Knowledge Use: What Holds It Back?

Time availability is a scarce resource due to its actual limits, in relation to other forms of resource capacity. Consequently, so are the knowledge components which correspond to active application by participants in real time. Often, this particular set of constraints becomes apparent when nations need to act quickly on issues which call for quick response, yet find it difficult to do so, given existing limits for "expert" time value application. What other factors contribute to limits for knowledge use in the present?

One of the most limiting factors is also associated with societal status, in spite of the fact this cultural attribute exists for good reasons. Where the problem lies, is that of status association and representation across a general equilibrium, which leaves little room for other group options at the margins. Societal status for "winning" ideas imparts a "backbone" structure, for the patterns of knowledge use formation which take place among specific groups, Accepted ways of doing things, means these patterns allow multiple sets of actions to be coordinated simultaneously, among individuals who might otherwise lack direction for so doing.

Asymmetric compensation is a limiting factor for the employment of time and knowledge based product as well. This is all the more true, when already limited pools of revenue or disposable income become caught in monopsony patterns. If this were not enough, fiscal compensation for knowledge use faces an additional barrier, since output on these terms is paid for twice. As a result, fiscal policy in some instances may limit labor force participation by half, where participation is in fact reliant on this form of asymmetric compensation.

Where does government responsibility for time based services product - and its corresponding knowledge use - currently exist?  A recent post from Timothy Taylor suggests some partial answers:

State and local government has continued to be about provision of goods and services, from education to roads/transportation to law enforcement. But over time, the federal government in particular has become less focused on "government consumption expenditures and gross investment", and more focused on transfer payments.

At first reading of Taylor's quote, it appears that national level government has little direct responsibility for time based services product. However, transfer payments are misleading as a national government obligation, due to the implicit services support (hence limited employment for knowledge use) they are capable of providing. The extensive transfer payments of Medicare/Medicaid are a roundabout way of expressing national government responsibility for healthcare. Perhaps government's high level of obligation is not emphasized, since extensive financial support is already expected on the part of private insurance, employers and remaining costs (after insurance) for U.S. consumers. In context: what if we had comparable time based service burdens for other forms of knowledge use?

One way to think about the extent of national government responsibility for healthcare: consider the makeup of hospital patients on a typical given day. The smallest number of patients are generally those who are gainfully employed and "paying their way" with private insurance - indeed many of these are recuperating from surgeries which were scheduled in advance. But the other patients? A walk down the hospital corridors, tells the story. Beds tend to be occupied by elderly "repeat" patients, alongside the disabled who also suffer with chronic illness. Often, accident victims may lack any form of insurance. In other words, the extent to which many hospital bills get paid, depends on the vagaries of national revenue availability, not to mention the growing persistence of collection agencies.

Hence it can be misleading to think of aggregate healthcare provisions in terms of private insurance. Why isn't private insurance an effective healthcare revenue, in the same sense as other insurance options? Only consider Adam Smith's support of insurance as an effective tool:

The trade of insurance gives great security to the fortunes of private people, and by dividing among a great many that loss which would ruin an individual, makes it fall light and easy upon the whole society. 

There are important reasons why healthcare insurance of any kind does not "lightly fall" on society's shoulders. Fortunately, the chance of losing one's house to fire or flood, is quite slim. By comparison however, many individuals face a level of sickness at least once in a lifetime which requires extensive professional assistance. When this occurs, individuals find themselves in need of time based product which involves both an exclusive and extensive education.  Other existing aggregates for time value, in the time frames they are actually needed, do not contain enough time investment capital, to collectively pool what is necessary to match a physician's time value. Why should this matter? Adam Smith continues the above quote with this:

In order to give this security, however, it is necessary that the insurers should have a very large capital.

Herein lies the problem: basic forms of time based service product do not always exist in relation to other existing resource capacity. Indeed, private health insurers can scarcely make a profit unless they limit the access of those who are most in need of this form of services product. Even though money readily substitutes for most forms of marketplace product, too much money is chasing too little economic application on the part of human capital investment, in this instance.

As a residual of disposable income and revenue availability, asymmetric compensation will continue to hold back both supply and demand, for time and knowledge based product. At stake in all of this, is both labor force participation, and knowledge preservation as well. To the extent that knowledge cannot always be applied when it is sought, its contribution to economic stability remains in question. Will policy makers be able to acknowledge this fact?

