David Colander: Does "Economics" Have Too Much Influence Over Policy?

The best way to understand an issue is sometimes to follow the debate rather than just one "side." I had bogged down trying to understand Monetary Theory (Modern or otherwise).

This is an introduction to the thinking of David Colander. I tripped over him when reading "Modern Monetary Theory and its Critics." Colander presents himself as a "Historian of Ideas." He is a "big picture" guy who tries to understand ideas in depth but also concerning their real historical consequence.

For example, he points out that if MMT were applied by, say, the Tea Party, the result would be a nightmare (zero tax, no government). This provides a simple example of one assumption behind all economic "recommendations" - that the supporters are in political power - more or less permanently. After plodding through endless economic arguments, I also get a whiff of "motivated reasoning."

Beware of all statements that include other things being equal. "Things" are never equal. No proposed change can be made without effects on other factors, nor can the change be made while other changes are not being made. 

Colander distinguishes between economics as a theory of control (Keynsian and all its variations) and economics that simply provides inputs to decision makers.  "Conservatives" oppose any attempt to "control" the economy. The problem is that "hands off" cedes control to impersonal mechanisms such as the market and powerful politicians. Politicians, after all, are not elected by proposing sensible economic policy. They are elected by being the "last man standing" in a mud wrestling contest. Yet, it is politicians who ultimately control the levers of economic power. As Greenspan pointed out - sometimes, these "levers" don't seem connected to the real economy.

Truly modern economics is based on huge computer models of the economy - not a few simple "all things being equal" relationships like "supply and demand."  In any model, things like assumptions and initial conditions need to be made explicit. For example, "actors" are not assumed to have perfect knowledge or to behave rationally, as all "classic" economic theories assume. Everything is connected to everything else.

It is good to understand some economics, but it needs to be kept in context. Economics places constraints on what is possible. We must never assume that politicians in control or society, in general, will agree with any particular economic theory or act the way economists assume.

To cite the nastiest problem we now face, climate change is a problem that comes from physics, not economics. Solutions, if any, will come by massive changes to human behavior. Economic "incentives" are proving to play little if any useful role, yet the political debate is often couched in the fantasies of obsolete economics, such as growth and GDP.

---------------

P.S. A talk by Colander about complexity theory and its relevance to politics is here. Again the point is that "economics" is just one of many influences in the halls of power. "Government and markets are an odd married couple. Stuck with each other". He talks about placing an economic "frame" in the larger (complex) "meta-frame".

Why is Everyone so F*G Stupid?

Jacob Chansley (with The Horns) Got 41 Months in Prison

Totally Repudiated Q-Anon Etc

It is a total mystery why some people refuse to get vaccinated or why an entire political party seems to be living in an alternate reality. As I write, thousands of health care workers in New York have refused to get the first jab in order to go back to work. And the "audits" keep coming. What the f*k is going on?

To understand human behavior, you must stand back. Compassion must always be the starting point. There, but for the grace of God, go I. Through long effort, I reduced my own FI (f*g idiot) score from 9 (MAGA hat) to 5 (seriously confused). Along the way, I have had bizarre ideas about "reality" and acted on them. Sometimes with tragic results. Anti-vaxxers don't have a monopoly on stupidity.

When I was about 5 years old, I grew skeptical of the stories everyone seemed to believe about some fat guy at the North Pole delivering presents for all the children of the world in one night. More than this: he made all these presents in his workshop. And he kept a list of who has been naughty and who's being nice.

I busted my parents by marking all the oranges in the house, then finding marked oranges in my stocking on Christmas morning. They immediately "fessed up" but warned me not to share the secret with my little brother. Along with millions of kids the same age, I was being invited to join the conspiracy.

It turned out that grownups are in on conspiracies on a grand scale. The next one I was confronted with went something like this:

• There is an old man in the sky-a kind of Super-Santa called "God".
• The naughty/nice list still applied but the "nice" people would live forever.
• Super-Santa created the entire Universe and was responsible for everything that happened. You could get Super-Santa to bend things your way by praying.
• And so on ...

If you can believe this, you can believe anything. 90% of Americans actually believe some version of this story. This makes Trump's "big lie" look like an innocent fib. Let's call it the HUGE lie. It's not really about God - it's about casting off from the world of evidence into the rough waters of human imagination. There they be monsters.

