When societies make choices

Loosely speaking is the public opinion a measurement of the ideas coursing across our society, from the basic cultural norms to the guiding principles of our economy. Like pretty much every other opinion the public one changes over time as a result of the internal debates and other events that might happen in the national or international context. In fact, when we want to stress the temporal dimension of the public opinion me frequently use the term "zeitgeist" instead (in German, literally "spirit of the time"). This means, of course, that change can be induced by sparking those debates.

One remarkable aspect of public opinion is that it has no aspiration of being democratic, of giving everyone a fair chance of expressing themselves. Instead, it is heavily compounded with the vocality of each participant. To start with, there is generally a huge silent minority whose opinions never get expressed as such and are instead conveyed by spokespeople. However, there is often very little check with respect to the legitimacy of this representation so vocal actors can get more than their fair share of attention and therefore "impose" (on at least push forward) ideas that do not represent a substantial portion of society.

Photo: Rasande Tyskar

Similarly, there are certain "vehicles" of opinion that can help spreading an idea much faster than others. Social networks have been used in the recent past to start social movements and even revolutions in an unimaginably short amount of time. That is also why, when the Military staged a coup in Myanmar a few months ago, the first thing they cut off were the social networks (to prevent a massive resistance). In the time before the internet TV and radio stations played a similar role, being much more immediate than newspapers or books. In the end it all boils down to the clout, the ability of a person or media outlet to influence the opinions and behaviors of others.

It has been often heralded that participating in the elections is the primary means of expression for the society both in a positive and in a negative sense: you have to vote to participate, and countries where voting does not happen do not allow any participation whatsoever. However, it is easy to understand that speaking up once every four years (or two if you consider the midterms) is not much of a participation. As we have seen, demonstrations and rallies can also provide an important feedback to our governments as to what our opinions are: ideas that are really close to our hearts will push us to invest time and money in attending a demonstration in ways that an irrelevant issue will not.

However there is no need to turn to massive events to provide our feedback: in a market economy as is the case in most of the western world, each buying decision is a valuable input: when bicycle shops are sold out for miles, it might be adequate to think of building infrastructure for the cyclists; it football stadiums sit unused for months it might be appropriate of thinking of alternative uses; if the buildings downtown do not manage to get long-term tenants, it is likely that the living conditions in those neighborhoods deserve some closer inspection.

I came to think about societal choices on occasion of this article on The Economist where they argue that "Big Government" is coming again in very ominous terms. It should not surprise any one that a declared Neo-liberal magazine speaks against the expansion of governmental power to the detriment of the holy market, but I think they missed the mark: if education and healthcare costs are exploding it is not because their lower-than-average productivity gains, but because they cater to a captive audience subject to a cartel situation: people cannot go about their lives without proper health insurance or an adequate education so, in a fashion already described by Giffen in Ireland in the late 19th century, when the essentials become more and more expensive the consumers, deprived from usable alternatives, simply devote more of their income to them instead of stopping buying.

The Economist warns against the dangers of governmental cronyism, but big corporations are equally susceptible to this kind of behavior: the unstoppable trend to over-diagnose can only be explained by the fact that every single diagnostic procedure nets the hospitals and clinics a small profit, so the incentives are clear to prescribe as many procedures as medically credible. In the same way, the pharma industry is heavily slanted towards chronic palliative treatments to the expense of curative medicines that only need to be administered (and bought) once per patient.

So from this modest blog I humbly invite the higher minds of the market economy establishment to stop stirring the fear of the government when there are very powerful entities that are abusing the system in a much more blatant way and have not even been elected by us. The society has shown how important healthcare and education are for us and responding to this decision is the only correct option. Even if it means a bigger government. Have a nice evening.