" banner over and over again. Those years of living in an economically deprived area came back to me, in a flood of memories. How to think about the banner, and the reactionary tone which it carries?

But then, there is the appeal to morality which Miles Kimball reminded me of in his above linked post, which gives the banner further meaning. Jonathan Haidt made excellent points as to what Tea Partiers really wanted, and the karma element is one that most anyone can relate to. When modernity moves into directions which are widely perceived as unethical, I agree with such sentiment. Certainly, the definition of unethical differs from one person to the next. When some forms of "progress" mean taking too many chances with human lives, I tend to agree it has gone too far.

What concerns me is that too much which is positive and rewarding about economic life, could get shut down in a return to traditionalism. Everyone relies on connections which go well beyond family and one's own personal circle. But without a full range of economic choices and possibilities, the connections we count on to augment our personal and social realities, don't really happen. As important as our inner circles are, they can only support us to a limited extent, in terms of how we aspire to live in the world. Where I have an issue with "Don't tread on me" sentiments, is the isolation they can imply.

Even so, there are far better ways to represent freedom and democracy than going to other nations and trying to tell anyone how to live their lives. Fortunately, the digital age means being able to provide examples of evolving productive systems, without forcing them on anyone else. This is where I agree with those who want less government, in that local systems need to be able to find their own means for prosperity. It's just that I believe national governments still have important roles to play, and the differences between local and national roles need to be better defined.

P.S. Some readers may be interested in the page that I added at the top right of the blog, "Could Intentional Marketplaces Work For Everyone?" As I worked on that page, it struck me that in spite of what anyone is led to believe about freedom or limiting governments, planning of every kind conceivable is going to continue happening just the same. That being the case, why not work towards intentional marketplaces which actually work for the citizens, who are expected to be responsible for it all.

Why I Don't Have a "Beef" With Rising Beef Prices

The always thorny issue of price inflation got stuck in my mind, after an evening newscast a couple of weeks ago. In the meat aisle of a grocery store, a shopper held up a package of ground beef for the news camera. "It's more than eight dollars!" she ranted. "How am I going to continue feeding my family if the price of meat keeps going up? After all, I've got to save money so that I will be able to afford to send my kids to college!"

A number of thoughts came into my mind at once, upon hearing her complaint. Even though this was a middle class worker with middle class expectations, the price of meat represented a threat to her, because it was just part of a much larger array of expenses she faced. Whereas to me, the meat still seemed like a bargain, considering how little eight dollars is capable of buying in services. But I digress. In the U.S. for as long as I can remember, beef has been treated by many shoppers as a staple good. If indeed one thinks of it that way, perhaps it's easy to feel threatened. One should be able to save money for needed services! Why aren't producers cooperating??

But lower income individuals and people in many nations tend to treat meat as a tasty addition to meals, rather than the primary component. Plus the fact that not much is really needed at one time, for the protein allotment that maintains a stable metabolism. Was it irrational to expect the shopper to adjust her thinking? For one thing, the rising cost of beef is due to supply side factors which everyone could see coming in recent years, as drought conditions have worsened in the U.S. and ranchers have been forced to sell off increasing portions of their herds. Less beef available, means higher prices.

Common sense though this may seem - and while the evening news has also covered relevant drought stories numerous times - it's easy to get caught up in how a rising price could be affecting one's personal situation. Therefore, it's also easy for political factions and special interests to shift blame to the wrong places. The frustration for many a market monetarist is the degree to which rising prices such as this - which are so often a result of supply side factors - continue to misguide central bankers.

As a result, when central bankers react to consumer frustration by tightening money supply, less money all around is available for the everyday economic activities which were already in progress. It becomes more difficult for people to coordinate the money that remains in the system at any given moment. The fact that less money is available in the specific time intervals it is actually needed, only further destabilizes the economy. And yet, central bankers often attempt to rectify supply side circumstance which are out of their control. The sad part is that not enough central bankers think in terms of nominal stability. As a result, they are now inclined to "side" with the frustrated shopper, to the detriment of all.

