A slow and gradual change in thinking, driven by persistent economic decline

My topic of late has been the idea that long-term economic decline changes the way we think. As a specific example, I said: "The bad economy changes our approach to problem-solving." As another example, I offer the rise of political polarization during the greater part of the post-WWII period.^[1] The rise of polarization is a striking example of a change in the way people think.

Those of us who have not yet changed our thinking don't see it that way. We just think the other guys are wrong. But it helps, I think, to see it for what it is.

Years back I watched Lou Dobbs on CNN, for his reporting on the economy. But then he changed. He would interject exasperation into the reporting, and bring in politics to explain economic events. It was a change in thinking that was driven, I point out, by our declining economy. I stopped watching Dobbs before he stopped working at CNN.

The cause is perhaps not yet as clear, but a similar change in thinking has been noticeable for the past two or three years in Bill Maher. I still watch his show, but not "religiously".

How to express it?

I googled economic crisis and mental health . The links seem to draw a straight line connecting unemployment and suicide. But no, that's not what I'm thinking. I should have used a more subtle phrase than "mental health".

I tried economic crises and peace of mind. Google seemed momentarily taken aback because I used the plural of "crisis". Then, most of the results seem to drop the "of mind" and focus on "peace" (as opposed to war). One link that didn't was Dealing With the Stress of a Financial Crisis at VeryWellMind. I thought the article might have a milder, more subtle focus than "mental health". Nope.

I tried a third search: the effect of economic crisis on human thought patterns. On the first page of results, I still find the words "mental health" expressed or implied in several of the links (and in both "people also ask" questions, and in 6 of the 8 "related searches"). But two of the links, anyway, are related to differences or changes in thinking: 

• The conspiratorial style in lay economic thinking, which "investigates patterns of lay perception". But I am looking for patterns that change in response to economic conditions. This isn't it.
  
• Psychological Prescription for Economic Recovery by Yoichi Sekizawa, which presents "a psychological model of a recession and a psychological prescription for getting out of a recession".
  

The second of these links is close to what I was looking for. But rather than thinking in terms of a single recession, picture a psychological model describing a series of recessions that are part of a long-term economic decline. I have to think there would be a cumulative effect: a gradual change in our thinking and in the basic assumptions that underlie our thought. Every recession convinces more of us that, as the pollsters put it, the economy is not "on the right track".

"When the facts change," the man said, "I change my mind."

What do I find?

Many of the links turned up by those three searches share a common theme. Recession seems to be the causal factor most often considered, suicide the result most focused on, and social welfare spending the solution most often recommended:

• Antti Uutela offers examples of the problem, and recommends a solution:

  The Asian economic crisis led to a sharp unemployment-related increase in suicide mortality in east Asian countries. In European Union countries rising unemployment was associated with significant short-term increases in premature deaths from intentional violence including suicides... Enough services for those in need should be provided and advocacy for societal support measures is of great importance.

• The World Health Organization's Regional Office for Europe links economic troubles to mental health issues, and recommends the spending solution:

  The economic crisis is expected to produce secondary mental health effects that may increase suicide and alcohol death rates. However, the mental health effects of the economic crisis can be offset by social welfare and other policy measures.

• A literature review by Diana Frasquilho et al reports that

  One-hundred-one papers met the inclusion criteria. The evidence was consistent that economic recessions and mediators such as unemployment, income decline, and unmanageable debts are significantly associated with poor mental wellbeing, increased rates of common mental disorders, substance-related disorders, and suicidal behaviours.

  It also points out the

  policy recommendations concerning the cost-effective measures that can possibly reduce the occurrence of negative mental health outcomes in populations during periods of economic recession.
  

In sum: Recession leads to suicide, and social welfare spending prevents it. That's what the internet offers. I'm not saying it is wrong. But it is not my topic.

The focus on suicide is a mistake, in my view. The problem is the economy; suicide is the result. But I understand the importance of the issue: Suicide is final. It is one change that cannot be reversed; it can only be prevented. I get it. However, suicide must surely be the option chosen by only the smallest percentage of people. Everyone, or nearly everyone, is harmed by economic decline. But very few choose suicide as their solution.

I certainly don't object to the good work being done by those whose path takes them from economic troubles to suicide prevention. But that path bypasses the great number of people whose thinking is gradually changed by the economic troubles. And it is these people, the great numbers, the survivors whose values gradually change, who come to reject the existing government and its policies.

Suicide may be crucial because it is irreversible, but it is probably the least common reaction. And everyone who takes that final step has no doubt been troubled in many ways by the same unsatisfactory economy. These other responses are MORE likely than the suicide option, I should think.

Not suicide, nor other mental health effects, but the connection between economic troubles and the resulting changes in our thinking is, for my purpose here, the central point.

The call for policy to address the mental changes through increased spending is, well, Keynesian. Not taking a stand here, but I must point out that, during this time of decline, for those who don't opt out by suicide but are changed by the economic decline, the key change in thinking is to abandon the Keynesian approach. It is not always brought up, but it is always there.

The natural outcome of the change in thinking is to increase the numbers of those who reject accepted thinking and choose to accept the rejected thinking. Thus we see the growth of polarization.

Observations

Sunday Morning Talk:

A story I've heard a few times on the Sunday morning talk shows: Democrats compromise and move toward the center; Republicans move away from the center; and the "center" itself shifts to the right. I don't know who told that story, but I know I heard it multiple times. And it does fit the long-term-change-in-thinking-driven-by-economic-decline model.

New York City, Tough on Crime:

According to Vox, "tough on crime" policy in New York City has been identified with Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg. Both mayors were Republican. Today, the tough-on-crime mayor is a Democrat. First, the City moved far enough right to elect (and re-elect) tough-on-crime Republicans; now, Democrats have moved far enough right to get tough on crime. That's a long-term change in thinking, driven (in my view) by long-term economic decline.

The historian Rostovtzeff on the fall of Rome:

What happened was a slow and gradual change, a shifting of values in the consciousness of men. What seemed to be all-important to a Greek of the classical or Hellenistic period, or to an educated Roman of the time of the Republic and of the Early Empire, was no longer regarded as vital by the majority of men who lived in the late Roman Empire...

A slow and gradual change. A shifting of values. A change in thinking and in the basic assumptions that underlie thought. A change brought about by long-term economic decline.

The Arthurian view

In regard to the search results, I said above that

Recession seems to be the causal factor most often considered, suicide the result most focused on, and social welfare spending the solution most often recommended.

My view differs altogether from that of the search results:

• The significant causal factor is long-term economic decline, not simply the occurrence of recession.
• The result we most need to focus on is the one we most ignore: the changes in our thinking that arise during (and because of) the long economic decline.
• The solution we require is not an increase in social welfare spending (though that could be part of it) but instead a viable solution to the problem of long-term economic decline.