Michael Sandel: Why we shouldn't trust markets with our civic life
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2013
- In the past three decades, says Michael Sandel, the US has drifted from a market economy to a market society; it's fair to say that an American's experience of shared civic life depends on how much money they have. (Three key examples: access to education, access to justice, political influence.) In a talk and audience discussion, Sandel asks us to think honestly on this question: In our current democracy, is too much for sale?
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector
I like how even at TED he keeps the same style of engaging with the audience as he does with his students at Harvard.
lmao
@Armando Landry instablaster =)
exactly he's acting like a professor of all those even at TED xd
Exactly, that’s surprised me
All you bichehs are my students!
I like this man talks; he opens my mind everytime
Lemayan Elisha , I also learned more
philosophers and psychologists are free radicals and therefore need to be arrested.
So true! I witnessed this when I was teaching in higher education.
Before the British government brought in tuition fees at universities, people went to university because they wanted to learn. Now, with the ever-increasing fees, mainly those who can afford it get to go to university and, because they pay fees, they expect to get a degree without working for it. This is lowering the quality of teaching and assessment because, if universities fail and reject students, they can't collect fees.
Ironic
Sounds like a sea change for societal decay. I hate the fact that people assume that social culture is on a constant improving upswing like technology has been in the past few hundred years. It simply is not true.
Dr Sandel style of talk is exactly same as he teaches his students. :). One of the most inspirational thinkers in America today!
I desire the ability to articulate myself as well as he does
"Markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves...the meaning of the social practices"
Very well argued, sir.
This Ted Talk should have billions of views.
The ability to enjoy a 'higher pleasure' is missing among the majority of masses
@@grapeshott nice reference from his Harvard lectures about morality lol
Very interesting talk, especially the part where Michael describes inequality leading to social distancing of different income level groups, that leads to separate lives they live, that prevents us from caring about our common good @ 12:25
Thank you, Michael and TED.
Thank you Professor Sandel.
Only guy who makes TED too a classroom, awesome as always
Michael Sandel is an inspiration. I love listening to him for hours.
Excellent Lecture! Thank you very much.
#one thing which make u special is that ur way of engagement with audience... I m bigger fan of u. However i never got any chance to join ur live lecture..Whatever Luv u soooooo much....... An INDIAN...
What's with Michael Sandel and asking for discussions lol? I want to know what HE thinks. Regardless, learned a lot through his lectures online. Thank you, Professor!
i guess it’s out of habit: guiding the audience to see your worldview, instead of spoon feeding them
The way he's delivering the message to People are literally awsome..Respect
What a cool experience to listen to Professor Candel where or whenever he is delivering his lectures! Thanks
Really awesome sir.... Happy to watch your lecturing...
Powerful speaker; peaceful message.
1. When money buys access to what is really important in life, decent health care, political voice, etc. then it matters a great deal. It sharpens the sting of inequality.
2. Why is offering cash incentives for learning bad? They have tried $50 for an A, $2 for each book read, etc.
Against: It takes the intrinsic incentive away, it should be to learn, to know the world.
For: Why not measure how many books they read, and after they stopped being paid.
->Will the cash incentive drive out loving to read for its own sake? It teaches a wrong lesson.
-> Cash for grades did not work, cash for reading did lead to reading more books, albeit shorter books.
3. Teaching and learning may undermine or crowd out non - market values that are worth while. We need to ask where markets belong and don't.
We need to discuss how we value things.
Democracy requires that people share a common life.
Sandel talks about rising inequalities, about goods money can't buy, but he does not explain how markets make a difference. If around 20% per year of the upper 10% are exchanged by people in the remaining 90%, which I have heard is the case, doesn't that mean we are sharing a common life? If we quantify any of this, are we not in fact "marketizing" it? He is not convincing.
Very grateful i got the chance to study his work during my time in academia!!!!!
I had a teacher give out a bonus score in my highschool. There would be bonus questions to get a 11 instead of a 10. If you got it you’d get money to buy a can of soda you’d be allowed to drink in class.