How do we get from Santa to Trump? My own experience illustrates the process.  Having determined that not only my parents but just about everyone was lying to me about Santa, I went on my merry way trusting people to tell me the truth about important stuff. The "God" idea was so commonly accepted that it didn't occur to my young mind that it was Santa for grown-ups. I admit to serious confusion. For example, when the teacher in Sunday School asked us to reply "present" I was upset that there were to be no presents. This silly experience illustrates how young and tender-minded I was when they started shoveling the HUGE Lie into my brain. This time, there was nobody to "clue me in". As I was to discover over the years, there seemed to be no way to test the idea. Everyone seemed to believe it. But I was skeptical. In Grade 12, I encountered Bertrand Russel's "Why I am Not A Christian", which theoretically blew up the whole hoax. However, I found that virtually nobody was interested in discussing the issue. I became a lone "agnostic". I was also trapped in the false dichotomy that ensnares many who start by questioning the HUGE lie. You eject all the spooky stuff but you are left with a "God-shaped hole". NOT believing in God does not satisfy the needs that fantasy provides. You become vulnerable to other craziness.  Many people manage to believe both the HUGE lie and a basket of completely unrelated garbage such as Alien abduction. There is never enough.

My skepticism continued for many years, but almost accidentally, I became actively interested in "Christian" teachings and the life of Jesus, but, again, nobody seemed to share my interest. Eventually, I encountered the "charismatic" flavor of Christianity - people who were very much "interested". It was a world full of magic and wonder. Faith healing. Daily communion with Jesus. And, at last community.

How do we get from a kid confused about "presents" to me being a candidate for the Ministry of the United Church? There are many forces at work but it seems to me that the main thing was finding people who actually gave a shit about deeply important matters. It was the end of my lonely search.

I must note that, once one rubs elbows with the "guys up front" - the teachers in Theology School, the priests, and ministers - nobody believes in the "official" story. The HUGE lie is a myth, supposedly valuable for "ordinary" folks. I remember one of our fantastic instructors expressing his frustration that everything he taught us would never reach the "folks in the pew". We would go on about our business "as if" the HUGE lie were true ("as if" were the exact words of the very senior minister who was my mentor).

My education for the Ministry was cut short, but that's another story. Having been "up front", I could no longer occupy a pew with a straight face. I wandered away.

So finally, in my late 20's I find that there is "no there there". Thanks to my "professional" education, I come away with a decent understanding of how these stories capture the imagination - how "myth" weaves its way into the culture to the point where few of us realize where myth ends and "reality" begins. 

Throughout history, it seems that people were unaware of any difference between the world they inhabited and the magic-filled world of myth. Since virtually all of "scripture" was written in cultures that were completely enveloped in myth, it makes no sense to ask, for example, if Jesus actually died on the cross, or even if Jesus actually existed. 

Of course, such ideas would outrage most "Bible-believing" Christians, although they are totally in line with the official education I received toward a Master of Theology. The "pros" don't talk about these things since they would quickly become unemployed if they did so. 

So, by age 30, my FI score has nudged down to maybe 6. I was no longer "agnostic", but regarding the entire sweep of Christianity (and all other religions) as a mixture of myth and outright fraud. I had the good fortune to travel the world and visit "Eastern" religions on their home turf. I was not impressed.

But still, it took me another 34 years to "connect the dots" to really understand what kind of society we wind up with if 90% of citizens believe a preposterous lie even though it actually makes almost no impact on their actual behavior. A professional geologist I met illustrates this point. On the one hand, he believed the world was created in 7 days. On the other hand, his profession required him to understand how rocks were created over millions of years Well, God just made the whole thing (fossil dinosaurs and all) in 7 days. Why not?  My case was not very different. Belief in God or not made no real difference in my life. I could think about the issue once or twice a year and, finding nobody interested, put it back on the shelf while I attended to the business of living.

But for many, the "real world" doesn't satisfy their need for excitement. Nor does the hypocritical, boring, confusing, self-contradictory world of organized religion. They need UFOs. They need conspiracy theories. They need to be under constant threat of cosmic significance. For many, this "itch" can be satisfied by fantasy. For others, brought up in a world already shot through with secret influences, the need is for stronger stuff. Such as Q-Anon. Such as microchips in vaccinations. Such as cannibal Democrats.

The road from Santa in the Sky to Donald Trump is sketched in CBC's excellent podcast, "The Flamethrowers". Way back in the birth of radio, stations needed cheap content and Bible Thumping preachers needed a way to reach more people (and pockets). We saw this in Alberta, in William Aberhart. Everywhere we see a pivot from hardcore, fundamentalist religion to politics or something spicier than "old-fashioned religion". Conspiracies fit the bill. In Aberhart's case, the call of fantasy economics was irresistible.