In other words, normal "moving parts" of  the economy can either be shortchanged or over represented, when resources and assets of random quantity are given too dominant a role in monetary policy calculations. Of course this rationale may not satisfy the consumer. Why aren't food prices a part of core inflation, the shopper wants to know? Because the central bank could throw up its hands and tighten money supply further, yet the shopper is still likely to end up with the aggravating price tag in spite of it all. If that were not enough, more jobs and businesses have bit the dust in the meantime.

There's other ways to think about the situation. It was interesting to me that the above mentioned shopper expected the price of her food to make up for (what are in fact) artificial limitations on services supply - as opposed to the real limitations in food production which were making her grocery bill higher. How could she be expected to consider, that artificial service and knowledge use limitations were the greater culprit? Without such knowledge, what country is not going to have a population which is resistant to price increases of any kind, controllable or not?

New readers could readily mistake my argument as a need to reduce services. However that is not the point I wish to make. What is important, is changing the way services are structured, so that they can actually grow in importance and scope. If services could be coordinated in local marketplaces through direct patterns (instead of the limitations of taxation and redistribution), many of them would no longer have to remain on the negative side of the ledger, in national accounting terms. That would make services true wealth, instead of the present day subtraction from wealth that has taken away so much hope for the future.

More people need to be actively participating in the economy on a regular basis. The more that everyone has stake in ongoing economic activities, the greater the ability for nations to overcome supply side shocks of all kinds. If the grocery store shopper does not have to worry so about the costs of college and whether her children can make their way in the world, the price of that package of beef is not going to seem like such a big deal.

Let A Thousand Placebos Bloom

...Yet another quirky post title, but there's a good reason for it. What do I mean by placebos? Everyone occasionally needs relatively simple interactions with others, in order to feel better about any number of things. Yet not enough service product is really structured or valued on placebo effect terms. Of course, sometimes "simple" isn't enough, and concrete remedies or measures are warranted. That's when fear of sub par or at least inadequate service product, is a perfectly rational response.

The problem now, is that a highly educated healthcare marketplace has command of both realms. Hence we're often obligated to buy the full service bundle - exclusive education and all it entails, even for little more than a cold (Here's one exception). Or the patient may be seeking - and paying for - something far more specific, yet receives only a placebo effect. In today's marketplace, there's not a lot the average individual can do.

While low levels of disappointment are certainly not worth suing anyone over, there still needs to be marketplace designations for general health related concerns which don't require the same intensive training, accreditation, and overall approach. Why should everyone be expected to pay the going rate of a Master's degree or PhD level of education, for example, when all they really need is someone who will patiently listen to their stories and concerns? Another example: sometimes it's helpful to know how others alter their diets and lifestyle patterns to manage migraines. That's particularly true, when one does not have hundreds of dollars for prescription drugs to do the managing for them.

When I speak of (needed) market deregulation in this regard, some readers assume that doing so would only lead to worse service provisions. Indeed, under some circumstances that could happen. However, deregulation is not just about getting rid of procedures which prove "inconvenient" to special interests - which is another matter entirely. Deregulation also has the potential to free up knowledge use pathways, so that people are able to create a more user friendly and natural services marketplace.

Just the same, rational fears re service mishaps, are a primary weapon in the arsenal which belongs to medical providers in the U.S. In the meantime this prevents a better, more efficient marketplace, for multiple healthcare options. Uncertainty plays its own role, in limiting healthcare product definition and service capacity. Even marginal changes such as allowing nurses and other aides to do more for patients, are easily blocked as a result.

I understand that of all the components of a free marketplace, the idea of nudging healthcare down from its lofty heights is the hardest sell of all. In circumstances of true uncertainty, every one of us wants the "real deal" - not something masquerading as the real artifact. Sometimes the difference is a matter of life and death. The problem is the degree to which subjective experiences get bundled with concrete problems, which may need a decade of skill honing to solve.