It was amazing. That school turned me from not caring at all about school into always trying to get the maximum score and changed my life for the better.
We had the same practice but the incentive was not the money but plus symbols that we accumulated, it turned into competition so even the worst students got involved
Awesome story
thank you professor Sandel
He looks just exactly like when he gives lectures at universities :))
He does
Simply thoughtful and brilliant
What a hell of a lecture... Awesome !
There`s so many typos in this caption... It would be much better to understand for foreigners like me if caption doesn`t have any typos.
Excellent speech. Really admire people who can deliver a good speech. On almost any subject.
Great talk !!
I can't seem to have enough of learning from this most insightful, humane person professor Sandel is.
You're right. Thank you for clarifying!
awesome and brilliant talk
Nailed it. Thankyou Michael Sandel.
Great session for insight formarket, and moral.Thanks.
A spectacular presentation and one I'd like to know more about and become involved in.
A legend. He gets standing ovations everywhere.
Motivation to read and study should be done by developing the NATURAL tendency of human beings i.e. CURIOSITY of knowing things rather than the artificial tendency to get stars, grades or money.
The best comment so far
But, why do people curious since the beginning?
Posiblemente algunas diferencias se marcan desde el nacimiento, pues un contexto más rico seguramente brinde más posibilidades. Desde el bagaje cultural de los padres hasta algunos que puedan entrar a una educación como la de Montessori, un niño desde su autonomía y en respeto de su alegría probablemente desarrollará más capacidades frente a alguien que asista a otra escuela. No dicen que carecemos de una serie de instintos como de otros mamíferos y desde el mismo alumbramiento dependemos de la cultura? No pasa que un buen docente abre el camino de la curiosiodad? No sucede tantas veces que la misma necesidad o para evitar algo que se considera indeseable puede estimular un tipo de accion y de otros deseos que de otra forma no se harían, y eso no se hace por dinero o el bienestar que trae? Qué es lo que ha llevado que una economía de mercado haya terminado en una sociedad de mercado como la que habla M. Sandel?
Thank you for mentioning that review.
Dear Sir, Thank you for your words and mind, they always inspire me and my son, thank you for that.
balanced and brilliant
Your words are gold
サンデル先生、人々が共に生活する良質な環境の必要性を学びました。ありがとうございます。マネー主義侵略を危惧していますが一市民として、教師の立場として、人々が共に生活する良質な環境作りに加わりたいと思います。日本人は70年前は生活苦を味わいました。何が大切か理解できる国民と思います。平穏な人の暮らしに入りこむ過剰なマネー主義と高貴に戦います。
Such a great talk!
One of the best TED's i have heard in years.
Interesting ,thanks professor
Yep. Thank you. Excellently put.
Great discussion to hear.❤️
8:06 - She says everything you need to hear.
From the Justice lecture, and then here , thanks professor , I can not agree more
I love this video and I have rewatched it a thousand times
Excellent- a terrific thinker & communicator
Thank you sandels.... Sir, you are the one of the greatest intellectual of this present world who always shatter self declaed liberal delusion.
one of the greatest talks on here
Thank you so much
I love this video. Sandel is a great philosopher!
Best Ted Talk I've seen in a while!
Imagine living your entire life as an angry, politically hard right individual, and then one day you wake up to realize everything you believed was wrong. You start to see the system to which you subscribed was doing little other than enriching an elite few while causing mass suffering. You begin having this fire in your stomach and cannot quite find the words to describe your frustrations, and then you run across someone like Mr. Sandel who eloquently puts everything you're feeling not just into words, but perspective. That is where I am.
Good job you have joined the mass of resentful losers called communism.
@@benjaminr8961
Ad Hominem. This is like monarchists calling capitalists resentful losers for not having been born into the right family.
You might want to study history to get a perspective on how we're doing compared to how things used to be. Is it a coincidence that free market capitalism has existed during this amazing time of advancement? We are obviously on the right track. All this complaining is analogous to being a supermodel and freaking out over a pimple.
If only life was black and white. Everything in theory is easy, put 100 people in the mix and you get 100 different ideologies.