Understandably, a broader marketplace for knowledge use is quite a favor to ask from today's knowledge elite, who would want to know, "what's in it for me?" However, by making all time value more worthy of economic participation, nations become less inclined to question the worthiness of their own citizens, let alone the worthiness of other nation's citizens. A marketplace at home for time value, would also mean less clamor for the return of tradable sector production which "belongs" to the wealth of nations.

Ultimately, when populations experience full employment through non tradable sector means, they are more inclined to support the output of tradable sectors as the latter naturally occur. And when tradable sectors remain prosperous, they in turn continue to impart the international revenue which contributes to the prosperity of today's knowledge elite. In other words, a virtuous circle is possible, when all citizens are asked to contribute to a shared future.

Wrap Up for June 2016

In the most recent recovery, "just 20 counties have generated half the growth". By way of comparison, 125 counties generated half of new business establishment growth in the early 1990s recovery. Rural areas have of course been hardest hit. From the WP article, "A very bad sign for all but America's biggest cities."

"It's going to get much worse," said John Lettieri, a former Republican congressional aide who is a co-founder of the Economic Innovation Group. "As bleak as these numbers are now, these may be the good years."

This growing divergence of fortune between prosperous cities and other areas, has received too little attention. While there are class and cultural considerations, they are not necessarily fundamental to the underlying economic dynamics which continue to play out. Politicians need to become more cognizant of this fact, instead of exacerbating social differences as an "easy way out" (see Brexit...).

Logistically as well, it is somewhat difficult to reach out to smaller communities. There are so many, yet each must deal with the economic realities of Main Street on their own terms. How might prosperous cities help smaller communities in the near future, given the fact their circumstance are so different from the areas that are suffering? Yet this is the challenge. Highly educated urbanites may ultimately need to share - at least to some extent - their knowledge sets with small communities, to help them take part in the knowledge based economies of the 21st century.

Eduardo Porter knows that "A Universal Basic Income is a Poor Tool to Fight Poverty"

Alas, I can only contribute to macroeconomic discussions as a layperson. But that makes it no less important for me to try, given the present uncertain nature of macroeconomic dialogue. In particular, Olivier Blanchard wants greater emphasis on what is precisely non monetary. However, this emphasis tends to take populations out of the economic equation, at the very moment when governments most need the contributions of their citizens for 21st century challenges. To ignore the vital role of supply and demand in economic structure, would be to discount the real economy solutions that are possible. Nick Rowe was concerned about Blanchard's article, and so too, Scott Sumner.

Charles Murray created a stir recently, with this article:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-american-1464969586

National socialism is a confusing mix of policy recommendations and thought processes.
Alberto Mingardi responds to Anne Applebaum's article with a thoughtful post.

Have yet to get over the fact that Edmund Phelps wrote this Project Syndicate article in 2006 in support of low wage subsidies, yet apparently, no response from Washington. Had this approach been enacted, one has to wonder whether some rural area business losses might have been prevented, particularly since the Great Recession. Given the "one size fits all" regulatory patterns for business formation, it is not as easy for small town businesses to automate, to respond to higher minimum wage requirements as the sole responsibility of business owners.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes an incisive article on Brexit and Dani Rodrik responds.

The Economist takes a look at teachers:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21700385-great-teaching-has-long-been-seen-innate-skill-reformers-are-showing-best?curator=MediaREDEF

I'd like to have one of those t-shirts! from Narayana Kockerlakota http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-15/the-fed-needs-more-than-one-direction

Shane Greenstein on Robert Gordon's book:

By the final chapter the ebullient economic historian disappears, replaced by a downbeat macroeconomic forecaster.

Scott Sumner takes a close look at NeoFisherism: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31807

Ryan Avent notes that James Bullard's conclusions are a little off: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2016/06/expect-worst?fsrc=rss

Regional patterns matter for employment: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2016/06/21-nonworking-prime-age-men-berube

And the remainder for June goes to Brexit...

