Lobbying as a symptom of our social problems: King Dolla

Why are business associations consistently more effective than groups like environmental organizations (besides the fact that it is easier for smaller number of interested parties to act)? Because monetary effects (e.g. costs to business) are easily quantified and related to by all, businesses and the public, especially by the consumers that we have become. Environment or health concerns can subjectively matter more to people than a potential regulation does to a company (esp. to the middle class in the developed world who do not really have to worry about tangible basics like nutrition, shelter, or even internet connectivity) – but they are harder to quantify and thus think about.

The market has reached far into our lives, but it cannot accommodate many things – which are dutifuly left by the wayside. What does it mean that 'we have become consumers instead of citizens', the recent slogan of progressives? It is not just that we hold consuming more important in our mental world than political participation, but that we apply a consumer metric to everything we deal with. We consume healthcare, beauty of the environment, fresh air. But a ‘consumer’ is a market participant and a consumer metric is a monetary one. Thus, for instance, consumption in the domain of health can only describe services provided (which have market-set price) not the potential health benefits to the person (except through perversions like lost productivity). A consumer orientation equates value and price – which do align in goods that really are commodities, but do not and cannot in domains like health or nature. The old mantra "you can't put a price on X" today has the sad undertone that X will be simply ignored.

People naturally gravitate to heuristics. When Clooney's understudy questions his use of stereotyping in Up in the Air, he responds, "it's faster." Simplify, streamline -- we are powerless to argue against these commands (and where does their appeal come from? Exactly). Price offers just such a heuristic.

The climate crisis could be an excellent opportunity to drive this point to public consciousness, and demonstrate that universal commodification is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately, the left has capitulated to business interests and has started to argue for emission regulation in market terms – in monetary comparisons of instituting and foregoing regulation now, instead of considering the true “costs” – loss of land and livelihood whose market valuation does not capture its true value.

There is an alternative. We have plenty of other ways to talk about the things that matter to us besides their price and cost. Quality of life; sources of (national) pride (e.g. parks, national monuments, just social arrangements); social responsibility; what we leave for our children; the social compact (this one is a bit antiquated, but is making a comeback). All these kinds of frames express judgments of value without drawing on market terminology or mental orientation.

This shift is inescapably difficult. "If we do this we will leave the next generation a $10 trillion debt" is so much more alarming and obviously actionable than "If we don't do this, the arctic icecap will melt", or "50 million of faceless Americans will lack access to healthcare." And nothing spells doom faster today than a prognosis of difficulty. But we have to do it anyway.