One thing is market (the existence of non state private companies and the necesity to adapt for the demand to make profit) and other thing is inequality. They are differente things
Ted also has awesome talks about that matter! My favorite by Sir Ken Robinson
His book is quite interesting. Worth checking out even if you don't agree with the premise. Actually, it's probably more worth it if you do not agree with him!
Very thought provoking.
"Very american solution" haha... So true. :)
This Ted would be the one of the greatest ted.
Merci très intéressant thanks for posting!!!!!!!!
Spot on, excellent talk
lol at the other video TED uploaded today
"Michael Porter: Why business can be good at solving social problems"
Finally, someone is saying it. I wish we could add an amendment to the Constitution to separate government and corporations as we do with government and churches.
That just makes the only means to influence politicians is illegal bribes.
This kind of food to the soul teaching does not get enough viewing. Imagine Justin bieber was the one talking????? Yields in billions.
Thanks Prof.
Greatly said just like on his book, What Money Can't Buy~
1000% correct.
this is why i don't like the idea of tip in restaurant
You're right, employers, including restaurants should pay their employees a fair wage. That is how it is done in Europe. In the U.S. restaurants get to charge high prices and take home all the profits, while they still expect diners to provide wages for their employees. If we all as a nation decided to stop eating out, we could change that corrupt practice.
There was a lot of stuff in school I hated. I didn't do that great. And yet I never failed, I got on with it. Now I'm at uni doing what I want while those that couldn't be bothered in school don't have the same options.
Great points.
This dude is a badass.
i wish i could have this entire speech in pdf
It has a book What money can't buy: the moral limits of market
thank you for being the adult in the room. felt good reading your comment. Someone in here actually reads.
He is a brilliant and well spoken professor.
The rainsing economic inequalities will result in a more and more fragmented, divided and isolated society and this will lead, as Prof. Sandel said, "in the long run", to a "Hunger Games like" society.
Nah fam, it will lead to a collapse, like it always has.
I believe that is Thanos in the audience.
Yes!
It's the entrepreneurs who are the benevolent deities of our world. It is by their grace that all the rest of us can continue to live our pathetic lives. We should be eternally grateful!
Thanku......
"Kills the intrinsic motivation" - As if being forced to attend school and graded for writing essays to read books that you have no interest in doesn't kill the intrinsic motivation. Kids are naturally curious yet you put them in a environment that forces them to learn and where they are graded based on performance. There is nothing intrinsic about that
This insightful comment should have more likes. I agree as a student myself. As much as high school is... hard... economics is my life.
I think giving incentive to read books is fundamentally unfair. It actually rewards people who naturally loves reading and may corrupt them. While this approach does help to lift the literacy rate of average joe，but the side effect is that it may corrupt the elites.
Reading has as intrinsic motivation, regardless of whether nowadays schools can fulfill this motivation or not. And such motivation surely varies from one person to another. Although what you said is factually true, I don't think it rebuts Sandel's line. We have two non-related subjects here.
This is an effect of the market society. Schools are forced to teach topics that are "in demand", so children are not taught to cultivate their intrinsic motivation. Rather than being able to learn what topics they are naturally interested and curious about, they are forced to choose "marketable" topics/courses, and their performance is quantified by grades as a measure of their "marketability". Graded performance may be good for engineering and sciences because they are empirical and quantifiable, but not on social science, psychology, creative writing, philosophy and the arts. They are not something to be that can be quantified, and are just as important as engineering and sciences. Because if our ethics, morality, judiciary systems, etc. cannot keep up with technology, we end up with oppression being propagated through technology. Just take a look at social media. Governments and international companies (i.e Cambridge Analytica) running rampant disinformation campaigns, and those who own these platforms do not do enough to regulate such oppression, because regulation is a difficult topic to discuss and reason out, and it pays more not to do so.
www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/technology/government-disinformation-cyber-troops.html
The intrinsic motivation to read is ENJOYMENT
Everyone is not the same. Some are wired to enjoy reading. Some are not. The main problem I see is a refusal for certain intellectual types to deal with the fact that people are different and have different needs and wants. Egalitarianism makes life equally miserable for everyone in an attempt to flatten everything. All so Sandel can sell books to well meaning idiots.
