My Biggest Concern

I'm afraid we're losing our perception of what a diverse and truly desirable marketplace actually consists of. Also, we appear to be in danger of losing the vitality of the one which still exists. There is a certain amount of over confidence in particular, regarding the ability to maintain strong economic conditions in spite of lagging labor force participation and excessive requirements for access. Equally concerning, are growing negative reactions to capitalism as concept - most of which are actually reactions to the forces that threaten to destroy true marketplace freedom and economic mobility.

Even though no major economic depression has (yet) occurred in my lifetime, sometimes I'm still reminded of the last one. Yesterday, while sitting down to sandwiches and some fresh vegetables, Dad recounted a memory from 1932, that was triggered by a jar of Miracle Whip dressing on the table. Perhaps his recollection would not have been so vivid, were it not for the unfortunate combination of depression circumstance alongside an unexpected hurricane in the coastal town where they lived at the time.

That storm took place well before the days of what one might consider sufficient advance preparation. Everyone - including some less fortunate neighbors - was lucky indeed that the old wooden frame house was not blown apart. Instead, during the storm, it fell off the block supports which were underneath. For days afterward, there was no electricity or gas. Meanwhile, the only meals for the kids were a loaf of bread and - yes - the aforementioned jar of salad dressing. "I couldn't eat Miracle Whip for a long time after that! Times were hard.", Dad said. Then he mused, how on earth did Grandpa get by without coffee?

It's too easy now, to assume that high levels of social unpreparedness are no longer a problem for most populations in developed nations. But is this really so? Multiple systems of social coordination appear to be slowly breaking down. Each time something negative occurs, people react to the results of the problems that weren't previously resolved, instead of responding to issues as they present themselves.

There is too little recognition of the mutual responsibilities between government and private interests, which would otherwise help people maintain the liberties and freedoms they take for granted. Private interests use governments to destroy competition, while governments continue to maintain infrastructure expectations that were based on historic high points of tradable sector revenue.

As a result, young individuals are increasingly priced out of the very places where they would normally expect to begin their lives as adults. I can scarcely imagine how difficult life would have been for me, if I had not been able to gain good work while starting out in the seventies - even without the completion of a college degree. There is no comparison for those attempting to enter the workplace now. Even though there were periods when unemployment was high, the levels of economic access were still far greater for all concerned.

We need to rethink how it will be possible to work with one another in the near future, and closely consider what it takes to maintain our personal freedoms. I fear that our political representatives have lost the ability to coordinate the resource capacity among populations which would allow the gains of recent centuries to remain intact. This political season only illustrates how high the stakes actually are, in terms of an economic and social trajectory that is anything but normal. I know it's not easy to think about economic basics when everyone is in a state of reactionary fervor. But there is simply no other time to do so, because the next election season always overrides anything else that is going on. It's time to back up and reassess our situation while we still can.

The Economic Problem With Technocratic Rule

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised - what with today's political "silly seasons" - when some authors suggest democracy is outdated, hence it's time for a change. Arnold Kling in a recent post highlighted a new book,"Against Democracy" by Jason Brennan. From the review:

Brennan argues that democracy should be judged by its results - and the results are not good enough...democracy is the rule of the ignorant and the irrational, and it often falls short. Furthermore, no one has a fundamental right to any share of political power, and exercising political power does most of us little good. On the contrary, a wide range of social science research shows that political participation and democratic deliberation actually tend to make people worse - more irrational, biased and mean. Given this grim picture, Brennan argues that a new system of government - epistocracy, the rule of the knowledegable - may be better than democracy, and that it's time to experiment and find out.

Some of Kling's commenters were glad that Jason Brennan had written a new book, nevertheless weren't happy with the gist of his argument. One noted, "I was initially excited...However as soon as I learned he would like to see democracy replaced with rule by arrogant technocrats, I despaired."  From another response, "Indeed, although the cynic might argue that this is already the situation we have. If so, the question remains whether it would be for the best if this truth was formally acknowledged."