Skills set bundling issues present other problems as well. As a result (in the U.S.) alternative methods are generally only used, when someone who is trained in traditional medicine also studied alternative methods alongside regular activities. These providers are still the exception, rather than the rule. While this allows greater choice for the patient, it's quite limited. That's true both in the sense of where these doctors and nurses actually reside, and the time they have to provide the skill sets which the patient seeks. Thus, sought after skill sets are still routinely sidelined, in terms of both supply and demand.

Today, even when alternative skills sets are available, they may be deemed inadequate or even inappropriate in some settings. While we need more entrepreneurs of skills sets in every town and city, there are still hurdles to such individuals being able to set up practice. Mark Perry provides a wonderful Institute for Justice example, of a horse massage therapist who turned her love of horses into a business, only to be told that she could not do so. Hopefully the Institute for Justice will win this case, and Celeste Kelly will be allowed to remain in business in the state of Arizona.

Years ago I had an older horse which suffered from arthritis in the winter months. Fortunately, a local veterinarian knew acupuncture methods. While it was strange indeed to see my horse walking around the pasture with those long needles hanging from its winter coat, the animal certainly felt better afterwards, for weeks at a time. I was really glad that the veterinarian could do something that would actually help.

Let a thousand placebos bloom, and if some of them turn out to be relatively silly or seemingly dumb, let the average individual decide. Indeed, one's skills sets and offerings may not seem silly or dumb at all, to the next potential patient and/or customer. After all, one person's placebo is another person's cure. Even doctors have provided plenty of relief with placebos - why should they be the only ones who can do so?

Midweek Market Monetarist Links and Summaries - 3/5/14

The worst part of the financial crisis happened after a passive Fed tightening (David Beckworth)
http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2014/02/spawning-great-recession.html
David reiterates the point that some commenters missed in the earlier post:
http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2014_03_01_archive.html

What's good for the U.S. seems to be a reasonable assumption as well, for EMs (Scott Sumner)
Putting one's own house in order
Some folk aren't yet familiar with Abenomics, it seems...
Never reason from a quantity change (unless you coined the phrase)
As Benjamin Cole asked, "How many times can you go back to the well, and raise VAT taxes and lower payroll taxes?" Oh, so it's stimulus you need
Significantly, the Fed indicated that it was ignoring oil prices...
Matt O'Brien on the Fed's mistakes during 2008
Questions for conservatives include "What would 'tight' money look like?" How much longer?

Sumner's Econlog posts for the week include
Does Happiness Cause Income?
The Mysterious Rise in Youth Unemployment
Is Abenomics Working?
NGDP targeting is not a "fragile" policy

Why does "easy" monetary policy bring out the worst in people? (Marcus Nunes)
http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/this-is-straight-from-a-script-to-a-bela-lugosi-film/
In charts - nominal level and growth are reliable indicators for FF movements.
http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/identifying-the-stance-of-monetary-policy/
Has evolution "given up" on Charles Plosser? http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/2008-all-over-again/
Government has yet to be convinced that in monetary terms, we are all riding the same bus.
http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/a-back-of-the-envelope-illustration-of-the-monetary-offset/
More tightening, please. Yeah, "that's the ticket". http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/best-headline-of-the-decade/
Marcus compares the U.S. and Eurozone in charts: http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/draghi-confirms-the-inflation-obsession-is-epidemic/

Benjamin Cole suggests changes for the Fed: http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/the-fomc-board-secrecy-and-obscurantism-do-not-make-for-good-democracy/ 
Politics and economics are too closely connected

When supply side "collides" with demand side (Britmouse)
http://uneconomical.wordpress.com/2014/02/27/minimum-wage-maximum-derp/
"...NGDP growth has picked up to 4.5% over the year to Q4..."  http://uneconomical.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/uk-2013-nominal-gdp/
Global Recovery...rising oil prices! Oops...can't win for losing.