WSJ on Brexit http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-a-very-british-revolution-1466800383

Josh Hendrickson: Just because the public may think differently about negative externalities than economists do, does not necessarily mean they are "stupid" https://everydayecon.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/on-a-pascalian-theory-of-political-economy/

Economic policy uncertainty is higher this time...http://econbrowser.com/archives/2016/06/policy-uncertainty-in-america-in-the-wake-of-brexit

The role of immigrants, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/immigration_and_brexit_how_a_rising_tide_of_european_immigrants_fueled_the.html

Ouch! Everyone lost with this vote.

Time Value as a Basic Commodity Good

Why might a more basic designation for time value, prove helpful? Time value - in aggregate - is not well represented in relation to other forms of resource capacity. As a result, total aggregates for the economic viability of human capital - in spite of massive investment and personal commitment - have not kept pace with other forms of international resource capacity. Since time value is also a perishable commodity, the losses continue to mount. Kevin Erdmann's concerns regarding housing, are just one of the problems in this regard. As he recently noted:

All finance institutions have been nudged to a posture where mortgage finance is unavailable to the bottom half of the economic distribution.

One reason housing is such a disconcerting factor, is that mortgage finance is practically a cultural determinant for access in general equilibrium conditions. But instead of addressing the need for economic access on more practical terms, policy makers and central bankers are drifting even further, from economic and monetary representation for all citizens. How do governments and policy makers live with arbitrary central banker assessments, given the fact government budget projections rely on long term nominal income stability as well? Progressives and conservatives alike, have become more inclined to rationalize limits to growth. Possibly the only difference, is that progressives are more disturbed by a desire to return to a gold standard, given the implications such a standard holds for services formation.

Regular readers already know how I feel about arbitrary limits to growth. After all, did policy makers ever inquire of their their citizens, whether they believe this to be a logical response? Still, growth needs to be redefined, so that time value can forge a stronger alignment with other forms of resource capacity. Human capital in aggregate, would greatly benefit from a stabilization process. For starters, time value can be utilized not only as asymmetric income, but also as a basic commodity good on symmetric terms. How might this occur?

An equilibrium corporation would "process" time value as a "raw commodity", allowing participants to contribute time value for housing and services formation which normally tend to lie beyond the reach of moderate incomes. This form of corporate structure would generate greater velocity for time based product transactions, which also translate into asset gains. Human capital is today's low hanging fruit, which - astonishingly - has yet to be picked. As Adam Smith once noted:

The most advantageous employment of any capital to the country to which it belongs, is that which maintains the greatest quantity of productive labor, and increases the most annual produce of the land and labor of that country. 

Time value as a basic commodity good, makes it possible to generate more labor force participation and non tradable sector wealth, without the high bar that is required for both in general equilibrium conditions. Each rise in the minimum wage can mean further labor market restrictions for all concerned - restrictions which continue to be papered over with Phillips Curve musings.

However, there's good reason why higher minimum wages still win the day: neither public or private interests have sufficient incentive to change the consumption requirements which can be a struggle for those with limited income. What point freeing up labor capacity, if doing so only leaves these groups of workers dependent on others with higher income? Economic freedom can be hard to find, if freedoms to produce and define consumption are left out of the equation.

Indeed, production reform for small configurations of non tradable sector activity, is the only way that an equilibrium corporation could compensate time value solely as a basic commodity good. Otherwise, without the ability to define alternative equilibrium, few individuals would be willing to assist assist these groups in their new endeavor, because any long term gains would be negligible at best.

Even though time value serves as a beginning point for the process, it eventually provides a stable base by which one can explore income potential. From this secure point, it would be possible to pursue the greater risks of economic freedom without becoming overwhelmed. All of this takes place from a vantage point which need not disturb the resource capacity of asymmetric wealth. Perhaps think of symmetric wealth as a "new colony", i.e. a new market which doesn't detract from the wealth of the old. Of those earlier "new colonies", Adam Smith wrote:

The new market, without drawing any thing from the old one, would create, if one may say so, a new product for its own supply; and that new product would constitute a new capital for carrying on the new employment, which, in the same manner, would draw nothing from the old one.

Considering Time Value

Why is it so helpful to think about time value, as both product and concept? What we perceive as time value exists in various dimensions - not all of which are economic in nature. However, money has become such an important part of life, that more of what we presently consider personal time value, would benefit from a clearly understood economic approach. Time value need not solely represent that which is assigned to individuals via their institutions, but also that which individuals are capable of assigning to one other as well.