What does it mean "to be wired to enjoy reading"? How do you know that "egalitarianism makes life equally miserable for everyone"? Have you lived in an egalitarian society? Egalitarianism is an ideal that doesn't exist, just like democracy. It is a question of balancing various values and that includes freedom.
This idea though is a bit complex for those that want to oversimplify things . Since you are a supporter of people having different needs and wants what's the problem with Sandel wanting to sell books? Oh I guess it would be easier to just say you don't agree with him, but then you wouldn't be able to call trot out your condescending comment " well meaning idiots".
Or uplifting us in life from our situation as part of our education or connecting us to minds, ideas, dreams, hearts, souls throughout history and so on. I imagine poor people may not often have the luxury to sit there reading and enjoying things? So even from a practical standpoint that internal motivation to uplift oneself from one's position through acquiring knowledge is very helpful! Even better if you can enjoy yourself while doing so?
Either we are great readers ourselves and the child can experience the benefits of learning and implementing the knowledge in real world first hand or we have to humbly incentivise the reading with some monetary or mutually agreed values to get them to feel the power of knowledge after a while of being incentivised to represent the content of the book to us and gradually to public helping them to feel the benefits and understand the reason behind this monetary incentive for themselves we cannot expect the new generation to act upon our hypocritical ideas about what we deem to be right. It was years ego that i have learned from Mr. Sandal and now Steemit is actually implementing these meritocratic approaches for curating and creating content and it seams to be working.
At first, I read the title as "Why we should trust markets with our civic life" and got worried about TED's integrity for a moment. :)
Sasha, it's a 14:37 minute speech. It seems you have completely missed the gist and taken another train. Hope you will soon return to the station.
It's fairly easy to criticize others without being solution-oriented yourself. Why not give a proper definition of what a market society is instead? And contribute with something less asinine.
Sandel says, "A market economy is a *tool*, a valuable and effective tool for organizing productive activity. But a market society is a *place* where almost everything is up for sale. It's a way of life, in which market thinking and market values *begin to dominate every aspect of life*...[examples]...Now why worry, why worry about our becoming market societies?...One of them has to do with *inequality*."
It's not simply about the individual, as you state, "Even the most ardent capitalist doesn't want marketization of every aspect of life. Surely the average millionaire knows most acutely that there are limits to what money can buy; and if you try to buy these things with money, you'll end up embarrassed", but about social and civic consequences and that market thinking and values may, as Sandel presents, "...*crowd out attitude and norms worth caring about*."
This speech is also about having the debate where markets belong and where they don't, about social practices and meanings to abide differences, building democracies and understanding commonality with respect to diversity.
Well explained!
very good comments
And who is Sacha?
I am listening his lectures in university... Thanks to TED
I also love this speaker.
Thank you sir
confiscating money from a taxpayer to give to somebody else's kid, is NOT a "market incentive". Markets involve a voluntary offer and a voluntary acceptance. In a market, both parties are made better off from the transaction. What the lecturer is describing is Theft, not Markets.
absolutely zero understanding of social contract responsibility & mutual obligation for each others' wellbeing, In a Real Society we are all impoverished when our brother/sister starves!
What markets can't provide has to be provided by theft (be that "good" theft or "bad" theft).
This whole recording is disgustingly moist.
that's harsh; despite low probability of improvement, speaker at least calls out market model failure
O ser humano e a cultura só prosperaram porque começaram a ver vantagem e importância nos comportamentos CONTRA a lógica do mercado, que não é nada senão a velha lei do mais forte, a lei da selva. Super importante, esse debate!
This's so nice he turned the audience into his students as he's giving a lecture at university
Who are these 204 presumably greedy people who disliked this video?
I disliked it. What would you like to know?
@@shaun_rambaran why do you object to the speakers claims that societies interest should be prioritized over corporate interests?
i am tempted to click thumb down, not from greed, rather because speaker implies "system' could be fixed, like convincing Nero to stop fiddling after the hordes have set Rome alight
@@williamshafer3199, and you think there's no solution?