There's a new blogger in our midst - Ravi Varghese. In this post he considers deflation:
http://insecurityanalyst.blogspot.com/2014/02/what-is-deflation-really.html
An interesting take on obliquity http://insecurityanalyst.blogspot.com/2014/03/will-real-mr-roosevelt-please-stand-up.html

Geo political risk is an aggregate supply shock (Lars Christensen)  http://marketmonetarist.com/2014/02/27/a-crimean-style-aggregate-supply-shock/
I agree - a book definitely worth reading: http://marketmonetarist.com/2014/03/01/book-of-the-day-fragile-by-design/
Wauw...just wauw! http://marketmonetarist.com/2014/03/01/who-is-regulating-the-regulators/
Also, http://marketmonetarist.com/2014/03/04/my-interview-on-radio-free-europe-about-ukrainerussia/

There's nothing new in the Keynesian AS function (Nick Rowe): http://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2014/02/keynes-gt-chapter-3.html

David Glasner highlights Matthew O' Brien's article:
http://uneasymoney.com/2014/02/28/exposed-irrational-inflation-phobia-at-the-fed-caused-the-panic-of-2008/
Krugman could have singled out inflation phobia for the problem it truly represented:
http://uneasymoney.com/2014/03/04/why-fed-inflation-phobia-mattered/

Also of interest:

Quite a jump in public assistance, for people with Master's degrees and PhD's between 2007 and 2010:
http://www.businesspundit.com/could-this-be-a-new-normal-for-united-states/

James Pethokoukis isn't happy about the "new normal" either:
Is America really going to accept a permanent economic slowdown?

Cooperation is Like a "Farm To Market Road" for Competition

Or...cooperative frameworks already need to be in progress, before competition is possible. To that end, cooperation serves as a portal to competition. In the U.S., some small roads are labeled FM, which is an old farm to market designation and the source of my quirky post title. So how could cooperation be construed as a beginning point, to make more competition possible in a larger sense? Consider that market monetarists - for instance - seek greater stability through a nominal target for total spending capacity. But problems ensue when supply potential ends up constrained by political factions. That also leads to a marketplace where some supply and demand possibilities completely break down, making it impossible to know what full economic potential actually is.

Societal cooperation - in the form of domestic summits - could provide ways to address structural supply side issues which get into the way of demand provisions. Citizens of all walks of life live differently, and need to be able to express those income and cultural differences to a greater degree than is now possible. That is, people wish to live, work and interact with one another in ways which are not well represented by existing marketplace conditions. Presently, competition is construed  in static formations which not only limit competition and commerce overall, but make economic demand side issues even more difficult to resolve, in monetary terms.

Consequently, the only real "competition" left, is scrambling for the limited spots available in the overall framework. There's a difference between well thought out cooperation that makes competition ongoing, and the half thought through cooperation which leaves competition only partial as well. What's more, such partial negotiations tend to leave people with limited choices. In other words, these kinds of marketplace "remains" are a poor substitute, for the kinds of competition which would allow true economic access and choice. The "winners" are the residuals, in an environment which played the game so as to cycle through the significant competition possibilities, at the outset.

It's easy to view bungled processes up close, and confuse all the scrambling going on for a true competitive environment. In a recent post, Tim Worstall tosses out a somewhat irreverent, even macho review of a new book by  Margaret Heffernan, "A Bigger Prize: Why Competition Isn't Everything and How We Can Do Better". First, from the book summary:

...competition regularly produces just what we don't want: rising levels of fraud, cheating, stress, inequality and political stalemate.

She goes on to blame competition for everything from sibling rivalry to school burnout. In Heffernan's defense, plenty of discussion elsewhere phrases competition in similar terms. Even so, I can understand Worstall's response to her book - a reaction which can be summed up in a single word: fluffy. However, Worstall also focuses on up close and personal elements of competition - the ones I see as residual adaptations to a relatively non competitive environment, with this quote:

Market competition is how we choose whom to cooperate with.

While that seems backwards to me, I have to remember that Worstall may perceive ongoing "competitive" environments as necessarily static. Perhaps even more importantly, there are positive elements of static (especially from a conservative's perspective) which also need to be considered. After all, creative destruction might just decide on one's own personal niche, as a target - that's certainly happened to me a number of times. Worstall stressed that we aren't looking for "suppliers" continuously, and perhaps that contributes to his stance that the need for cooperation is also limited.