If you can believe in God - even a little bit - you can believe anything. In the words of Rachel Maddow, you have moved to Earth 2.

But why America? What is it about America that makes it such a fertile ground for outright denial of reality?

America was founded by half a dozen sects who simultaneously claimed their beliefs were the only correct ones and that others were mistaken. Bound for Hell even. This combination of rabid focus on made-up doctrine along with the tendency to endlessly split into more and more factions is the founding feature of Protestantism (it's in the very name). It is in the American tradition to cling proudly to one's own version of the HUGE lie and shun others - sometimes to the point of violence.

This sets the stage for charlatans of all stripes to round up "true believers" and convince them of something even nuttier than what they already believe. There is something WE know and YOU don't. What's more - you need to demonstrate your belief. You need to act. Shoot an abortion provider. Invade the Capital. It's a habit of mind.

This produces the phenomenon I call the "skunk at the dinner party". Skunks want to be more and more offensive to rule out any serious possibility of communication. If you are sufficiently counter-factual in your announcements, people simply walk away. This is not a mere difference of opinion. An encounter with one of these skunks can make you sick for days.

This is the road to mass stupidity.

Dimensions of Value: Influence, Power and Status

In a previous post, I mentioned how our world view - especially our perceived system of values - comes into our politics. At the same time, political players tend to misrepresent their own value system and the value system of their opponents to gain power. Power itself is a value worth looking into. In fact, "political" power seems to show up in all the "social great apes" and many other species. My aim here is simply to visualize this dimension - to come up with a visual metaphor that helps us think of this type of value. There are many values similar to "political power". I chose to talk about "influence" as a representative of this class of values. These networks are essential to understanding one of the themes of this entire blog: the superorganism. Networks of value play a role similar to the nervous system of the individuals who make up these organisms. They account for "why" these organisms value what they value and do what they do. They explain the "nuts and bolts" of how individuals are "programmed" by the superorganism.

From "Connected: The Surprising Power of our Social Networks .." Page 289

Social networks transmit all kinds of social things, including "influence", "political power" and "debt".

As already noted, debt is the shadow of "money", but this is a rather abstract idea that we can conveniently ignore. In practice, each of us in debt to identifiable entities, such as the government, the bank, and persons such as our society, our mentors and political patrons. Much of our behavior is governed by perceived obligation, even if we pretend to ourselves that we act freely.

In "Thieves of State", Sarah Chayes provides a detailed description of the architecture of one particular well developed "kleptocracies" - Afghanistan. This networked structure is composed of two-way relationships between the "boss" and the "client". Money (bribes etc.) flow "up" to the boss and perks, protection and status flow down. The link is usually established by the "client" paying for the position in the first place.  Sarah's analysis is particularly helpful in revealing how the corruption of the entire "government" structure works. It is, in effect, a criminal conspiracy that has captured the government. It is extremely durable since it comes to be an accepted aspect of the culture itself.

As Chayes points out, there are different structures in different countries, all lying on a spectrum of "corruption" - from outright capture of the economy by organized crime (Russia) to "white glove" capture of the economy by the rich, where political power and wealth are assumed to be interchangeable.

Networks of influence effectively control governments (including ours) where "corruption" is technically illegal.

Individual voters imagine that their "influence" flows to their representative in the form of their vote. In fact, such influence is openly sold to large campaign donors. "Fundraising" actually takes up the lion's share of the time available to elected officials. One of the key ideas of "socialism" is that each individual citizen should have an equal influence on the decisions of the government. This is specifically denied by the capitalist system, which is effective "one dollar, one vote". Capitalist politicians, such as Republicans in the USA, devote their energies to voter suppression - specifically standing against "equal representation" - "equal influence". They also vigorously defend mechanisms that maximize the influence of individuals and organizations with "deep pockets" (PACKS). We should note that the purpose of a PACK is to reverse the flow of influence - to influence the voter in favor of the PACK's agenda.

A whole library of books could be written on this subject. For the moment, I'd just like to point this out as one of the "dimensions of value" that matter in a fundamental way. Dimensions like "money" obviously play a role, but political power itself is a key value, most obviously to politicians but also to those who feel they are being left out - those who can be convinced to vote against their own interest in the name of some populist rhetoric. The dynamic "works" for the politician, but seldom for the disenfranchised voter. "Money talks". The rules of the game are set by those currently in power, resulting in a system as resilient to change as that in Afghanistan.

