There is a simple one-size-fits-all solution to restoring economic balance, a solution that no one would disagree with in principle, a solution that will never be implemented: good economic indicators. We are bombarded with stock market indicators incessantly. Consequently, that is where our focus lies for “restoring balance.” When the stock market does well it’s business as usual; when the stock market crashes we react to correct the problem. There are economic problems we do not address because they are not being “indicated.”
The financial sector has outperformed overall productivity by double since the seventies, proof that we react to stock market indicators. Net dividends have outperformed wages by an even greater margin (until the recent crash), proof that we react to stock market indicators. Privatized health costs have doubled up on socialized health costs, even that is proof we react to stock market indicators.
Imagine an alternative reality where stock market indicators were never broadcast. Instead, the information we are bombarded with is the ratio of essential and expensive items to median family income; or any number of indicators directly impacting the middle class experience. Would the economy perform in the same way? Absolutely not! You may think that housing prices have inflated mainly because of building bigger houses; you may think they inflate because houses appreciate rather than depreciate in value. Whatever the cause, the economy would react to the feedback indicators of imbalance.
You can find information and indicators on virtually everything these days, an argument the “Buyer Beware” folk love to point out. Yet information buried amidst noise is, in effect, misinformation. A principle I came upon as a seller of books and music is that people generally need to encounter something ten times before they act on it. A person will hear about what the stock market is doing ten times in one day. How often do we hear about the ratio of housing costs to median family income inflating? Yes, the information is there, on this web site for one, but my fifty visitors a day does not compare with the one million viewers per program watching Fox News.
Who would disagree with better information as a solution? No one would in principle. Yet you will never see indicators that most directly impact ordinary folk reported by corporate media or discussed in think tank article and blogs, at least not on a regular basis (employment indicators are constructed and reported in a way that serve corporations more than families). As a person who understands evolutionary principles I can comfort you that there is nothing conspiratorial about this. Bacteria do not consciously seek to inflict disease on humans. They evolved to survive in a certain way and disease is just an unfortunate consequence.
So, too, have corporations evolved to survive in a certain way, similar to bacteria as a matter of fact. Incessantly broadcasting stock market indicators helps them survive; broadcasting the ratio of median income to overall productivity does not. The information and indicators that get echoed, that is heard “ten times” instead of once, are the ones that benefit and are broadcast by corporate media. While good information seems to be a great solution that no one would argue with, it has the least likelihood of being implemented of all the suggestions I have made so far for economic balance.
Some things would need to change outside the economic realm to bring about this uncontroversial yet near impossible change of good economic indicators, which leads us next to restoring political balance.
