One characteristic feature of the small size of our society which few take into account, concerns the possibility to conduct a genuine and open discussionm – one in which people holding diverse and opposing views carry out an exchange of ideas on social as well as political issues, whether controversial or not.
#In a small polarised society, all citizens – or almost all – have their mind set to more than a single agenda. Even if one happens not to have such a mindset, those with whom that one interacts will suspect that it is present. Consequently, no discussion can unfold in a framework of transparency. As it proceeds no doubt double games will develop and drain it of any kind of transparency.
#Quite frequently, no effort is even made to hide this reality. According to what happen to be the views (or prejudices) of those setting up the discussion, they expect that their motives and presentations are taken as having been made in good faith, which would not have been the case.
***
PRICE
In economic theory, the price that is charged for the purchase of an object or a service also functions as a communications signal. It alerts the consumer to the value of what is being bought and to the interest shown in it by interested buyers. All this is expected to happen in a so-called free market.
Public authorities then decide that a product/service needs to be bought less or more and arranges for this to happen by penalising through taxation or by subsidizing the prevalent “market” price. As happens with taxes on tobacco.
It is therefore interesting to follow what will be the outcome of the decision for public transport to be free of charge for all. Before one can evaluate whether the measure has been successful, one needs to be clear about what lies behind it. Was it meant solely to increase the usage of public transport? or is the idea to decrease the use of private transport because of the rise in public transport usage? For this second aim to be reached, if it does exist, will it be necessary as well to have an increase in the “price” of private transport?
***
EUROPEAN FUNDS
To counter the effects of the covid pandemic and at the same time help promote the strategic aims set for the fight against climate warming and for the digitilisation of European economies the EU has established a structure of funds that will co-finance projects being implemented by member states. It is an impressive construct though it might be considered as too complex – but then, it is difficult to see how it could have been designed differently. There could hardly have been another way by which to organize it, given the number of member countries which all have their specific needs.
In a conference I attended this week for European parliamentarians, the European Commission reported that it is reasonably satisfied with the results obtained as of now. Not all members present from the national parliaments fully agreed with this; some had their complaints to make.
Perhaps what is most unsure about the overall initiative is that after it had been launched, war broke out in the Ukraine, which upended energy markets and served to boost inflation. The project to counter the pandemic’s effects is being adapted to also take this into account and compensate in some way for it. It’s not an easy thing to manage.