Providing new economic frameworks for time value is not so difficult as it may seem. One of the best ways to think about this process, is the added value it would make possible in contrast to the UBI approach of paying individuals not to work or otherwise assist one another. In the near future, prosperous regions will provide less compensation for physical labor and/or repetitive work, in relation to work requiring non routine thought processes. Might a similar economic future also hold true for communities in general? A positive answer to this question, depends on whether time based knowledge product is encouraged more broadly, and whether average citizens are invited to take part in the process.

Economic time value is about more than just skill capacity. Think for a moment. How often, when we seek out time based product from others, do we appreciate most their focused attention on our circumstantial efforts, even more than specific skill sets they may have? A marketplace for time value would more readily account for differences between subjective product quality, versus "not always necessary" skill sets or objective outcomes (i.e. "I mostly just wanted him or her to listen"). Subjective time based product is more closely associated with the interactions of both participants as well - such as peer to peer learning, for instance.

One of the biggest problems for those who lack economic access in the present, is the way they are categorized, in spite of widely varying circumstance. In particular, there is a real need to get beyond the "low skill" mindset - a coarse brush which paints the vast majority of those not presently engaged in the workplace. Low skilled on whose or what terms? Without a marketplace for time value, there's a tremendous range of activities, interests and challenges that neither individuals or institutions are able to even represent, as available economic options. "Low skill" as a term, mostly indicates that societies have given excessive attention to specific forms of time value, knowledge and skill, instead of increasing market capacity for time value and knowledge use as a whole.

Also important, is the fact that those with limited economic access, have difficulty contributing to important public discourse - especially anyone who is not, or has not been previously employed in a professional capacity. Knowledge use systems could eventually provide a middle ground for the average citizen, between the separation of discussion at academic levels, versus the watered down media versions which are now adding instability in the political arena. Recent world events, of which Brexit is only the latest, highlight the need for all citizens to be a part of the economic arena which daily affects their lives.

Random Thoughts on Knowledge Use Systems

Per the post title: Sometimes, part of the accumulating notes on my desk end up getting tossed, for no better reason than they lack a cohesive framework! I started out however, by questioning some of the similarities and differences that could occur in communities based along the lines of knowledge use systems.

Presently, I'm leaning towards "equilibrium corporation" as an appropriate name for a legal construct, since the term is more descriptive of the underlying rationale, than the "dual" designation I'd recently considered. Equilibrium corporation also provides a recognizable notation for economics as part of an educational framework. Too many political problems of the present, stem from a lack of economic understanding. One of the best things about compensated peer to peer learning is that today's K-12 public education is but a starting point, since some education basics can also be mastered on personal time via digital methods.

Not every community would be "newly created" in the sense of infrastructure and flexible building components for life/work options. An (alternative) equilibrium construct could assist older communities which are considering new beginnings as well. In some instances, partially abandoned neighborhoods might still be viable, provided local infrastructure can be salvaged or possibly reconfigured without excessive expense. I've not lived close to areas of extensive decline during my 60+ years, so admittedly don't know the extent of existing burdens that would be involved.

In other instances, "bedroom communities" could be created for system participants who wish to live near prosperous regions - particularly areas with limited ability to add greater population density for lower income levels. Indeed, it is becoming difficult to generate greater density for middle income levels in today's more prosperous regions.While these new towns would still have a multi purpose center or core, it would likely not be as extensive as "free standing" new communities with a broader array of ongoing activity.

Practicality for low income bedroom communities, also means creating simpler transport patterns to nearby cities. Affordable transportation infrastructure would not only make auto use unnecessary, but take advantage of resource sets within the realm of shared responsibility. In particular, citizens need transportation choices which go well beyond the present debate of self drive vehicles for major cities. As for the transportation difficulties of the here and now: one only wonders how many millions opt out of the workplace, because of the difficulties involved in maintaining older automobiles for long commutes.

Among the more inspiring visual components of these new communities, would be their walkable core. Beauty can become a part of local environment by means of shared time commitment, just as readily as disposable income. These could be among the first walkable communities created in nearly a century, for the average citizen (i.e. not high income retired) who wants to participate in a full range of economic activity without need of an automobile in central areas.

