Publications

Global pandemics, military conflicts, and natural disasters are crescively disrupting increasingly complex supply chains. But neither the social science of economics or decision science of supply chain management were sufficient to anticipate, much less mitigate the depth, breadth, or duration of the disruptions and damage wrought by Covid-19 or Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Economics is the study of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services, and creation and transfer of wealth. Supply chain management is the management of a network of organizations, internal and external, by which an organization pursues its own goals and objectives. Process focus is integral to supply chain management, as operations management is the management of an organization’s processes to pursue its goals and objectives. Adherence to processes is necessary for organizations to consistently reach their goals and objectives. When organizations execute consistently, they can leverage that quality for lower costs, greater volume, higher prices, or additional stakeholder good-will. By combining these concepts, supply chain economics can be framed as the systematic study of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods, services, and capital by networks of organizations, internal and external, with which any given organization pursues its goals and objectives.

An aging workforce and population decline give opportunity to increase the share of employee-owner managed firms in the U.S., such as employee stock ownership plans.  This demographic shift is multifactor, with falling family sizes compounding retirement of Baby Boomers.  In generations past, significantly larger family sizes would yield credible heirs.  Just as a farmer or craftsman taught their trade to progeny and passed them their farm or tools upon death, prior generations of entrepreneurs frequently had successive heirs to inherit the going concern.  But significant societal shifts in education, types of work, and gender roles have contributed to reduced family sizes.  As women gain education, they increase their workplace participation, delay marriage, gain access to birth control, delay starting families.  Together, these societal developments manifest a decline in population growth.  And of concern for the first essay, lack of apparent heir, risks acquisition or outright closure of firms, potentially disrupting continuity of production, supply, and local community employment.

As the Covid-19 pandemic, Russian invasion of Ukraine, and resultant supply chain challenges continue to disrupt public healthcare, societal interaction, and the economy, whether they know it or not, some are calling for increased application of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).  In several ways, MMT seeks to address such challenges.  This second essay examines several key criticisms of MMT, with a common theme of US economic exceptionalism.  After briefly considering the challenge of defining MMT, this essay transitions to limited contemporary literature review and analysis that MMT will not work in developing countries due first, to unemployment frequently being structural and not cyclical and due second, to developing countries lacking sufficiently strong monetary sovereignty.  The second essay then assesses criticisms that the US is unique in ability to service debt through deficits, ending with discussion of policy implications for deficit spending and inflation through a primarily US lens.

It is by no means exaggeration to suggest that society finds itself increasingly ill equipped in the art of civil discourse.  The realm of political debate has polarized at partisan extremes, fueled by gross economic inequality.  But before we can broker peace, it is crucial we mend the broken lines of communication, starting with the most basic building blocks of language.  Of late, our (un)civil discourse has been rife with talking at each other and past each other, without pause to consider the foundational definitions of the words we lob.  We have weaponized our very means of intellectual connection, to the point that what remains is a toxic stew of defensive reactions.   The third essay contained herein has lofty goals of deconstructing and then intentionally framing a lay person’s lexicon with useful definitions for capitalism, capitalist, and capital.

The aging workforce and population decline give opportunity to increase the share of labor managed firms in the U.S., such as employee stock ownership plans.  Yet why are labor managed firms not a natural and organic solution to the above workforce and population challenges, instead becoming a contemporary political talking point for the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders?  At a minimum, labor managed firms are economically equal and socially preferable to conventional firms.  Yet labor managed firms exist in far fewer numbers than conventional firms.  Why is this?  Earlier arguments that labor managed firms were less efficient, less productive, and less survivable have been convincingly countered.  So, deduction suggests they are simply created far less frequently than conventional firms.  This author finds three primary hypotheses for why this imbalance exists.  First, that there is broad lack of awareness of labor managed firm options and benefits.  Second, that entrepreneur self-interest shows preference for conventional firms over labor managed firms.  And third, that co-determination complicates labor managed firm creation, in turn promoting conventional firm creation.  This piece follows a logical form to engage a subset of relevant literature in investigation of the dearth of labor managed firms.

It is by no means exaggeration to suggest that society finds itself increasingly ill equipped in the art of civil discourse.  In particular, the realm of political debate has polarized at partisan extremes, arguably fueled by gross economic inequality.  And as is typical when advocates’ hearts are aflame, logic can give way to passion, whether for lack of empathy or failures in communication.  With skirmish lines firmly drawn seeming eons ago, the opposing forces calcify in their trenches, rarely daring set foot on the field of battle, choosing instead to lob poorly calculated mortars at their “enemy,” not in honest attempt to “win” the war, but merely hoping to quiet the shells raining down, even if but temporarily.  Before we can broker peace, it is crucial we mend the broken lines of communication, starting with the most basic building blocks of language.  Of late, our (un)civil discourse has been rife with talking at each other and past each other, without pause to consider the foundational definitions of the words we lob.  We have weaponized our very means of intellectual connection, to the point that what remains is a toxic stew of defensive reactions.  Into this fray author beckons reader, with lofty goals of both deconstructing and then intentionally framing a lay person’s lexicon with useful definitions for capitalism, capitalist, and capital, each considered as relative to socialism.