A truly absurd argument

Among economists, as we might have mentioned, there’s an insistence that expressed preferences - what people say - are not as useful in divination of desires as revealed preferences - what people do. The point being obvious in daily life and language, actions speak louder than words. The economist takes it a little further, insisting that it’s only when people pay the price of what it is they say they desire, pay by actually bearing that cost, that we find out whether they really do so desire.

At which point we get this sort of nonsense in response:

It warned that an exodus from traditional TV towards American streaming services meant only 38pc of 16 to 34-year-olds watched traditional broadcast content last year.

To safeguard the future of British TV, Ofcom is urging ministers to introduce new laws to hand public service broadcasters top billing on the streaming menus of smart TVs and connected devices.

Ofcom chief executive Melanie Dawes said Britain's traditional broadcasters were "among the finest in the world" but they were facing a "blizzard of change and innovation" as audiences switch to "online services with bigger budgets".

"For everything we’ve gained, we risk losing the kind of outstanding UK content that people really value," she added.

The price to be paid here is simply the time spent watching. That time, presumably, being the same for either version of TV, that home grown loveliness or that irritating colonial import. The concern here is that people preferentially watch the imports. While the claim is also made that people really value the lovely local product.

It is not possible for both of these to be true. Reality is the very thing being complained about. That people preferentially watch the foreign muck. As they do so they therefore do not value the local. At which point there’s nothing that needs to be done, is there?

We have preferences being revealed in an entirely open and free market. Why on earth would we want to change anything?