I believe you can buy friends but not genuine friendship. You can buy everything almost everything. But the question is how genuine that thing you bought is.
Well, a friend is equivalent to friendship for if it's not a friend then there's no genuine friendship anyways. This is assuming that it's a REAL friend. Also, if you bought a " friend", is that person really your friend or just your employee?
Supported..I think he will be a very good President.. very good and eloquent speaker ... touching on important topics with solutions and consideration of other people's opinions...
Late 1970's my friend and I went to clinic to sale broods, we took that money to go to buda temple for our spring break. That was in south Korea, we're high-school students then, we needed money....
Professor Michael Sandel, I really enjoyed your debate on money and what it cannot buy. The very first point your mentioned brought it home for me. You mentioned that a rich man who commits a crime, cannot buy themselves a bigger cell. I would like to give some examples that actually proves this idea wrong. If you speak about the United States cell prison, you are probably correct, but what about other countries? Pablo Escobar was the wealthiest man in Bogota Colombia, and he had essentially a prison all to himself. Prisons in Mexico allow for “accommodations” for those who are willing to pay for them. The second example comes with buying friends. Yes, if someone is actively trying to buy friends, you may feel a difference with regards to feelings and sincerity brought by that person. However, what if one was not aware that his or her current friends are in it for the money? It is hard to prove other peoples motives. One cannot just go to someone and say I want to buy your friendship, or can they? Maybe someone can say I would like to invite you and your family to a paid vacation and have them get to know you better. With time, they may find you to be a good person and not accept your money. You see, the motives of people cannot be compared to simple assumptions like buying a puppy off the street. Even dogs have feelings. The third point you brought up about cash incentives to motivate students to read more books or study, was surprisingly not accepted. Again, when simply asked, “do you want money to study?” It is similar to the military example and them offering sign-on bonuses to serve your country. Maybe money can be the stimulus to get the person to enroll in a program and begin to reach their potential. I wonder what the audiences answers would be if they were actually offered that incentive but of course, said in another way. For example, Scholarships! “If you do well in school, you will get a scholarship toward your tuition for x amount of dollars so long as you meet certain criteria or write a report about a book you read every 3 months.” This is the same thing, just phrased differently. I likes your discussion on money used to teach kids lessons in gratitude. I believe that it depends on the age of the kid and what the child feels they are gaining to motivate them to write the cards. We use similar tactics every day without it being money. For example, “if you write thank you cards, I will let you play your videogames.” Or in psychology it is known as positive reinforcement. When a child does something good, they are encouraged and applauded so that they continue to do that said act. I don’t find anything wrong if the child is wanting to save money to buy a toy or a bike for doing tasks such as writing thank you notes. On the contrary, I believe that one can learn the lesson of value and understand how to responsibly do the right thing. Even if no money was involved, I personally find it sometimes a chore to write thank you letters, but I do it because it is the right thing to do.
Some days you don,t feel like being there but you being there is an inspiration, to some you never know how you can make some one day that much better. And able two not listen too negative words toward like me or some one else, well that,s what a great professor, is that stand up too the challenge and I's a great leader, that make,s an inspiration to some one when times you may really not want too be there, it make,s you an all star. Too me. It,s called shut up and listen and let Micheal sandel lead the way back two my Daddy. That I love, Linus Campbell.
Money is a technology, neutral until it is applied. Where money solved issues of unequal bartering (probably as they were then) so coins (btc-eth+) are addressing issues of money (as it is now).
the priest makes the best points because he understands power and how it can be abused by the upper echelons of the market system. everyone else reflects on the virtues and defects of the market system and fail to provide answers; pro-market people always like to say that 'we don't have a better system' or that this is the lesser evil. the truth is they do not want to assign blame and pass judgment. perhaps regulating 'sin' is too cumbersome and violence and greed are unavoidable
My mum used to pay me to do sums. Consequently, I was the best in my school at arithmetic from my first day of attendance, and I loved doing sums. I also stopped caring about the money, because it was gratifying to get the answer right. My mum also never preached to me about the "virtue of sums". At least one of my life examples seems to refute the watering down of morals by money.
I am a grade nine drop out for 32 years ago but I do read and I watched Michael Sandels book and watched his video on ethics twice , then about five years ago I have gotten more ill in the head and dont read or watch philosophy videos.
it is just that fashion and are always winning the discussions. and ultimately it is the points of view that raise the ratings of the shows or that draw the crowds, in the case of public halls, that get to be represented.
Great talk. Thank you. It makes me think of how universities like Harvard are contributing to the "market society", as you describe it. Why are most students attracted to the elite schools: Prestige, power, reputation and especially career and money. Just look at their law and business school graduates. Where in the curriculum are ethics and leadership and empathy taught? How can graduates be awarded the Noble Prize without any understanding of society? I ask, what is Harvard's purpose, it's reason for being? Is it just intellectual knowledge, knowledge divorced from the soul? The universities have played no small roll in getting us where we are today. One powerful example is eugenics, a theory developed in the early 1900s and used by the Nazis to help support genocide.
Money is supposed to create a more equal world and a fair social society. It should be a fair wage or income earned to provide a better life for both the provider of service receiving the money and the beneficiary of service paying for it. Labour and work must be rewarded for helping others in their communities through their ongoing hard work in services to others. As such, it is only a legal and fair transaction balancing the need to be of good service and constructively productive, versus the need to cover for a good decent lifestyle without having to be indebted or a failure and a burden on our society or family!
