I think as a society we are waking up to the fact that we don't like how the market shapes many, many industries.
We know that the market isn't perfect from Economics 101. Public goods, free rider problem, and other basic issues show us that market forces and rational players alone will NOT provide the best outcome for society.
We currently have three systems of distribution in our society - pure capitalism / globalism, regulated capitalism, and government run programs:
1. pure capitalism is where there is very little regulation or market intervention
2. regulated capitalism is where policies, penalties, or subsidies exist to shape behavior of companies in ways that market forces wouldn't
3. government run programs (or other similar programs) receive funding and try to deliver a service for free or heavily subsidized at cost
There are some markets / areas of consumption that are running well in our country (that we as a society are happy with the cost and quality of service provided). These include:
- Food, clothing, most consumables, physical goods, hobbies / activities, recreational media, etc.
Some markets that are not running well are:
- Housing, education, transportation, news media / information dissemination, health care, etc.
Now, there's 3 ways of affecting change:
1. Add in policies, penalties, or subsidies to an existing market to enforce specific behaviors
2. Reduce or modify policies to revert specific behaviors or combat inefficiency
3. Create a sustainable fund / program to allow the service be delivered without market forces attached
Unsurprisingly, these all require government intervention. It's why most people are so vested in the political situation of the present, because our government is the only power that can shape markets and solve these problems.
There is one other route - the public comes together does #3 - creates a fund / organization that is meant to provide the good and service without market forces attached. Now, unfortunately the public lacks a huge factor to sustainability - the ability to tax. So whereas funds from government can be sustaining because of taxes, funds from the public have to rely on a large endowment or other such thing in order to be self sustaining.
Local news, news reporting, and social media currently exist under system #1. But they need to move to #2 or even #3 if it turns out we really don't like giving the market what it values - our time on ads and our data for ads. Or even worse, giving the market the ability to shape our thoughts and public discourse.
> I think as a society we are waking up to the fact that we don't like how the market shapes many, many industries.
That's known for at least a century. If you look carefully, it's know in some form for as long as people has talked about markets.
It wasn't for lack of knowledge that governments abandoned market intervention. People (as a collective) have some funny ways to form their opinions, they some times become radicals, moving from one kind of extremism to another, without stopping for a second to think they may be wrong before completely changing their opinions into the opposite of what they just were. If anybody has a good idea why this happen, it would be interesting to listen.
I think it's because capitalism has a "soft correction" mechanism, which is consumer activism. Because complaining and boycotting kind of works as a defense mechanism against market forces, it masks the underlying systemic problems.
Because of this, many people don't actually know how the market shapes industries. We have so many activist conversations and so few policy conversations in public discourse, it reflects what people, even smart people, think about their ability to affect change.
We know that the market isn't perfect from Economics 101. Public goods, free rider problem, and other basic issues show us that market forces and rational players alone will NOT provide the best outcome for society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem
We currently have three systems of distribution in our society - pure capitalism / globalism, regulated capitalism, and government run programs:
1. pure capitalism is where there is very little regulation or market intervention
2. regulated capitalism is where policies, penalties, or subsidies exist to shape behavior of companies in ways that market forces wouldn't
3. government run programs (or other similar programs) receive funding and try to deliver a service for free or heavily subsidized at cost
There are some markets / areas of consumption that are running well in our country (that we as a society are happy with the cost and quality of service provided). These include:
- Food, clothing, most consumables, physical goods, hobbies / activities, recreational media, etc.
Some markets that are not running well are:
- Housing, education, transportation, news media / information dissemination, health care, etc.
Now, there's 3 ways of affecting change:
1. Add in policies, penalties, or subsidies to an existing market to enforce specific behaviors
2. Reduce or modify policies to revert specific behaviors or combat inefficiency
3. Create a sustainable fund / program to allow the service be delivered without market forces attached
Unsurprisingly, these all require government intervention. It's why most people are so vested in the political situation of the present, because our government is the only power that can shape markets and solve these problems.
There is one other route - the public comes together does #3 - creates a fund / organization that is meant to provide the good and service without market forces attached. Now, unfortunately the public lacks a huge factor to sustainability - the ability to tax. So whereas funds from government can be sustaining because of taxes, funds from the public have to rely on a large endowment or other such thing in order to be self sustaining.
Local news, news reporting, and social media currently exist under system #1. But they need to move to #2 or even #3 if it turns out we really don't like giving the market what it values - our time on ads and our data for ads. Or even worse, giving the market the ability to shape our thoughts and public discourse.