"Democracy is outdated" arguments have multiple dimensions, and the best way for me to respond is that a world without democracy is also a world where many would gradually lose their economic freedom. Without sufficient rights to create product for the marketplace, social and political freedom would suffer as well. Alas, the task of "proving" democracy's worthiness is beyond my time and ability. However, I'm concerned that a technocracy such as Brennan prefers, would not lead to a good economic outcome, especially in a mature economic equilibrium that needs to further evolve.

Presently, some among the elite - regardless of ideological motivation - are united in their desire to maintain production rights as they currently exist. This motivation has resulted in marketplace limits which are not only difficult to overcome, but would likely worsen if not addressed, soon. Even though knowledge use limits aren't necessarily problematic for the resource management of tradable sectors, they are, for non tradable sector formation. Why the difference?

Tradable sectors greatly contributed to marketplace expansion, because of earlier gains in scale. Product that is mobile in nature can always be replicated, even though less employment may be needed to make it happen. Whereas less employment in non tradable sector formation, only leads to less knowledge/time based product in aggregate. Less participation in non tradable sector employment, means less marketplace capacity in terms of both supply and demand. If a lack of time based services employment were not problematic enough, these lower employment levels are reflected in insufficient housing formation. This helps to explain why technocratic preferences for knowledge use limits, means limits in total marketplace capacity and output.

In short, just because a knowledge wielding elite may be smarter than the average voter, does not mean they would be naturally inclined to deliver the economic results that nations need. Indeed, if more citizens were given the chance to use the knowledge which has become so important in their daily lives, perhaps they would not appear so "stupid"! One can only hope that arguments to limit personal freedoms, will not win the day.

Instead of taking away citizen responsibility, it's better to let citizens know what is really at stake, and doing so is all the more important now for governmental budgets, pensions and retirement expectations. Today's governments need the help of all their citizens for long term growth, if they are to overcome the natural inclinations of special interests to divide the spoils of economic stagnation.

Economic Time Value is a Perishable Commodity

Of course, all time value is a perishable commodity. However, economic time value deserves special consideration, in part because of today's general equilibrium demands on the part of non tradable sectors. Unlike the majority of other resource capacity, the time we "spend" on anything, is time we can't regain. Yet the fact time is a perishable commodity is often missed. Indeed, one's personal time use options get little respect, if and when they aren't backed through monetary representation. Fortunately, we have the potential to make time value count on economic terms - a possibility that should not be lightly dismissed in an era of automation.

Some would say that time value is a precious commodity as well, and I agree. That said, precious is not to be confused with exclusive, which defines the nature of asymmetric (partial aggregate) compensation for time value in general equilibrium. Exclusive is that which has been "proven" in terms of personal stamina and worthiness. When we arbitrage for skill preference on general equilibrium terms, we lose the ability to arbitrage for aggregate skills capacity. The primary inequality in all of this is not one of general resource use, but of lost aggregate time value which is now beginning to impact nominal income levels.

And even though the broader compensated mutual assistance of time based product would not always appear as though "precious", that does not change the fact everyone spends time in personal effort with others that cannot be regained. In other words, time availability for productive and economic endeavor is the ultimate scarcity. This is important as a reasoning base, for compensating mutual assistance as a basic commodity good. Further, more that is truly precious can be found, in a marketplace for time value capable of greatly expanding the definition of practical and experiential time product.

For anyone who needs the full economic value of their their time as a starting point for personal responsibility, mutually compensated assistance would serve as a social contract - one which could help populations preserve the broad economic gains of recent centuries. By defining time value as a perishable commodity GDP component, the economic role of time value could address today's confusion, regarding long term growth potential.

Lost time value is all the more evident, for youth who consequently have few means to accumulate assets for future goals. In particular, arguments against childhood labor which gradually prevailed in recent centuries, are a mixed blessing. While formal schooling is valuable up to a point, childhood mandatory schooling does not correlate with the kinds of learning that provide either the most practical life skills or personal challenges.