@@shaun_rambaran I'd like to read your opinion
Just arrogance of the intellectual to decide what kind of education the poor must receive, instead of giving them choices. It is the poor who suffer from a one-size-fits-all approach, because the middle and upper classes have more access to privatized/individuzlized education. We've seen how badly the public school system works- unions destroy most teacher's incentive to provide quality teaching because you can't fire them.
I don't like the intellectual's "let me decide what is good for you" attitude, because it assumes that the poor can't decide what is good for them, it assumes the inferiority of their intelligence.
+lysol5555 how would the ignorant know what education they should receive if they are ignorant ? Actually the ones with the information are most fit to do so.
Public school systems are generally awful but that not only because of the material strictly speaking but also because of poor teachers , lack of resources, bad home education- school can't teach you how to be a person.
+Walking Onthemoon "I know that i do not know" remember that quote? just because they are not intelligent doesn't mean they do not know that which they strive to learn. That is how people get educated in the first place, by knowing what they do not and seeking that knowledge. it is curiosity not enforcement that get people to truly know, we dont enforce rocket science to our children, yet, people seek out that education by themselves via college and CHOOSING their degree. I really think you need to look inside before writing such ridiculous notions, for it is the excuse for propaganda. Look at the first public schools, they started in Prussia, and find out WHY they wanted it, propaganda...
+Drew Gilmore I don't want to choose people's degrees, but people need to have some basic understanding of the world around them to know what they want in life, and someone with knowledge needs to decide what would constitute that understanding. You haven't really engaged my argument, you engaged a straw man.
***** Knowledge is power, power corrupts, when someone with intelligence "wishes to teach the next generation" they will immediately, by being human, want to construct that education on the experiences that he or she had accumulated, they wish to pass that knowledge on, that is not a basic understanding, it is propaganda, dont be a baby and say im constructing a straw man, what constitutes basic understanding of the world around them? what about survival? what about learning to survive and be self sufficient? the education we have today is the exact thing your talking about, a bunch of "intellectuals" who have created the curriculum to teach a basic understanding, so i ask you, have they succeeded? have they any propaganda in their content?
***** So how do you think an ignorant person will learn if he does not know what is there out there? That is very stupid use of the word propaganda by the way. When I teach a person the Pythagorean theorem, it is propaganda? You have lost your mind.
Great. Many thanks.
Brilliant talk.
I would encourage anyone watching this to read the philosophic works of Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand has never written any philosophic works, her invented school of thought "Objectivism" is not considered to be a serious philosophic entity by any academic institution.
Mindaugas G "Ayn Rand has never written anything philosophic works."
Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, The Romantic Manifesto, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Voice of Reason, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, Return of the Primitive, The Objectivist, just to name a few.
"'Objectivism' is not considered to be a serious philosophic account by any academic institution."
Argument from Authority Fallacy.
***** "I would encourage anyone watching this to read the philosophic works of Ayn Rand." - by this you mean that people could understand the problem better - since Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is the roots of the problem Michael Sandel is talking about - "...that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (rational self-interest)". This is basically how neo conservatists, FOX News and all those hedge fund bankers start from.
Mindaugas G Conservatives don't advocate for rational self interest. They say that you should place the family, the nation, the life of an embryo, God above one's own life. The left claims that you should place the interests of the 99%, the proletariat, the poor, minorities above ones interests. They both agree that sacrifice is good, they only differ on who it is/what it is you should sacrifice to. Ayn Rand says that a rational morality would never require the sacrifice of values, but the pursuit and achievement of values.
Rand rejects the morality of altruism, which is the morality at the base of Christianity and every other religion. It's the morality that says that you are your brother's keeper, that you have a duty to serve those in need. Rand simply asks, WHY??
***** What a primitive definitions you provided... There is nothing to do with altruism - that is a flawed proposition form Ayn's side to base her point of view. The main problem with Ayn Rand is that she rejects the society. In reality, humans could not exist without it, and for this reasons we must have some commitments to all of us - we take care of the ones in need to keep the society working from which all of us benefit greatly.