In political networks, loyalty functions more or less the same way it does in the Afghan-type kleptocracy. Individual representatives commit political suicide if they don't support the party agenda. In turn, the party provides financial help to get the representative re-elected. Loyalty networks function to draw the compliant politician closer and closer to the center of power while banishing anyone who shows a hint of disloyalty to the political wilderness. Newly elected politicians are "shown the ropes" by senior experts at the game, resulting in powerful loyalty networks between mentor and student.

Before leaving aside this topic for the moment, I should mention how "money" is only a value in itself when it buys the basics of life (food, shelter, security). Beyond that, money is a symbol of status and valued membership in a group. Status and membership are values on their own. Beyond "minimum wage", money buys status. A with all the great social apes, status figures into every minute of every day. It is the key to obtaining access to other values, such as mates, medical care, education, information and, of course, power. They also allow the individual to obtain shiny things like gold, jewels, and fancy cars, whose main function is to signal social status, even if this status is empty and devoid of actual influence or power - "status in the mirror".

Dimensions of Value

I have written a lot in the past about what I called "The Zen of Value". The "Zen" idea refers to the concept of sitting back, clearing your mind of preconceptions and seeing things as they really are. Another title that occurs to me is "Dimensions of Value". It turns out that this metaphor is quite fruitful and worth exploring. It grows out of a previous post: "Human Welfare And the Four Economies". Upon thinking of it, there are more than four and the mental picture of "dimensions" is helpful. The "dimensional" aspect promises to add some rigor to the underlying subject. The "royal road" to the "Zen" view of this subject is the realization that "money" is a poor measure of "value".  You already know in your bones that this is wrong but you have never wondered how, in detail, it's wrong and how, specifically you could see things better in a way to make better decisions for yourself, your family, your society and whoever comes next.

This post is basically an outline of a new line of thought in this blog: "Dimensions of Value", tagged "#Dimensions" in the index.

MONEY

Many folks are totally unfamiliar with "money" in general. I won't repeat myself on that subject. The bottom line is that every dollar of "money" is backed by a dollar of debt. When the debt turns out to be uncollectable, the money vanishes from the system, as in 2008. For some background on that subject, along with lots of reading links, check here.

So, "money" is one "dimension" of value. In fact, in "finance capitalism", money itself, rather than any assumed underlying value, is what as seen as "value". With the "dimensional" approach, we take a close look at how this presumed value can be projected on other forms of value. As already mentioned, "debt" is the "real" basis of this form of value, so it makes sense to take a look at "debt" itself as a value, which it obviously is to the creditor. If this isn't immediately obvious, consider the "books" of the bank, where debts (outstanding loans to customers) are listed as assets. But we should go a bit deeper to take a look at debt itself as a measure of value, remembering that the correspondence of money and debt is an assumed relationship that can turn out to be wrong, as it did in 2008 where 4 trillion in money was backed by debt that was, in fact, uncollectable. Another thing we could look at is government debt, which can turn out to be uncollectable in cases such as Greece.

There are other promising "dimensions" of value with connections to money that are so loose that they shout out for separate analysis. Most obvious is human life itself, perhaps the value that we can all agree on. However, we find many situations where the lives of others are routinely valued at zero or cases where an individual will value his/her own life worth throwing away for some perceived value. What is that value and how can we visualize the transaction.

LIFE ITSELF

Insurance companies provide some useful guesses for the money value of human life - we'll take a look at that. Lawsuits against polluters that compensate for the loss of life and quality of life are useful sources of information. Such information effectively places a floor on the value of life. We can all agree that nobody can compensate anyone for the loss of a loved one. And, of course, if a person is dead, the whole idea of compensation to the victim becomes meaningless - a bit like dividing by zero.

For centuries, the value of labor has been assumed to be a fundamental value (Marx assumed this for example). This can be a bit slippery since we tend to only value "work" that can somehow be turned into money and we ignore the fact that "work" adds to the value of life for some people and amounts to throwing away time you will never get back for others. Nonetheless, with our "dimensional" approach, we can perhaps get a new way of seeing why labor, the compensation for it and the economic value of it varies so mysteriously.