The separation of children and young adults from the marketplace has gradually led to diminishing returns. Part of the confusion in this regard is the nature of labor itself - little of which is "hard" in the same sense as that which took place centuries earlier. Hence today's students have been expected to spend years on efforts which have little economic/social reinforcement or impact with others. The result is like trying to build a strong net, but through the early years of net building, not allowing the strands to connect with one another.

If education is to contribute to future economic gain, policy makers need to recognize time value as the perishable commodity it actually is. Years spent sitting in dutiful rows taking notes, is time that could have been spent applying the fruits of education and exploring them on terms that make sense to one's spirit. A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin illustrates the much needed integration of education with daily life, quite well:

Tell me and I forget, teach me and I may remember, involve me and I may learn.

Involvement is not a matter of classroom respect on the part of teachers and students. Involvement won't count until students are monetarily compensated for assisting their peers, on terms that allow them to coordinate the process among themselves. Until young people are able to do so, the belittlement of one another, the crude imitation of the meritocratic and hierarchical structure of their elders (i.e. "I'm at the head of the class, she's at the tail"), will only continue. No one can afford to keep pretending that the "important things in life are not about money" (especially for purposes of national accounting!), when absolutely everyone recognizes money as a life structuring priority for obvious reasons.

Even though there is a humane aspect to bringing economics and money into the social mechanism of mutual support, rationale also exists for doing so at a broader level. Specifically, by treating time value as a perishable commodity for purposes of GDP, it becomes possible to support the present evolution of production capacity not just in the sense of technology for tradable sector potential, but also that of non tradable sector potential. By bringing time value into the realm of long term capital gains, societies may gain the confidence to free the productive potential of environmental design, as well.

Some Rationale for Production Reform

Production reform would give individuals the right to produce, or the right to design and create product for themselves and others in specially designated settings. One's ability to take part in product outcomes can be more effective than a fixed income level - especially for anything that gets used in regular consumption patterns. Greater participation in local production/consumption design, could help prevent the distortions that often occur with minimum wage requirements in general equilibrium conditions. Production rights would also mean being able to respond and adapt to the constantly changing nature of resource patterns.

Granted, production reform is more of an issue for non tradable sector activity, than that of tradable sectors. With some exceptions, many forms of tradable product aren't perceived as "necessary". Hence tradable sectors have experienced fewer production restrictions, than non tradable sectors. Many technological gains in recent centuries, are due to the freedom and flexibility of the tradable sector marketplace.

Production options for non tradable sectors - particularly housing and time/knowledge based services - became severely constrained by comparison, in the twentieth century. Even though municipalities continue to prefer traditional housing, they are less able to provide it for lower income levels, which lack the resources necessary for new infrastructure costs.

Since lower income levels (thus far) face requirements to purchase the same professional services, housing and physical infrastructure as others, that means less discretionary income in aggregate, to support the tradable sector activity which is everyone's economic growth base around the globe. Yet lost retail opportunities are only the tip of the iceberg, as fewer individuals remain able to form families, own property or otherwise maintain an active presence in the marketplace.

Even so, it's not just the plight of lower income levels, which has led to more fragile economic conditions, of late. Why? The burden of today's non tradable sector organizational patterns, falls equally on citizens and governments alike. Despite the fact governments still tap into vast revenue sources, the monetary flows necessary to fulfill non tradable sector responsibilities have become too unbalanced, in relation to other existing resource capacity. Production reform is needed for non tradable sector activity, in order to provide economic stability well into the foreseeable future.

Consider some "big picture" factors in this regard. Too many pensions are becoming an endangered species, even as municipalities continue to come up short in revenue for infrastructure maintenance. And a recent Bloomberg article provided an apt reminder, why more sustainable services formation is needed in the near future:

A 65-year-old couple retiring this year would need 57 percent of their Social Security payments just to cover their health-care expenses. For a couple 10 years younger, with plans to retire in 2026, that jumps to 88 percent. For a 45-year old, it's 116 percent.

