(Excerpt from newsletter)

In 16th-century England, there were two types of one-pound coins: one made of gold and one of copper. Although the gold coin was worth more than the copper coin (because it was gold), the face value of both coins was the same. This meant that one beer cost one pound, regardless of whether it was paid for with the gold or copper coin. This had consequences: people exchanged the copper coins for the gold ones and melted them down. Understandably, they preferred to keep the more valuable coin if they could also pay for their beer with the cheaper one. However, this behavior had an unintended consequence: the more valuable coins were gradually displaced by the cheaper ones. This phenomenon is known as Gresham's Law: bad money drives out good money.

So what?

We thought so too.

But Gresham's law contains a fundamental, disturbing suspicion: Could it be that, in general, bad displaces good?

Let's take journalism. Journalism is a profession based on quality. But journalism is also a business that vies for attention. And in the digital age, attention has become scarce. How does journalism deal with these two demands?

One option is to be committed to the highest standards of craftsmanship and ethics. Let's call it "good journalism." Another option is to follow the incentives and constraints of the market. This can be called "bad journalism." Journalists face a dilemma: Is it really worth digging deep, thinking long and hard, and writing carefully if people are more likely to read sensationalist news? Media companies face a dilemma: Either they lower their standards and join the competition for readers, or they stick to their principles and risk losing their audience. And we, the readers, face a dilemma: Are we willing to pay for "good journalism" when we can simply scroll through Instagram for free?

According to Gresham's Law, bad journalism would prevail over good journalism. A scientific paper has even been written about it.

We see something similar in politics. Constructive solutions are harder to sell than grandiose announcements. or aggressive Blame-shifting . According to Gresham's Law, it's no wonder that populist parties everywhere are turning voters' heads with empty promises.

Or take Gresham's core subject, economics. Here, too, there is a growing chorus of voices claiming that bad theories have prevailed over good ones. Neoliberal hegemony, that is, the orientation of the economy towards liberalization, deregulation, and privatization, threatens to displace every other school of thought – even though its track record is more controversial today than ever.

Of course, this is a simplified and purely hypothetical application of Gresham's Law. It is also not a natural law, but rather an observation of human behavior.
Behavior. But therein lies the hope. Because people can change. We all – entrepreneurs and consumers, employees and citizens – can choose to prioritize quality over quantity, substance over sensationalism, and justice over profit. We can choose to reward good journalism, good politics, and good business practices, and to reject bad journalism, bad politics, and bad business.

We can choose to apply Gresham's Law in reverse: Good ideas crowd out bad ones.

We have a choice.