Depending on terrain of course, a series of "spokes" from the center (or downtown) would provide dedicated transportation options, so that different travel accommodations need not maneuver the same pathways and thoroughfares. The nature of these transportation options would help to determine as well, where individuals and families might prefer to locate, should they choose to locate inside of the areas where normal transportation spans the exterior of community boundaries.

Knowledge use systems would provide settings where a wide array of innovations and methods have a chance to be explored and discussed within common frameworks. When new communities are formed via the process of domestic summits, participants will have a chance to review innovation for building and infrastructure which often receives little notice otherwise in developed nations. Developed nations dismiss many such options out of hand. Too much housing has been built in recent decades which looks essentially like all other housing, and these developments use the same resource patterns which are mostly targeted for higher income levels.

Just as each alternate equilibrium construct would be unique, so too would be the environments they would generate. It has been said that variety is the spice of life, and even though these communities would be small by comparison with most towns and cities, in some respects they would actually have more variety and choice than can be found in their larger counterparts.

Update: Thanks to Miles Kimball for this Quartz article by Alex Balashov, about the unfortunate design of today's low density realm which was built especially for cars -  http://qz.com/698928/why-suburbia-sucks/

One Day Perhaps, Common Sense at the Margins

Why not common sense in the center, where it seemingly belongs? There's too many preexisting obligations all around - some of which have been a long time in the making. Governments and special interests alike, sacrificed political centers in ways that don't readily allow populist reactions such as Brexit to get at the root of the problem. Some noted in the Brexit aftermath that citizens wanted greater national autonomy, but for "the wrong reasons". What might that mean, for would be leaders who are anxious to make their countries "great again"?

Consider how governments became more involved in the economy, while constructing fiscal transmission processes via fiat money in the twentieth century. Where once the issues of fiscal revenue and redistribution were simple, they grew in complexity, as locally generated wealth transitioned to more specific and often, disparately held sources. When agriculture was still a primary wealth source for many populations, wealth creation meant understandable loops of production and consumption which - despite their simplicity - were also internally complete. In a sense, this local wealth "trickled up" to additional wealth generation. Even though these earlier patterns scarcely resemble today's non tradable sectors, they nonetheless served as a base from which tradable sector formation was able to grow and evolve.

In Adam Smith's time, governments expected to rely on the wealth generating capacity of their own citizens, regardless of world events. Might similar reasoning have factored in to Brexit votes? After all, a nation's economy supposedly represents its own citizens. Or does it? Again, Adam Smith:

But though a particular merchant, with abundance of goods in his warehouse, may sometimes be ruined by not being able to sell them in time, a nation or country is not liable to the same accident. The whole capital of a merchant frequently consists in perishable goods destined for purchasing money. But it is a very small part of the annual produce of the land and labor of a country, which can ever be destined for purchasing gold and silver from their neighbors. The far greater part is circulated and consumed among themselves; and even of the surplus which is sent abroad, the greatest part is generally destined for the purchase of other foreign goods. 

Doubtless, Brexit is a strongly held desire to rely on internal sovereignty. Look more closely for locally generated wealth in the present, however, and in some respects, a redundant phrase may apply: "There's no there, there." Indeed, the meritocratic and asymmetric compensation which nations have come to rely on, is based not on the circulation of locally held wealth, but that which more closely resembles the general equilibrium conditions of tradable sectors the world over. Meanwhile, central bankers mistakenly attempt to control the economic value of their nation's non tradable sectors, instead of supporting domestic aggregate spending capacity and the monetary representation of their own citizens.

Despite the benefits of applied skills preferences, total reliance on meritocratic structure, means too many citizens inadvertently become economic liabilities, in aggregate. When governments lose access to internally and symmetrically generated wealth, they rely excessively on externally defined sources of wealth generation. In other words, the very wealth of globalization, which governments and nations are increasingly inclined to react against. Still, the problem for nations is not that globalization was somehow "wrong". The problem was that nations allowed their non tradable sectors to completely rely on the gains of globalization, instead of finding means to generate new sources of economic access and wealth at local levels.

As more nations (and occasionally, states) consider secession, they need to take a much look closer at the structural circumstance which created their primary problems in the first place. The ability to generate reliable economic value (safe assets) closer to home is in doubt, since knowledge use is not only closely held, but dependent on the fruits of globalization even now. At the very least, it would be possible to rebuild and preserve applied knowledge for broader use, at the margins via alternate equilibrium.