At this rate, how would any Social Security be left for retired individuals to provide the taxation necessary for the local municipalities in which they reside? Let alone anything else, especially for a 45-year old? Or...if pensions can't be relied on as a fallback (for Social Security) to continue paying property taxes, what is? Does anyone really wonder why a 68 year old woman was glad to be able to "pass into the eternal love of God", instead of having to vote for either Clinton or Trump as the candidates to remedy domestic concerns? God knows I wish my outlook were as positive as that of Deirdre McCloskey, but the facts of recent years suggest otherwise.

All the more reason, why I stressed in my last post that innovation needs to take place across multiple disciplines, so individuals and governments alike might regain the capacity to coordinate their ongoing responsibilities. Only consider the legal dimension, which in some instances can derail low income levels as surely as any health crisis. Alongside the need to directly confront unemployment issues, is the equally large issue of bringing aggregate resource capacity into better alignment - regardless of public or private labels.

Thus far, political factions do everyone a disservice by pretending these problems are all about victims and aggressors, instead of confronting system imbalance problems head on. Among other glaring discrepancies is the "maker taker" reasoning, which would turn everyone into a "loser" if they have not maintained economic access. It's time to back off the hysterical judgments, for too few now hold the vital production rights which continue to destroy time value on the part of everyone else. Governments have already tried to make up for extreme differences in time value, for too long.

Lifestyle Illusion is Stagnation's Best Friend

Why so? Often, it comes down to how we believe we're supposed to live and act, which stands in the way of innovation's greatest potential. Even though I've not often defined "lifestyle illusion" specifically, it deserves inclusion as an eventual glossary term. As a blogger, I remain convinced that today's economic stagnation is almost entirely due to cultural and social perspectives. It's not particularly problematic for everyone to live and work in resource intensive construction and rely on specialized professionals for most important knowledge use needs, so long as economies are strong and growing. But when economies falter, it's time to reconsider, what are beginning to become luxuries in that regard.

Essentially, lifestyle illusion stands in the way of productive capacity, which would otherwise extend marketplace formation and benefit millions. Instead of real innovation, most of what is now suggested in its place, adds additional options for higher income levels. Even though more product differentiation may result, little of it has proven capable of expanding economic access or greater economic viability.

There's another important aspect of meaningful innovation as well. A mature economic equilibrium requires a sufficient response to take place on multiple dimensions, i.e. a series of interlinking networks. Unfortunately, meaningful innovation is no longer the matter of a single response to existing circumstance, but the ability to generate new sets of conditions that work in concert with each other. The lack of this kind of response thus far, helps to explain why general equilibrium is becoming fragile, as economic access is limited both by monetary tightening and structural rigidity in nations across the globe.

Stagnation is often a result of populations not knowing how to respond, when a given set of general equilibrium conditions (and resource allocation patterns) has matured. Policy makers are especially reluctant to deal with root factors which could alleviate the situation, this time. Meanwhile, as one political candidate in the U.S. pretends she'll bring more people into general equilibrium conditions, another remains convinced that it is still possible to do so. While this approach has proven effective in the past, the combination of today's regulatory environments and existing budget obligations, make it unlikely now.

Another common response: "nothing can be done, so just deal with it". However, there's a real problem with this form of resignation. No population will wait for very long, before they begin shifting resource allocations, in response to an inadvertent zero sum environment. An interesting example comes from "Medieval Households" by David Herlihy. In the early Middle Ages, existing resource allocation was fairly abundant, hence property was generally passed down to both male and female heirs. It was only as existing resource patterns gradually matured (over a period of centuries), that more groups responded by reducing property ownership for women whilst giving them stronger marriage roles.

Only consider the "new equilibrium" circumstance offered by New World settlement, which once again broadened property ownership patterns. Even so, it is today's extensive housing requirements which mean hard compromises for family heirs regardless of gender. Hence the reality of property which simply can't be divided - due to the illusion this way of life is "necessary" - means a continuing problem for asset management among family members.