Unfortunately however, cooperation is particularly needed now, to give new life to competitive processes. In the 20th century, existing "farm to market" portals worked pretty well for most everyone. That meant cooperation in a larger sense was deemed less important. People not only forgot how to approach general decision making in cooperative terms, they forgot that it could even be necessary, to do so. What's more, governments aren't built for the kinds of internal cooperation which could utilize technology in more beneficial and adaptable ways.

As a result, governments confuse analog and digital processes to such a degree, that centralized and decentralized systems to combine the two no longer work. For instance, I've observed Social Security personnel continue to bungle up a simple recording and account procedure - one which seemingly could have been taken care of in a quarter hour - for the past five months. But everyone is used to government having sole responsibility, for multiple facets of the marketplace including its design. Who else is in a position, to think about arranging the pieces of the board for the benefit of the actual players?

This is also a conundrum for Arnold Kling, in that the libertarian desire for personal and economic freedom is completely thwarted by politics. He spoke of a need to just focus on work and family, and speculated whether libertarians could even reasonably hope for more. After all, what incentive does government have to craft common economic access for everyone? Umm, maybe there is an incentive after all - the possibility of national failures. Domestic varieties can be particularly nasty. And failure strikes most often, when special interests are most intent to make sure nothing changes - i.e. the present stance of business. Behind a pretense of "uncertainty" for do nothing attitudes, the reality is a certainty on the part of conservative business endeavor to protect its own.

Who even thinks about what free markets might actually represent? For instance, I rant against static markets on a regular basis, but to what end? Indeed the libertarian take in this regard may depend on generational circumstance. In other words, the older libertarian presently appears to "lose" wealth if digital contexts are allowed to coexist or even merge with the analog context of the marketplace. How much creative destruction is actually possible without undue loss? Or, how much flexibility can general systems tolerate without a compete loss of the status quo?

Something to remember: so long as it is left to government and business interests, free markets may not actually be possible, as Mark Perry indicates with this Milton Friedman video. What might governments think, if their own citizens organize for greater economic inclusion, and a better understanding as to what economic activity truly represents? For me, the flexibility of cooperation needs to lie within the larger context of where all roads lead. After all if cooperation does not exist for a common meeting ground, it can't exist up close in the aggregate, a few idyllic firms notwithstanding. But how is societal cooperation possible, if not through political means?

Consider the need to protect suppliers. This need arises because the consequences of economic setbacks are severe and quite difficult to overcome. To overcome this problem, a more flexible marketplace means reducing the risk to supply choices and financial commitments, by shared coordination in general marketplace settings. That way, if some product options and offerings fail, would be suppliers can start anew in personally managed settings without constant bankruptcies.

With more flexible platforms for general economic access and product offerings, everyone is also less inclined to block the first moves of others who seek to change product status. Fundamentally, humans wish to constantly tinker with product status: a primary reason why complex marketplaces arose. But oftentimes, the marketplace is set up so that commitment to highly specific economic activity or skill set use is all that is possible. Sure enough, the same marketplace that arose to protect participants, makes it difficult for them to adapt when it becomes necessary to do so. But the more that people are willing to cooperate this time, the more likely that real and ongoing competition might be the fortunate result.

Imaginary Treasures

Specifically, that which "exists" to be somehow pried from the U.S. Treasury. Some asset holdings in particular can fool observers, who read more into them (in terms of wide distributive potential) than they are actually capable of providing. Fiscal strategies of the present have more limitations than the fiscal options which previously existed. How so?

Those who dream of procuring a "magic" fiscal key for continued growth, perhaps do not realize it was already claimed a half century earlier! Lest anyone think those in power might provision needed skills sets, let alone a general income guarantee for the underemployed and the unemployed, something stands in the way. Indeed, the roadblock has some bearing, on why it seems necessary to compensate those who can't participate.