The problem is not meritocratic constructs per se, but that they are the only pathways nations presently have, which are fully capable of providing much needed economic value. One can only hope that the winds of political uncertainty will not threaten to unwind the fiat monetary systems which for now are still capable of rewarding meritocratic structure. In the meantime, national revenues remain mostly dependent on the same global constructs, which governments sometimes wish to disavow.

The Strongest Link

Some might be surprised, of the degree to which Adam Smith held agriculture in high regard:

The capital, however, that is acquired to any country by commerce and manufactures, is always a very precarious and uncertain possession, till some part of it has been secured and realized in the cultivation and improvement of its lands. A merchant, it has been said very properly, is not necessarily the citizen of any particular country.

Few today, would consider the role of agriculture as quite so basic. What might account for the fact that Adam Smith emphasized agriculture over industry in this passage? For one, he recognized the merchant as part of what would become the international nature of tradable sectors. Even though all goods have some form of local origin, this expansive form of economic wealth belongs to all nations.

But by the same token, industry - with its relative lack of definable roots - was more subject to the vicissitudes of war. Patterns of commerce and industry could readily be broken down at any time, and - as had so often played out historically - not always reemerge with the same strength they held before exposure to the conflicts of nations. Whereas, local agriculture - while hardly impervious to the threats of war - still had higher chances of escaping such strife relatively unscathed.

Hence the above quote appears to highlight a belief on Smith's part, in agriculture as society's strongest link. Or more precisely, agriculture as rooted in the economic capacity of what was once every nation's citizen majority, via their contribution to a nation's most basic needs. When Smith lived - and indeed for a long time afterward - agriculture provided ready means for spontaneous coordination and cooperation, for people from all walks of life.

All too often, people forget how to cooperate and coordinate for their wants and needs, when they do not have adequate institutional means by which to do so. For centuries, agriculture provided economic cohesion alongside a strong incentive for family production, before giving way to the prominence of manufacture and commerce. What was perhaps less discussed, was the fact citizens were losing the most reliable production autonomy they had ever known. To some degree, governments must have understood what had actually taken place. After all, agriculture had also served as work opportunity for young and old, who would thereafter become underrepresented in the modern workplace. How much bearing might this loss have had, on the rationale of the welfare state?

Part of the problem for many citizens, was the loss of autonomy and self direction in terms of economic outcome. The knowledge based wealth which ultimately became so important to the economic foundations of nations, largely bypassed the work based patterns of citizens in many areas. As a result, a growing number of communities and regions gradually grew dependent on the places where knowledge use was allowed to flourish. Where once local citizens provided points of stability from which other forms of commerce had been able to expand and multiply, now local communities were forced to rely on resources that existed well beyond their ability to reciprocate.

Nations and governments alike, have forgotten the integral role of citizens as a foundation for economic stability. Instead of addressing the earlier losses of production rights, governments responded by establishing a welfare state. Now, as many of those government promises have become difficult to fulfill, policy makers grow anxious to scale back welfare states. There's just one problem: many have forgotten the particulars as to how these welfare states were established in the first place. Citizens will once again need clearer rights for production in the marketplace, should policy makers proceed down this path.

However, some factions are ready to double down on the earlier bets of the twentieth century, in a belief that governments will still be able to take care of their citizens on previously defined terms. Even though it makes little sense to reemphasize government power at this juncture, there are important reasons why it is happening. Too many supply side factions bear their own responsibility for a resurgence of Keynesianism, given the fact they have chosen economic stagnation over marketplace strength and full participation.

While Democrats and Republicans alike have created harsh limits on the supply of knowledge product, Republicans are paying the highest price in terms of party disarray. Even worse, is the fact all concerned gave progressives and financial interests the rationale that supply and demand is not central to economic activity. After all, special interests have seen to it that broad supply and demand for knowledge product in the marketplace, is mostly wishful thinking for dreamers and fools.

Just as agriculture was once the strongest link - because of its connection to citizens as a whole - knowledge use has the potential today, to fill that role as well. But if nations disregard this possibility, widespread knowledge use could just as easily lose its chance, to become a solid economic foundation in times of uncertainty. Indeed, the connection between time value and knowledge use was never as important, as it is in the present.