Lifestyle illusion also revolves around the notion that some forms of service participation are not "desirable" (hence the struggle for high income service employment), while other sets of knowledge based services need to be protected so as to preserve income for those who now participate in them. From a recent post by Scott Sumner, Gregory Clark's review of Robert Gordon's recent book echoes this fatalism:

The core of Gordon's pessimism about future technological advance is that the modern U.S. economy is now heavily based around services, accounting for about 80 percent of output. Manufacturing, traditionally a sector with higher efficiency advance, has shrunk to 12 percent of the economy...A surprising share of the modern jobs are the timeless ones of the pre-industrial era...Even outside services, we can find jobs with no gain in productivity since the Industrial Revolution. Builders price books in eighteenth century London show the rate at which bricklayers laid bricks in house construction. In 1787 this was 75 bricks laid per hour. For modern England the rates are lower, 225 years later, at around 50-70 per hour.

The last part of this quote is particularly stark. Why is anyone concerned about how fast individuals can lay bricks, given technology's ability to completely transform living accommodations and building components? The heavy resource use that populations continue to rely on for almost all development, only illustrates how lifestyle illusion has seemingly upended the possibility of bringing non tradable sector activity into the realm of reality.

When populations reason that a given lifestyle is the only one possible or desirable, they end up struggling to maintain their own position in a suddenly stagnant economic reality. Unfortunately, the innovations that were needed most, came to represent a threat to the special interests which grew rich because of the ways they themselves contributed to lifestyle illusion.  And when civilizations attempt to remain in place, everyone becomes relentless in securing their own gains. Historically, time and again, civilizations have taken too many steps backward when this has happened. Like many, I grew up believing that the fact we were taught about historical atrocities was enough to prevent them happening again. Turns out that was quite false. People need economic means, so as to not repeat them. As Edmund Phelps summed up in a recent post:

It is the impediments to adaptation and innovation - not fiscal austerity - causing our stagnation. And only renewed dynamism - not more fiscal irresponsibility - offers any hope of a durable way out.

Merit Compensation: Some Nominal Income Considerations

Merit based compensation can also be thought of as asymmetric compensation for skills arbitrage. And it's not always possible to coordinate for a complete services marketplace, when economic activity relies mostly on relationships between resource aggregates and preferential skills capacity. Merit based employment also affects sticky wages, which can lead to further unemployment in recessionary conditions. While asymmetric compensation makes it possible to coordinate some time based services markets at national levels, it can't provide full employment capacity for many sought after time based services.

Nominal income results from both tradable and non tradable sector activity. Tradable sectors are more responsive to market conditions in the short term, because this form of nominal income adapts to ongoing changes in aggregate output. When tradable sector wealth dominates in a given economy, links between time value and resource use can be easier to follow, since the asymmetric compensation involved, directly accrues from marketplace product.

However, the relation of time value to resource capacity isn't quite so simple, in today's non tradable sector employment. In some respects, non tradable sector activity is slower to respond to market conditions, while possibly more responsive to price levels than changes in aggregate output. A number of factors contribute to the difficult to quantify nature, of today's non tradable sector income aggregates.

For one, non tradable sector compensation does not readily correlate to actual product, hence pricing is often politically determined. Since much of non tradable sector income is dependent on a fiscal transmission mechanism, coordination takes place according to available revenues, which in many instances are not immediately obvious. Hence compensation for time based non tradable sector activity, does not exist in direct relation to tradable sector marketplace capacity. Even though service sector activity has outpaced tradable sector activity in developed nations, consumption preferences are highly skewed, due to the non linear nature of this marketplace as compared with tradable sector goods.

As the services marketplace of non tradable sector activity grew, so did its dependence on tradable sector revenue. What no one really knows for certain, is the degree to which governments are still able to provide employment on asymmetric terms, when less revenue is available for ongoing obligations. Are governments meeting budget priorities by substituting other forms of capital, for income compensation?

