What if the market decides the market shouldn’t always decide?

In his recent NYT Magazine cover story examining the Supreme Court’s tilt toward business interests and laissez-faire attitudes, away from interference in the marketplace and regulation, Jeffrey Rosen notes that this tilt echoes an “elite consensus” — but not necessarily a mainstream one.

If anything, America may be entering something of a populist moment. If you combine the groups of Americans in a recent Pew survey who lean toward some strain of economic populism — from disaffected and conservative Democrats to traditional liberals to social and big-government conservatives — at least two-thirds of all voters arguably feel sympathy for government intervention in the economy. Could it be, then, that the court is reflecting an elite consensus while contravening the sentiments of most Americans?

So do we listen to the elites who tell us to trust the marketplace?

Or do we listen to the marketplace telling us that sometimes intervention from on high is a good idea?

I suppose my view would be that while I think Rosen is absolutely correct in saying the elite believes in market-based solutions, he’s on shakier ground in asserting that the broader public doesn’t; as far as I can tell, the crowd’s view on these matters seems to whipsaw depending on the specific issue at hand, in ways that are often inconsistent.

But you know, as long as I’m mentioning this article, I heartily recommend it to those who have heard, or who perpetuate, certain glib assertions that we live in the golden age of consumer empowerment. Sure, it’s neat that the crowd can complain about customer service on blogs, or “collaborate” with multinationals by giving them business ideas or creating branding content for them. But meanwhile, I kinda think the systematic undermining of product-liability laws, for instance, just possibly might have more important implications on the question of consumer power vs. business power.