RESOURCES

Centuries ago, the economic theories of "mercantilism" assumed that gold and silver were the basis of all value - driving the policies of governments and a wave of colonial conquest. Even though this theory is long dead (except in the minds of Donald Trump), we need to take it seriously. There are three aspects of it that seem to be almost independent (dimensions). One is the actual value of the resource (its "utility" or usefulness). The other is scarcity. The third is widespread acceptance of the resource as a kind of "money". Bitcoin is a recent attempt to create a "store of value" that is based on scarcity and trust alone. Bitcoin believers tend to think that "real" money - what they call "fiat" money - is "nothing but" arbitrary tokens that we trust and scarcity.

There are a few resources that are undoubtedly valuable and are becoming scarce, at least locally. Their value depends on how we use the resource and many "technical" features. There are many examples of this, namely:

• Water
• Fossil fuels
• Coltan
• Uranium

It's useful to look at what these resources have in common as well as how they differ. Since water is emerging as a "physical" resource of this type that's "in the news" these days, it's a good example to consider in detail.

THE ENVIRONMENT

Many people regard the "environment" in general, including the animals that live in it, are in this category. For example, expansion of "arable land" has an opposite cost in "habitat". Whether you care about this tradeoff or not, it eventually comes back to bite you when, for example, "commercial" fish stocks vanish due to pollution and/or climate change. 

At bottom, the issue is whether to treat the environment as a "resource". If we see it that way, only human values apply. If not, we see only the human value of maintaining life on the planet.

We can treat the "environment" as a dimension whether or not people care about this dimension. We have objective measures available, including the rate of species loss, the rate of habitat destruction and, of course, the mother of all environmental costs: climate change, which is being studied to death.

ENERGY

Another interesting source of value is energy and its evil twin "entropy". Life of any type requires an energy source. The big picture is that life fights "uphill" against entropy which is increasing everywhere in the universe at all times at all scales. This is perhaps the fundamental struggle of life, making energy the basic "value" and entropy the basic "negative" value. Life is a constant gamble in the casino of the Universe, where the "house" always wins in the long run.

We all see energy costs translated into money in our fuel and electricity bills. But, by the basic laws of nature (namely the laws of thermodynamics), energy "creation" involves an opposite creation of entropy (actually more entropy than energy is created). An irreversible consequence of all human political systems is that "entropy" is created by irreversible pollution of water sources - something that the energy companies magically avoid accounting for - passing it on to society and the environment itself. Such systems also tend to regard direct costs in other dimensions (such as the value of life itself) as somebody else's problem. 

The same phenomenon can be seen in nuclear energy. Even in "renewable" sources, the same laws apply, although you need to follow the energy transactions. For example, "free" energy from wind power ignores the energy cost of creating the hardware, transmitting the energy and maintaining the system. 

POLITICS

The subject of politics cannot be avoided here. All political theories involve a "meta-theory" about the value and dangerously ignore or misunderstand most dimensions.

For example, political debate in Canada (where it happens at all) is about "money" and its assumed relationship to "jobs" which are a proxy for "life itself". All other considerations can be set aside as long as we can grow "GDP" (Itself an abstraction of an abstraction). We are unable to discuss other "dimensions" intelligently. Capitalism assumes that all resources are "owned" by someone. Even the idea that the "Government" "owns" resources not owned by others is an assumption with sweeping consequences. Assumptions about the "value" of "work" and "money" are buried so deeply in our debates that it can seem crazy to challenge them. The effect of this is that major problems sneak up us from unknown "dimensions". We lack even the language to recognize the enemy.

So, in this blog, we will frequently discuss how political theories perceive the multidimensional world of human value. I know of no political theory that does justice to this subject. We are left with a choice between sets of dangerous misconceptions.

How Our Politics Misses the Point

An excellent CBC Ideas episode is a nuanced treatment of how we tend to become more "conservative" as we grow older. I felt that the entire discussion was missing the point, or at least the "lefties" and "conservatives" were talking past each other. We have lost sight of the real world around us and have grown to depend on utterly unreliable ways of thinking about it.

There is a lot to unpack here.

For one thing, words such as "liberal" and "conservative" suffer from "reification" - slipping into thinking that something is a "thing" just because we use a name. "Socialists" have famously never agreed on what "real" socialism is - they are always accusing each other of not being "real" socialists" The idea of "conservatism" is just as amorphous, as illustrated by its defenders in the CBC episode. Why, for example, is Trump "conservative". Of course, conservatives are quick to say he's not a "real" conservative. There are echoes of religious schism here ...