And if so, would this circumstance have bearing on the gradual loss of nominal income - albeit in slow motion? While one often thinks of the private sector as substituting robots, technology or non time related knowledge product for employees, there's a good chance this process shouldn't just be thought of as a private sector phenomenon.

Even though some forms of non tradable sector product will always be difficult to quantify, time based product can still be locally generated and quantified on more understandable terms than is presently the case. Given today's budget constraints, governments do not always get the choice as to which time based product is best to support, given the way their obligations have grown in recent decades. And what governments provided in the twentieth century, is not always immediately recognized as a valid market on private terms.

The present relative decline in nominal income levels, is just one reason why knowledge use systems are needed. These systems could act as a gradual relief valve for overly monetarily tight conditions, by increasing growth for time based product which could be better quantified locally. By including time based wage compensation alongside merit based compensation, governments would ultimately be able to move nominal income back into a more positive direction.

New Corporate Structure and the Stop Loss Contract

Often, success is presented as a matter of grit or perseverance. But when does one actually try "too hard"? Tim Harford explained "grit" in a way which - unlike other online discussions in recent months - gave me a chance to relate this topic to my own life circumstance:

The odds are you won't know when to quit. The truth is that there are no foolproof methods for knowing when to hold'em and when to fold'em. 

According to Harford, psychologist Angela Duckworth " has plausibly argued that grit is more important than talent, in predicting a successful life." He continues:

The idea is appealing in principle but one must ask what Duckworth's brief "grit" questionaire is measuring. (Perhaps I am just sore because I took the questionare and discovered I have less grit than the average marshmallow).

He made me laugh with that last observation! But his humorous point is an apt reminder of the importance of the cards one "holds" in the first place, for the game of life. Consider personality, for instance. If this attribute isn't necessarily an ace, at the very least it's a king or queen. Some of us lack communication skills (cough cough), hence may end up in repetitious cycles, trying to make up for what is really an initial shortcoming.

Just as Tim Harford explains, loss aversion is a real problem, for not knowing when to quit. It will cause individuals to persevere on a chosen course of action, long after it is logical to continue doing so. I realize now how unsettling the "grit" discussion can be. Progressives and conservatives alike built (and benefit from) a massive edifice everyone needs to scale, in order to gain economic access to general equilibrium. But while progressives may remain convinced "grit" means an ability to reach the ultimate economic goal, conservatives are more likely to say, no, there is precious little room left.

Loss aversion turned out to be a substantial problem for me in earlier business ventures - not once, but twice. Both times, I had the option of selling my retail business inventory to others, only to turn them down. Why? I enjoyed the work so much, that it was worth whatever risk I had to take, to maintain what was also a lifestyle preference. And I craved a workplace which allowed me to partially make up, for the social interaction that was getting progressively harder to find as I aged.

As a result - among other things - I finally lost the majority of the inventories which mattered to me most: at least thirty thousand non fiction (and some fiction) books, along with a sizable fraction of songbooks. The first loss was almost twenty years ago, the second just prior to the beginning of this project. More than anything else, those losses hardened my resolve to find better methodology for stop loss potential. From Harford's suggestions:

...look resolutely away from sunk costs and towards future prospects...persevere flexibly rather than stubbornly...view decisions as experiments.

Harford encouraged me to pin down some legal specifics. Can any institution help to make up for the fact we simply don't know when to quit trying, to "call it a day"? Once, bankruptcy provided means for individuals to start over, but much of the remaining flexibility in this regard is intended for corporate structure, rather than the economic life which involves individual effort. A new institutional structure is needed, which could make it possible for individuals to start over - when necessary - from an economic position of still remaining relative strength. Otherwise, society ends up supporting too many individuals who had more than a chance of supporting themselves, given means to do so.

