What is an example of that, because I governments do a reasonable of moving towards a global min/max. Where we haven't gone towards a global max/min is because it's actually hard. In many cases, the global min/max either isn't well defined, or if it is, you have to contend with existing infrastructure and huge costs to get there. For example, upgrading the electric grid to support massive amount of solar and wind power, is a multi-decade/multi-trillion dollar initiative (and this assumes solar and wind is even a 'global max/min' for carbon reduction .. and it isn't clear it is) ...
There are many feedback loops in the system, and we are so far down the short term maximization route that it'll be mighty difficult to swing it back.
> The more educated the masses are, the more likely it is that they vote for governments that have the long term interests in mind
Consider: Globally, the masses are more and better educated than at any other point in history. More people than ever have a higher-level education, and people have access to more information than ever before, more easily than ever before, and for free! There has never been a better time to be a thinking human, we're surrounded by knowledge and education.
If that's still not enough, it might be worth considering that maybe it's not an education thing. Maybe it really is just human nature to think short term, and not some bad government maximization route. Consider how that short-term thinking shows up everywhere: In people's diets, in people's elected governments, in people's finances, and so on.
Maybe it's not something we can just wish away with education. Maybe it's just... humans being human.
You can -dictate- long-term thinking and long-term policies. But from a democratic perspective, the candidate that promises short-term wins will obviously beat the candidate that says "endure now for long-term gain".
I agree that people have never been as educated as today, but it was also much more difficult to project power over distances. Today, a fool in power can travel to the other side of the world in half a day and bully countries there into submission. More to the point, the fool doesn't even need to travel, they can do the bullying over a zoom call instantaneously. An extremely connected world with a vast number of feedback loops would need a proportionally more educated populace with much more robust foresight, no?
For what it's worth, I agree with your fundamental thesis that a lot of these issues are basic human nature, and unless that changes, anything we do will be highly ineffective. But we have to start somewhere, right? And it's much easier to sell a populist agenda to an uneducated populace who can only think forward 8 hours.
Consider this: people have been known to vote for increased taxes to pay for various public good projects. It can be done. Perhaps not necessarily on very large scales, because it's difficult to feel unity with people a 1000 miles away who are completely foreign to local concerns, but perhaps that's an argument for direct democracy. But direct democracy requires a population who is educated - at least in civil matters - and can put the long term goals in front of the short term pain.
You are forgetting about the influence of government subsidies. What would the housing market be like if home mortgage interest payments were not, and had never been deductible? Think back to the 70s, when mortgages had double-digit rates.
Would the US be swamped in HFCS, would we be producing ethanol, were it not for subsidies?
I agree with you on the importance of education. However, incentives matter, and government can incentivize both to the positive and negative.
Consider the ongoing racism and marginalism against a large portion of the population and the resistance it has to ongoing public education efforts.
Consider the topic of evolution. Or vaccinations.
Sure, we should ensure that those ready to learn are provided with the opportunity to do so, but we have to accept that not everyone is ready, and that is where government comes in.
