I participated in an engaging conversation with some family members over dinner last Friday evening. Uncle George pointed out, in response to my broad statements about the dominance of markets over law, culture, and institutions, that "the market" was not a monolithic entity but rather the dynamic result of the ever changing needs and values of all market participants (i.e. everybody). He also posed a very good question, "what policy changes would I advocate as an alternative to our contemporary reality (i.e. the global urban market)?".

I was not able to carefully state my thoughts at the time of that discussion, but now while my brain is at ease, it is much easier to elaborate. The problem with the global urban market is that, by its own nature, it tends to break down ALL non-market institutions. That is because even self-interested (i.e. market friendly) community oriented behavior is subsumed by the atomizing force of the market. For example, consider how some musical genres have been shaped from their beginnings in market-weak urban centers (the ultimate breeding ground for non-market culture, for a prime example see New Orleans) to later stages of mass consumption. The effect of the breakdown in non-market institutions is not only that we loose a certain social aesthetic diversity, but more importantly, that the values that drive market demand ARE GENERATED AND MODIFIED BY THE MARKET ITSELF. Therefore the contemporary state is one of exponentially market oriented behavior (demand built upon decades of institutionally eroding market dominance).

So what "real" changes can I advocate to counter this situation? In general I will advocate for building and participating in non-market institutions (families, spiritual communities, ethics organizations, clubs, sports) ... and pressing for change where the market has intruded. This tends to involve spending as little money on participation, and making the institutional structure as informal as possible. This view informs my policy preferences as well.