It seems to me that terms like "liberal" and "socialist" are used mainly by "conservatives" as pejorative terms for an ideology that may or may not exist as a cohesive political ideology. On the other hand, those who lean to the "left" misunderstand the nature of their opposition. To cite just one element of this, I rarely find a "leftie" who understands the religious core of the Republican party. There are many who will not vote Democrat because they honestly believe that God is a Republican.

My problem with the whole debate is that it is not really "about what it's about".

On the "left", the concern is officially about "social justice" - providing each citizen with a tolerable lifestyle and civil rights. "Lefties" regard the political project as engineering all aspects of the system toward this end. "Conservatives" tend to appeal to fundamental principles that they feel preclude the need for analysis. As with religious conservatives, political conservatives miss the rapidly evolving image of what things were like in the good old days.

On the "right", it's officially about money. Balanced budgets, GDP and taxes. They provide lip service to social justice but always want to know "who will pay". When talking to a "conservative", you always feel the implied answer: "Not me". Conservatives hate to pay taxes and they take it personally.

I think that other issues tend to "stick" to one side or the other out of a historical accident or careful "engineering" of the political climate. For example, there is no obvious reason why "conservatives" should oppose abortion rights or, specifically, the "right" of the government to have a say in the reproductive rights of an individual. There is no obvious reason why "conservatives" should be climate change deniers or gun rights advocates. It's a matter of strategic alliances.

The fundamental core division is, I think, over two ways of seeing the world: people who see the problems and opportunities of real people versus people who see the issue as a zero-sum game of who pays. This is unfortunate since you simply cannot see what is going on in the world through a lens of money.

• The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
• The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.
• Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

John Kenneth Galbraith

In my reading of Galbraith, my "takeaway" was his insight that it's all about the "commons" - the assets we own together as a society. Political "left/right" fights, especially when taxes and balanced budgets come up, are about the "commons". For example, Should the "commons" include affordable medical care for all? Why do I have to pay for schools if I have no children? Why should I pay for libraries when I don't read?

Conservative opponents of "tax and spend" liberals tend to overlook the stunning expansion of the "commons" over the last two centuries, which has nothing to do with what kind of government is in charge. For example, a conservative that advocates that roads should be paid for by precisely the people who use them (toll roads everywhere) would be seen as a crackpot. We see this kind of thinking with privatized fire departments who watch buildings burn because the owner is not paying "insurance" to the right fire department. Perhaps we should have toll booths at the entrance to every park.

But that misses a deeper point. We have created an environment that is 99% artificial. Who are "we"? Increasingly, every object in our environment has been created by thousands upon thousands of faceless individuals in a production train. Sometimes we need to have our noses shoved into this fact by, for example, asking how we would make a toaster from scratch. I ask the reader to pick up any object nearby and ask if he could make it from scratch. A plastic spoon? A ballpoint pen? A sticky label? Do we have any idea how much every person in the production line of any of these things got paid for his contribution? Does such a question even make sense? The fact is that everything around us has been created by the human race. We have no idea who designed this stuff, who built it or how it came to be regarded as "ours". The money we paid for it is, generally speaking, an absurdly low estimate of its "worth". To a large extent, what we pay for things in this world is a pretty arbitrary measure of what their value is to us. We access the vast amount of that value for "free".

But how do we regard our money as "ours"? If we look closely, most of us are also involved in a production chain too Our own contribution is lost in a sea of other contributions, with some kind of value popping out at the other end as if by magic. For example, for 30 years I worked to improve aircraft safety. I have no idea if my contribution saved any one single life. It only makes sense to think of my efforts as a contribution to the work of millions in the transportation industry.

What I am left with is a vision of the "commons" as a vast universe of value. Each of us contributes and (maybe) gets paid for it. We withdraw things from the commons and (rarely) pay for that value.

We should have our political discussions around enhancing the value of the commons, reducing the cost of accessing it and fairly compensating those who contribute to it. Automation threatens to completely disrupt the "compensation" part of this system while driving down the cost of "things" that the commons produces. Some members of society see their access to the commons painfully restricted or eliminated while others seek to "fence off" the commons and call a chunk of it "theirs".

So why are some things so expensive and why do some people get paid almost nothing for their contribution?

It seems to me that it boils down to personal, individual, one-on-one service. You can't mass produce cancer care or Nobel Prize winners. But there is no shortage of people who will work in warehouses or flip hamburgers.

That's the status of my current thinking on this issue. The devil is in the details.