In his 1980 book, Knowledge and Decisions, Thomas Sowell highlights the importance of social authentication and verification processes. Does this work? Is that a good idea? If it works, it survives. If not, it doesn’t. Over time, we accumulate rules, norms, and practices that make it easier for us to get things done. Some of it might be analogous to non-functional or “junk” DNA, which is “a DNA sequence that has no known biological function.” As I’ve heard it put, however, any social institution has endured because, at some point, it solved a problem.
Markets are notable institutions because they make the signals and the solutions especially clear. Profits and losses take people’s ideas out of the world of speculation and into the world of verification. A hunch becomes more than a hunch: either it is authenticated as a good idea or rejected as a bad idea. Suppose a particular type of new toaster is profitable. In that case, it means that after we tally up all the “votes” people cast by spending or saving dollars, there are more votes for making the toaster than for using the necessary resources for something else.
In a free market, the question, “Who decides?” has a simple answer. We each do, and in so doing, we all do.
In the 1930s, the economist W.H. Hutt popularized the term “consumers’ sovereignty” to describe the market process. Consumers are sovereign, Hutt argued, when they do not delegate to a centralized, coercive authority the power they exercise by buying or abstaining. He put it this way in his classic book Economists and the Public: A Study of Competition and Opinion:
“The consumer is sovereign when, in his role of citizen, he has not delegated to political institutions for authoritarian use the power which he can exercise solely through his power to demand (or to refrain from demanding).”
Hutt sometimes uses the singular, but the plural possessive “consumers’ sovereignty” is important. As he explains, the market is a genuinely social process. What emerges—a structure of prices—is something no one designed or intended, but that takes account of everyone’s voice.
That’s cold comfort to people worried about inequality because some individual voices speak louder than others. Someone with ten times my income can “speak” ten times as loudly in a free market. However, there are far, far more people of relatively modest means than there are people of very high incomes. In aggregate, they command more purchasing power and speak as a louder chorus.
One of the great ironies of elite humanitarianism is the way people dismiss the “voice of the people” when it cries out loudly for things the elites don’t like, like Walmart Supercenters, action movies, and professional wrestling. What the people demand loudly, as measured by letting their money talk, however, is what the market will supply dutifully. When elites claim that the market doesn’t give the people what they want, their complaint is really that the market is all too happy to oblige unwashed masses who want the wrong things.
Hutt argued that this illustrates the importance of tolerating bad taste. He equated it with religious tolerance. We might disagree with people and think them vulgar and base. But they have voices to which we should listen carefully, precisely because they are human and because those voices have important things to say about how the world operates—or should operate. In a society of free and equal people, consumers’ sovereignty means that people with refined tastes have to accept a lot of what they might consider chaff along with their cultural and commercial wheat.
Money talks in all walks of life, or more accurately, people “talk” with their money. Money and prices translate people’s inchoate ideas and preferences into a meaningful “social will,” or at least something akin to it.
In the stage production of Les Misérables, we’re asked, “Do You Hear the People Sing?” Profit-seeking entrepreneurs can answer “yes.” When we rely on prices, profits, and losses to help us figure out what to produce and how, “the people’s”—i.e., the sovereign consumers’— messages come through loud and clear.
READER COMMENTS
Gorgasal
Oct 22 2025 at 7:08am
Is the link under “Walmart Supercenters” supposed to go to a journal (Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy) or to a specific paper in that journal?
Mactoul
Oct 23 2025 at 7:47pm
Including the institution of slavery and suttee?
David Jones
Oct 27 2025 at 1:44am
Yes it does, of course, in the short run, which is obvious to us today. Don’t imagine the statement of that justifies them.
Jon Murphy
Oct 27 2025 at 6:15pm
Point of fact: slavery wasn’t a social institution. It was imposed and enforced by governments. Once governments stopped enforcing slavery, it disappeared.
David Seltzer
Oct 24 2025 at 2:26pm
Art: Good stuff. Another consideration comes from Frank Knight. Profit(s) are compensation for the individual who makes decisions in an uncertain and therefore uninsurable environment. The individual bets on their judgement, calculations and put capital, human and otherwise in situations where outcomes are unknown. If the entrepreneur is right, they are rewarded. Unlike risk which can be determined with a CAPM calculation, profit/loss can range from bankruptcy or insolvency to incredible wealth, depending on the success of a given venture. Uncertainty in markets is the result of human ignorance and stochastic errors. While consumer’s messages come through loud and clear, those messages, driven by subjective valuation, can change rather abruptly as a matter of spontaneous order.
Steve Dickson
Oct 27 2025 at 8:30am
In a pluralistic society, the market does not curate for refinement it aggregates for volume. Thus, those with cultivated sensibilities must endure the ubiquity of the banal, the commercial chaff, for the market is not a salon it is a bazaar.
The way I see it, when people “talk” with their money, they do more than transact; they signal values, desires, fears, and aspirations, do they not? Prices become the grammar of this economic language, translating private yearning into public consequence. They weave fabric over a frame that becomes more than the sum of its parts.
Now we contend with the latest fashion in economic disruption, technological, swift, and unrelenting. Digital platforms have intensified our consumer sovereignty, and those pesky algorithms now respond to micro-preferences in real time. Yet paradoxically, they homogenize experience, nudging users toward the invisible median.
Crypto, crowdfunding, and decentralized finance suggest new ways for consumers to “speak” with their money less about buying products, more about funding values. Oh, the web we weave.
The human impulse to express values through exchange is timeless. Thanks for your article.
David Seltzer
Oct 27 2025 at 3:08pm
Steve: Really well stated.
Comments are closed.