The Timesizing®com Party
©1998-2016  Phil Hyde, Timesizing Assocs, Box 117, Cambridge MA 02238 USA 617-623-8080 - HOMEPAGE
The Unrecognized Republican Key to
Small Government (& Democrat key to efficiency)

Want more lessons from experience dba history? - 1933, and the history of the US workweek...
Qik Take -
Anything they don't like, the wealthy ("capitalists") cry Communism! or now they've got it lightened up to Socialism! But let's do a quick review of what capitalism and socialism are, and what -ism we actually need, which is neither.


There are three ways to go in government -

#1- No Regulations (unless they're in MY favor in which case we call them Job creation but don't ask Where are the jobs?) - this approach is a mirage leading to stifling concentration of skills, employment, income and wealth. It merges with #2 because the wealthy few never perceive (regulation) in their own interest as objectionable Regulation, and are quick to rationalize it as vital for the general well-being because "large pools of capital are necessary for investment in large projects" and "it creates thousands of jobs" - never mind the repeated mass layoffs that characterize the aging of this corporate socialism, alias mixed-market economics. "No controls" is the approach preached by supposed conservatives, including Republicans and Libertarians. However, modern economies have far too many tempting conflicts of interest for the simplicitous "no-controls" level, as proven by the constant drip of corporate scandals. "No controls" is most famously embodied in the early 1920s as technological productivity jumps were answered with jobcuts instead of hourscuts, and then in the late 20s, as the resulting weakened consumer spending was answered with more jobcuts ... instead of hourscuts. The fatal mistake of the "no controls" boys is their failure to connect the dots between downsizing their workforce and downsizing their customers' customers. Corporations get "too big to fail" - therefore, suicidally insulated and pampered CEOs and their corrupted "elected" servants in government conspire to make "loans" to keep unsustainably profit-concentrating corporations going (Chrysler, the big supposed success story of O.K. government intervention, was forced to merge with another top-heavy corporation, Daimler, barely a dozen years after its bailout). The tragedy of the commons becomes, in economese, the tragedy of the taxpayer and the tragedy of the consumer base and the third-world-like demise of the middle class. It's not that there's not a lot of money during depressions or in the Third World - it's just that it's astronomically concentrated among a small minority of the population. There may be dozens more billionaires and hundreds more millionaires, but there are dozens and hundreds of thousands more under- and un-employed, carefully concealed in a burgeoning variety of statistical categories such as self-employment, retirement, welfare, disability, homelessness, prison, and suicides. It's hard to get parallel terms for a list like this because somehow, in our highly ownership-concentrated media, they are seldom if ever listed together.

#2- Any Regulations - which tend to become Many Controls alias micromanagement, a burgeoning maximum of stifling, peripheral details. This is the approach preached by Democrats, liberals, mixed-market economists and micromanaging socialists. An example would be "When Karl Marx dictated fashion -..East Germany had an official government agency in charge of [fashion] design," article in 10/06/2010 Boston Metro, p.06. Its historical embodiment is focused in FDR's New Deal between April 1933 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of early 1938. (The history of the period indicates that the whole New Deal was nothing but a chaotic and desperate attempt to stop a single powerful "threat" that materialized in early April, 1933 - see next paragraph.) But there's also the opposite...

#3- Few Regulations (the real middle ground and third way), a stable minimum of freeing, centered generalizations, theoretically just one, so well designed and positioned in the body economic that it supercedes all other controls and operates as a single all-sufficient control, a kind of fundamental groundrule, the Holy Grail of economic designers, whose powerful balancing influence defines and enforces the "level playing field" of the free market to satisfy ever-rising expectations. This is the approach of timesizers and worktime economists. Whether it is seen as sustainable long-term capitalism or small-government socialism, it has yet been only partially realized in a number of primitive experiments throughout the world. Its historical embodiment is focused in the Black 30-Hour Workweek Bill which passed the US Senate on April 6, 1933 but was sandbagged in the House, and in the 44-hour nationwide workweek that was finally included in the Fair Labor Standards Act he signed June 25, 1938 for implementation on Oct. 24 and reduced by 2 hours a year for each of the next two years in order to achieve the 40/40/40 Plan on Oct. 24, 1940 = 40 hours maximum workweek (still too high), 40 cents minimum wage (unnecessary if workweek reduced enough), in 1940. The setting and reduction of the nationwide workweek ceiling reduced unemployment (UE) by roughly one percent for every hour cut from the workweek (1938, UE 19%, '39, 17.2%, '40 14.6%, '41 9.9% with war coming on), the same results as France achieved by reducing their workweek from 39 hours in 1997 (UE 12.6%) to 35 hours in 2001 (UE 8.6%). But its banner was carried for the first 75 years of the history of the Republican Party.

