The three questions

Economic theory doesn't match reality. Look at unemployment, for example. It just stays up there, month after month. Perhaps there is some hope, but the slow recovery is unprecedented. Pain and suffering result, as well as waste, various environmental and political risks, and a sense of helplessness and despair. I offer three questions to help inform a discussion about resolution of the root problem and, by association, it's many negative consequences. In advance, I offer my opinion that it is not the lack of good ideals that tend to block our progress, it is the institutionalization of bad ideas that blocks the way. In a sense, that is the point. Lets not let that hold us back.

Then first question is this: Why don't we let producers produce their way, they way that they know how, rather than try to force them into a model that is awkwardly buoyed up by outdated philosophies and incorrect assumptions? Face it, they can produce all of what they have to offer with far fewer people. Many workers get in the way of better outcomes as they introduce poor attitudes and below-par skills and commitment. This is not a secret or a new revelation by any stretch of the imagination, it is just a factor that we choose to ignore, I think largely because we cannot bring ourselves to face the ugly consequences of the truth, given our assumptions.

We live in a time when people with great talents starve, at least from a professional or economic standpoint, while others are paid for activities that add little to the general good simply because their is "demand" for their services. Someone will pay them to do that thing. So they do that mundane thing (some of them being the self-same starving artists I referred to earlier) that gives them a paycheck, increasingly becoming absorbed into a system of meaninglessness, surrendering to its lack of positive stimulus and intrinsic satisfaction. Many do their jobs poorly, actually making things worse in terms of product and work environment.

The second question is this: What should people be doing with their time, particularly those that are "unemployed" by the above, the "producers"? We know what they should be doing if they have a job. The should be "working", an interesting construct that is construed as follows: "They should be doing something for which they are paid for if not their effort, then at least for their time, their presence in some location." If we take that from them, according to the prevailing assumptions, we rob them of purpose in life along with the rewards of a job.

The third question presents itself as a continuation of the other two: If people are to commit their lives and activities to their intrinsic talents, if society is to be reconfigured to adapt to the supply of talents and deep interests, how are these people to be paid? Remember, in question one, we considered production of goods and services that we all need and things for which there is a ready market. Since we have enough, we don't need these people to do that stuff. We are better served to promote and enjoy their talents.

Let's look at an extreme case. What if the basics, food, shelter, energy, transportation, could be provided better, making use of technologies, advanced methods, and the unique talents of the producers, but only requiring the efforts of one percent of the population. How would we distribute cash and other resources and rewards to everyone else, particularly those who have demonstrated skills and talents and have committed themselves to their development in recognized ways? What about people that are ready, willing, and able, even though they may not be budding Mozarts or Shakespeares?

I have some ideas, but my purpose here is not to discuss them. I would like you think about them and possibly comment.

Hopefully, the educational systems could help in this regard, though they would need to function quite differently from the way they do now. Schools seem to be better at beating students down for what they do not know and what they cannot do very well more than in discovering the students' innate talents and encouraging them. A critical social objective is rarely met in education, matching children and youth with leaders and educators in fields where the youth show promise. Such introductions would help them to grow, develop, and acquaint themselves with the opportunities and lifestyle options that present themselves as a result of their varied talents and commitments.

Related to this is the question of people that may elect to "opt out" of the entire program, that refuse to work in productive enterprise or are not wanted there, who do not present themselves with obvious talents or preoccupations? What are they to do and what is the system to do with them? Surely, they would want to do whatever they want, that is the point. I have seen some pretty amazing outcomes with an interventionist, behaviorist approach with people of this nature. The point is that they want something. Such desires, once understood, can translate into programs for distributing such goods, carrot-and-stick fashion, such that the public need is also met. This is a fairly expensive process, personnel-wise, but like anything else, it can be handled with greater efficiency by seasoned professionals. Of course, keep in mind that the process also "employs" people.

Answer these three questions and you change the world; you change the trajectory of mankind. I know, I know, we are going way too fast here. Please, lets leave such concerns out of it, as the point of the matter is whether the questions themselves make sense. The progress we enjoy is dependent on the willingness of others before us to engage in this very exercise.