For the Neocons - they are not conservatives. Basically - neocons are the ones who want to keep rigid class structure in which small amount of people control the society. The biggest problem is that most of those on the top use Ayn Rands "philosophy" - to pursue their own happiness and self interest that's what is happening in the US right now.
For the left side - it is not better than the right - they simply destroy any self interest of the person in this way making the society inefficient and doomed for self-destruction - as it happened in USSR.
The only way for the people is to understand how the society works and have certain framework of values to keep left and right in balance - which in general what European liberalism is all about.
This talk is totally incoherent.
First, he does not properly define what a 'market society' is. He does so poorly at 3:00
Second, he does not properly make the case that we are becoming a 'market society'. Is he really implying that we are moving towards an era where people will only become friends for money? Is he implying there was once a time when your access to money did not affect how much food you could access?
Third, he poorly makes the case for why this increased marketization is bad. he first says that 'market society' puts prices on all sorts of intangible things..but these are things we don't really need to live. If you can't afford to pay someone to wait in a line for you, this is not an existential threat. He seems to have forgotten what he was talking about just a few minutes before.
Then, when the 2nd audience member very rationally says 'Well, why don't we measure the effect of these cash-for-reading programs and see what the long term effect is?" The German lady shuts her down, not through rational argument, but by saying 'That's a very American idea.' The presenter apparently never heard what the 2nd lady says, because he does not ever address it. In the case presented, the rational market response is to simply shut down the 'cash-for-reading' program. Markets are self-limiting; where they are not beneficial, they wither away. We don't really need a 'debate' on the subject; it is being debated a thousand times a day in each circumstance.
Here's the wonder of markets: in all these areas he mentions here, they are totally voluntary. Disgusted by some example of 'marketization' of a relationship with somebody? Don't participate. Easy. Hard with food, easy with paid line cutting. Even the most ardent capitalist doesn't want marketization of every aspect of life. Surely the average millionaire knows most acutely that there are limits to what money can buy; and if you try to buy these things with money, you'll end up embarrassed. His entire premise is asinine.
Finally, he concludes by stating that 'marketization' of society causes people of different classes to never mingle. He doesn't actually back this up in any way whatsoever, he just puts it out there and assumes its true. And he seems to imply that before the modern capitalist era the rich and poor hang out every day?
I don't have much more to say here. When you get right down to what he is saying, it is a lot of nonsense...
He is not speaking to an academic audience of professional philosophers. He is speaking to a lay audience. Besides he is making fairly basic points, the premises of which most people can see to be true. His talk is fairly coherent. His point is that we are lead to believe that marketisation is inherently good and that it is permeating into every field of life. He questions is premise and sees how marketization is uprooting equality, democracy and justice.
It's a very poor speech and mostly aimed at peoples emotions and outrage i guess.
However someone please be so kind and explain why is it bad to pay homeless people to do something. which he mentions in the first segment
Timothy Thomas Why do you believe "most people can see" that what he is saying is true? I don't feel that way personally, nor do I believe most people who look at these issues on any level deeper than "completely kneekjerk, superficial and emotional" would disagree, as well. It is not coherent. Similarly, if he is doing as you say, he is making a HUGE assumption that we want "equality, democracy and justice" as he defines it. I personally do NOT want equality of outcome, democratic processes undermining personal and economic liberty, and I clearly define justice differently than you do. One of the positive things about markets is that they allow people to pursue their own ends, including their own concepts of justice. I think you need to question your premises in a much more rigorous way.
Michael DiSciullo What kind of a deluded world you live in? You live in the bubble of so called American libertarianism, that never has described the nation in real. Please read the quite brilliant book, 'Empires of Illusion' by Chris Hedges. Perhaps you don't care for liberty, democracy or justice. Most people do, certainly the ones facing the lack of it.
"One of the positive things about markets is that they allow people to pursue their own ends, including their own concepts of justice."
You have perhaps unwittingly, yet aptly, described the american justice system. Where people define their own frames of what is just, through how much weight they can throw around with money. That is not justice. I rest by case.