          Note that Approach #3 leaves intact the conservative hunch that the Market is a great natural organism whose 24/7 function it is to reconcile every level and type of self-interest. The Market is the agora, the meeting place, where to the little marked pieces of metal and colored pieces of paper called "money" is extended the respect that each human has for his/her own life, quantified in time units. So the Market is where time units are converted into monetary units; that is, units of time or standardized momentum (5th dimensional, not 4th) are converted into units of money or standardized energy (6th dimensional), in accordance with translating and unpacking e=mc(2) where c=speed or unvectored velocity in a fixed large quantity, into e=mv(2) or mv(2)=e, where v=velocity or vectored speed in a variable large quantity, and then into mv=M (momentum) and Mv=e. See booklet Defining Time. This special case of momentum aka time is essentially just a standardized measure based on standardized motions (Earth rotation, Moon revolution, Earth revolution) which have been abstracted (i.e., generalized/despecified by fractionalizing and/or multiplying) for use in measuring stillness as well as motion/movement, or inactivity as well as activity. The hubbub of multiple exchanges of services/products for symbols (& vv.) giving rise to an economy-defining currency (stable symbol) is parallel to the hubbub of Earth and Moon motion generalized into multiple repetitive satellite and planet motion giving rise to a way to a solar system, or megastar system (if Rodney Collins is right and there's an intermediate center between Sol and MilkyWay-center), or galaxy, or galactic cluster, or universe. And functioning 24/7 as it does, the Market is the economy's heart, and when it stops ... no economy.

          Approach #3 also fits nicely with the conservative preference for small government, with the view that "he who governs least governs best," and with the more challenging question for economic designers - not "How much of the economy do we have to change to achieve a long-term ecologically sustainable economy?" but "How little?" Approach #3 asks where is the most strategic point for the least intervention that will have the most effect. Of couse, for this, you need to know the most critical variable and it's current strategic manifestation (workshare per person in time units, strategically, hours per week).

          The Timesizing program follows approach #3 by only adjusting the workweek, automatically and inversely with unemployment, i.e., bidirectionally but oftener downward as the level of output-multiplying technology climbs upward, while making sure that overtime & overwork automatically convert into training & hiring. This requires only small government to administer and regular public referendums to adjust and finetune en route. It is "neither right nor left but out in front."

Common questions -

Libertarians and socialists share a naivete about regulation, both focusing on the simple regulation level. Libertarians think regulation and government is the problem. Socialists think regulation and government is the solution. Timesizing says it's not regulation or government itself that matters - it's the kind of regulation or government that matters. It must be -
  1. general, not detailed;
  2. central, not "everywhere but" the center;
  3. stable, not spreading;
  4. enabling, not stifling;
  5. limited, not unlimited;
  6. automatic, not discretionary;
  7. balancing, not skewing =
  8. sustainable, not temporary;
  9. in short, a few fundamental game rules, not the burgeoning horde of regulations and bureaucracy that we call "micromanagement."

That being said, with his timesizing solution, Phil is not only a registered voter in his own Timesizing.com Party (motto: timesizing, not downsizing!) - he is also a card-carrying member of both LPs - both the Libertarian Party (rightist) and the Labor Party (leftist). Why? Because he needs to be able to think like both of them to be able to articulate timesizing and its successor programs (because not even timesizing is eternal). He needs to be able to dissolve the naive mental ruts and partitions in the minds of both Libertarians and Laborites - partitions that exist in his own mind. Timesizing is what the Greens should be, because timesizing gives substance to the Green boast: "Not right or left but out in front." The Greens tend to fall back on a long and chaotic list of old liberal-leftist ideas and goals. The front is the future. And the future is always deeper into the center than the present. The future balances better than the present by triangulating at more extreme positions on the sides: the left, the right and some new direction such as the ecological loooong term. But in the meantime, this means the future is further right than right (more stable and guaranteed market freedom than the Libertarians can deliver) and further left than left (more stable and guaranteed labor leverage than the Laborites can deliver) in today's terms. But the Timesizing future is a design that harmonizes these greater extremes and leads beyond them to further fields of balance and durability - and harmonious diversification - one after another with no self-limiting end in sight.

Phil's best clues in the quest for the single all-sufficient groundrule were (1) the now overburdened groundrules of previous centuries (e.g., "one husband - one wife" and "one person - one vote") and (2) the idea that it's easier to share skills and work than it is to share income or wealth. In other words, employment must be balanced before finances (i.e., time before money). So Phil's best candidate for the single all-sufficient groundrule for our time is "one person - one range of skills and working hours." He calls this approach Timesizing® because it renders downsizing obsolete (the downsizing of employees and private-sector consumers) and because it fosters the upsizing of wages and private-sector markets and the downsizing of government, public debt and taxes.

Then people come along and try to tell Phil that Timesizing is "totally impractical" and will "never work in a million years." Phil rolls his eyes, shakes his head, and realizes that he, educated in Canada, is talking to yet another ignorant American who doesn't know his/her own American history. Here's what Phil tells these tough-talkin' morons, who need to "engage brain before opening mouth" = The history of the American workweek.

For more details, see our laypersons' guide Timesizing, Not Downsizing put out as a campaign piece during the 1998 race for Joe Kennedy's empty Congressional seat. The handbook is available online from *Amazon.com and at the Harvard Square Coop, 3rd floor (business & economics sections) in Cambridge, Mass.

Questions, comments, feedback? Phone 617-623-8080 (Boston) or email us.


Top | Homepage