Greater flexibility is particularly needed for property ownership. Populations are entering a period in which the idea of product is gradually evolving, from the production of "stuff" to the production of what is often time based knowledge use. Yet today's costs for knowledge product are also associated with rigid requirements in both building components and infrastructure, in general equilibrium settings. And in contrast to earlier forms of factory precision (extended to schools and hospitals) which required large groups to come together at the same time, today's services structures would benefit from individually designed and dispersed activity - both spatially and in terms of time use. Such changes in production and consumption for service product, could also point the way towards more carefully thought through ownership patterns.

New corporate structure needs greater flexibility for land use options. Those who participate, would benefit from property use potential that isn't crippled by the decision making processes of competing owners - especially those of family co-ownership. It is particularly difficult for lower income levels to manage the legal maintenance necessary to coordinate co-owned assets. Greater flexibility in land holding is all the more important, since family structure now serves mostly consumption functions instead of production functions, at all income levels.

Consequently, property holdings in knowledge use systems would be individually based, through existing contractual arrangements between individuals and communities for mutually desired economic outcomes. Think of it as a process of communities once again becoming more economic in nature, as families continue to become less economic, given present day economic circumstance. The process of individual land holding creates an automatic stop loss function for anyone born into the system - one which lasts for the course of a lifetime.

From a young age, matched time value (time arbitrage) would accrue to two sets of local holdings for one's eventual living and working needs. These property holdings don't necessarily represent a specific property, since individual to community contracts would reflect property use that is well suited to one's living and working preferences as they change. Those preferences would also reflect both long term and short term economic changes among local citizens.

Once one's personal work space is acquired and put to good use (before adulthood), time arbitrage would also begin to accrue toward space one eventually may seek for separate living quarters. By the time adulthood is reached, one's goal is to have a basic set up for both, so as to make this life transition easier. Once purchased through time arbitrage, this amount of square footage (not necessarily the specific geographic land holding) belongs to the individual for the course of their lifetime, before reverting back to the community.

What if someone does not want to live in a hometown all their lives? Property owners would have an unimpeded legal right to rent their personal holdings of square footage, should they decide to live with others either locally, or perhaps travel and live elsewhere. This right - along with a lifelong ability to match economic time value with local residents - would provide means for individuals to start anew, when the choices of discretionary income in other aspects of life turn out to be too much risk.

Rental of property (not building components) would often provide an initial source of discretionary income beyond the internally based wages of time arbitrage. In other words, rental of land serves as the primary connection point between the local currency of new corporate structure, and the surrounding currency of state and nation. Economic mobility is important for all concerned: renters would not necessarily desire the square footage which comes available for instance. When owners make the decision to rent their property holdings, other areas would be explored to find the best property match, to assist newcomers who "sample" living opportunities in a given community through rent.

Building components would be approached differently, in that they likely would not be available for rent or considered a permanent part of a particular piece of land. Many building components would be locally bought and sold, given the fact little incentive has ever existed for landlords or renters to maintain rented structures. However, matched time value could accrue for building components when they are locally purchased, locally manufactured or are otherwise part of local recycled components made new again with 3D manufacture.

Some exceptions may apply in which local value for building components is provided from exogenous (or discretionary) income. While individuals wouldn't need to personally will property to offspring unless those offspring were incapable of time arbitrage (communities might make exception for property reversion in this instance), they would be able to will anything they desire to offspring that results from discretionary or exogenous income.

While the aforementioned rental possibilities are individually held property, rental pools are another possibility. These groups would gain exogenous or discretionary income, by utilizing time matched property holding for commercial purposes. However, local corporate structure would seek to maintain balance between time and resource use, so that individuals would not eventually be questioned as to their ability to contribute to community outcomes. In other words, time value in relation to local resource value, would serve to preserve the integrity of full employment.

Tim Harford's post was helpful for me, because it gave me further rationale to begin exploring some legal concepts I've been trying to determine how to present. Even though I never sat at the gambling tables like some I've known over the years, my life otherwise has been a complete gamble. While a new corporate structure would not put all the "right" cards into one's hand, better provisions for stop loss could definitely help the hand that some are dealt in their lives.