It is not me who needs rigour. It is you who needs to stop sounding like a egocentric and self-centered person.
Timothy Thomas Liberty and democracy are contradictory terms, nitwit.
Human beings are driven by the idea of rewards then eventually if they do it enough, they'll be driven by just the action itself. Those are the people that become successful!
Sandel is a great philosophy lecturer. I wish more teachers would use the socratic method like he does.
anti free market propaganda. horrible talk
free market propaganda. horrible comment
noizy14
And what's your reason to disapprove of individual freedom?
And how can you have public freedom without each individual being free to act according to one's conscience?
And which argument of Michael Sandel did you find convincing and for what reason?
He's not against the free market. He's fine with that. He is more concerned about where that market goes, and how much of way we live our lives depend on it. He makes a really good point about us not living the same lives and how that's bad for democracy. It was actually a really good talk. (btw, I'm conservative/ libertarian).
+WittowBudduh - Michael Sandel: _”Here’s a question, we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our society?“_
This is to approach the topic of economics from a totally wrong perspective. We cannot "think together". There is not a "role" that we can ascribe "to money and markets". The market wasn’t created. It was discovered. The rules of money and market develop peacefully. We cannot forcefully change this principle.
_“In many theme parks you can pay extra to jump ahead to the line.”_
Yes. And it’s business models like this that make possible the theme park. For less fortunate people that means that if it wasn’t for extras like this the entry fee to the park would either be more expensive or the park wasn’t there at all.
If you, dear fellow commentator, really are libertarian, you should join me in critizising Michael Sandel for ignoring topics like central banking while waisting time on entry fees for theme parks.
_”And this isn’t only happening in amusement parks. In Washington DC you can pay to jump ahead in the line for lobbying.”_
Yes. And since the state is an immoral institution anyway this is neither surprising nor necessary to maintain.
Does Sandel state this obvious truth? No. Rather he wants to get rid of the market than the state. Rather he creates a new term “market society” and thinks he has solved an political and economic problem by rearranging language.
Of course lobbyists are going to pay homeless people to stand in line for them, if you create a state monopoly through which the lobyyist can make more money than by satisfying consumer needs. If you change the structure of society you cange behaviour. It is smart for lobbyists to do so. And it would be stupid for a homeless person not to do so. The needless factor in this equation is the politician.
_”A market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale.”_
What does that sentence even mean? Who would even say something like this? And who would even listen to that sort of thing?
The economy is a tool for society to satisfy its needs. IF something is up sor sale, THEN it is DEFINITELY satisfying somebody’s need.
Neither is there a “place” that is autonomous from human action where “things” are for sale. Nor are things “almost” for sale.
By the way. Sandel makes it sould like the USA has become more free market oriented when, in fact, the free market has constantly been restricted. I live in Germany where every entrepreneur has to consider 150.000 governmental restrictions. I have heard that economists in the USA have officially stopped counting restrictions.
Maybe there is some cultural truth to Sandel’s words. But he should have made sure to mention that the free market is being destroyed by the state. Why beat around the bush? Why not just speak clearly? Why the need to invent words? Why the need to sould more intellectual than necessary? What’s wrong with the hardest tasks of all: Speaking the truth and explaining difficult things in an easy way? What’s wrong with the Austrain School Of Economics?
_"We should not trust the market in our civic life."_
There is no "civilized life" within a state. A state is an oppinion with a gun.
Only after getting rid of this gun can we focus on needless overconsumption.
+KIDWITDEGUN 1st make an accusation of propaganda 2nd make propaganda yourself 3rd enjoy ! Seriousely, there's so much libertarian propaganda all over the internet, do you really expect nobody will spot it ? Pro tip : when making an argument, being coherent is kind of useful...
Professor Sandel being brilliant as usual!! Bravo !!
❤ totally! Reading should be taught as a form of love towards the world they inhabit, their people, their stories, empathy, opening of the mind, imagination... how could things like this be monetized?
Merci beaucoup Professeur Sandel.