Not only does this create issues for governmental decision making processes. That "early grab" also leads to another unfortunate rationale. It goes something like this: if the government can't "get us out of a fix", how or why should the Fed be able to? So what's the problem? If "all roads lead to Rome", most monetary roads of the U.S. present eventually meander back to healthcare. Uwe Reinhardt wrote an incisive article, which explains how the key to the Treasury was already claimed. From the opening paragraph:

About half a century ago, organized medicine and the hospital industry in this country struck a deal with Congress that in retrospect seems as audacious as it seems incredible. Congress was asked to surrender to these industries the keys to the United States Treasury. 

Reinhardt's article matters on so many levels that I was hard pressed to just focus on a couple of points for this post. Indeed, when I read it, I already had a post in progress, detailing the degree to which healthcare was swallowing up everything in its path. Specifically: the economic demands of healthcare, now impact the ways in which wealth is defined and determined.

For instance, only think how nonsensical Republican strategies for smaller government sometimes seem. After all, the healthcare establishment is part and parcel of how government and private business often operate together - Obamacare or no. Does anyone think a general income could actually be implemented to get rid of "welfare", when said welfare is mostly a way to reimburse special interests "catering" to limited incomes? Unfortunately, no proposed solutions to simplify the system will work, so long as the underlying intent remains that of protecting knowledge and skills use rights for the limited few.

One recent TV commercial bashed Obamacare yet again, and compared it to a high school food fight. But the premise was lame indeed. No alternatives were offered in the last voting season and no one is offering any now. The Republicans could come up with nothing better ("vote for us instead"), than "we're not food fighting we're too busy creating jobs". Jobs are great - if and when it's possible to create them in resource rich states - but that rationale is hardly a true counter for the real problem which Republicans have yet to face.

So long as political parties are about oil (for or against) and other special interests, renewed fossil fuel production mostly serves to "feed the monsters" of skills limitation. That means precious little left over, for societal vision and continued growth into the future. Small wonder that party platforms get uptight when anyone actually confronts them on their lack of strategy. So long as everyone plays offense and defense re "meddling" governments, the "roads" of jobs, taxes and retirement benefits which eventually end up in healthcare wealth, cannot change course.

Who even has an idea anymore, what an optimal amount of healthcare might be? That is, in contrast to other ongoing societal needs, desires and aspirations? Both supply and demand for healthcare have been skewered for so long, that normal lifetime healthcare needs get put off until one can take care of them in retirement - at least in the U.S.

This issue goes well beyond the incentive to allow everyone to participate, in anything remotely related to healthcare. People need to be able to do so at all stages of life. Otherwise we also end up with the lousy default option of today's dramatic surgeries, which find much of their primary compensation in the U.S. for late life issues.

While this is an important facet of healthcare, it never should have overshadowed the multiplicity of ways in which healthcare was once utilized. By focusing on retirement age issues over the actuality of  lifetime health needs, we also alter the trajectory as to what late life issues might even consist of. Sometimes, extensive surgeries offer a new lease on life and hope. Other times, they are - unfortunately - imaginary treasures. We don't have to be harsh judges to decipher the unknown difference (death panels) ahead of time, if we are willing to transform what is now an extremely expensive resource based choice.

First, "do no harm" according to the Hippocratic oath. Yet to a considerable degree, the harm has already been done, as economic activity of all kinds remains in doubt. How can anyone know whether resources and assets will be productively used, if feeding "the hungry monster" means people can no longer rely on compensation for their own attributes. It has became progressively more difficult to compensate many people in the workplace, who do not work directly with subsets of chronic illness as covered by Medicare.

What's more, people who once knew how to tend to basic healthcare needs, have been told for nearly a century to just let the experts take care of it all for them. Conditioned over time to not help themselves in this regard, they end up waiting for someone else to help them instead. Now, even monetary systems are finding themselves compromised, from the results of these needless power designations. It is time to provide the healing that heals on all levels - by allowing people to take care of themselves on true economic terms, once again.