In “How to balance inequality” on RUclips, A few calls to a friend in the White House about an inheritance cap to let people redistribute their wealth fairly, realigns man's mission here with his natural, higher purpose. How to balance inequality
The only thing that money holds value is Faith. Without the peoples faith in money it is simply a piece of paper with green ink on it. We need to put more faith in humans and not allow money to play the whole instrument of our everyday lives. When we allow money to get into every aspect of life, morality dissolves and whoever has the most money lives the better life no matter who it is...
It's (almost) all very good Professor Sandel and I truly mean it; the quality of your speech is phenomenal. Thank you, you're an inspiration. But you shielded the banks when the time came at 59:23. You implicitly agreed to the status quo. Is private money sovereign or is the public sovereign over money? (of course the former) Do we, as a democratic people, want this state of affairs to continue? (what democracy?!) Will it continue? (until a new crisis) And more importantly, what is a potential alternative? That's where the Millenials come in :P Public rather than private money creation is needed to evade continued economic stagnation (bumping real estate price levels will eventually be socially problematic, no?) What does this mean concretely? Well, the Chicago plan, for instance, recommended by chief IMF economists and Nobel economists, could be a democratic solution to debt. And more to the point, direct instruments of democratic governance, like those in Switzerland which is consistently ranked the best governed, the happiest, the best educated advanced country in the world could be proven to work in large nations. For the sake of shared political consciousness and virtue, you should take a stand with these alternatives.
According to Prof. Sandel's opinion, the macket hollows out morality because of the lack of public disclosure. However, what is macket and where it comes from? In essence, macket is the product of our human beings. That is to say macket is the result of our public disclosure. Before the discussion what are the macket and public disclosure, we should not make the conclusion easily.
a pre written card bought from the news agency for everything from new born to death is now commonly accepted in our society. A careful selection of a particular card can win the heart of its intended receiver. A wedding toast that is bought may one day be on the same level and will be common practice. The new generation will know little
1:07:00 Corporations have created obesity. Not the market. The market has simply facilitated the free exchange between people willing to consume calories and the people willing to sell calories, at a given exchange rate (price). Perhaps the market can also provide the incentives to alleviate the problem with the overconsumption of gluttonous consumers.
sandel, i believe is wrong on two points: that the unfairness of the market system rather than the values of goods themselves is what's prominent in the public discourse or in people's minds [this was the contention of the female debater]. people cannot help but be concerned with value. the other thing he is wrong about is that there is no public discourse on the value of goods. there always is -- tv shows, ads, talk shows, news shows are all constantly debating this.
At 1:15:26 on you seem to demonstrate your own saying of a hollowed out public discourse :S It must be a 'thin edge of the razor' kind of thing for a Harvard professor and a Davos attendee to speak about these things surely? ;)
7:33 - THAT is is the most appalling morally wrong disgusting utterly evil and empty idea I've ever heard. Sterilization should not even be allowed even against pedophiles and that means a lot coming from someone who's been molested multiple times as a child it's a blessing to be able to create a child and bring it into this world and the very idea that. Even entered someone's head to try to make it a law or make it a reality is disgusting. Appalling.
That sickened me too. I get the driving premise of "unsupported children bad", but like the bit about paying to be the executioner, it's one of those plans that highlights an underlying immorality/failure - society should be capable of supporting the children and those poor women so that this sort of thing isn't even on the table.
how unhappy are the birds, the cattle and all other creatures who occupy this planet. A lottery win or a nice shiny something is never thought about and the fulfillment goes on?
Good grief. This panel was so bias that Stephanie flanders was the moderate! Even the moderator was obviously far left. The guy introducing at the start set the scene for the lack of debate, the torch was then taken up by the Sandel show. Don't get me wrong, I love to listen to him, even though I disagree with him, but I'd have loved to have seen someone like Thomas Sowell on the panel.
Well money is a drug for our brain, so whoever would try to defend cash incentive or money in general is probably an addict himself. :) Money, sadly, destroy many parts of our society. Maybe if we'd be taught at school useful things like what we should think about money, how to use them, that they are not a final goal etc. we might have a better society.
Dont let a Capitalist know there are people willing to do work for nothing, indeed prefer to do it for nothing as reported in the carer account. Monty Python - Merchant Banker Sketch
Money used to purchase something instead of putting in one’s own effort, skill, or integrity into producing it, would not erode any value (or worth) since the value was not there in the first place (or not as high as perceived). If an intelligent designer of the universe exists, then all things have an inherent worth, which can be perceived as higher or lower but not actually changed. However, if there is no God then worth may he determined by desire, or perception. Since the God of the Bible does exist, as humble logic requires; all things do have inherent worth, and money may deceive but not destroy it.
I know most people usually think once they become rich. Their troubles will be over and it seems so dumb but Jay Z was right I don't have a lot of money but I've never had to work for stuff and people think O only rich people say money can't buy everything but all I know is I've wasted so much money looking for what I now realize I'll never be able to buy or persuade or try to manipulate or try to get some how and I'm not trying to get any type of like sympathy its not like old poor little rich girl cuz that's like you know contrary to popular belief not how I am but you realize and usually it's too late so many years have gone by when you having a test drive or something maybe it wasn't ingrained in you as a child you were spoiled and its not its not their fault for spoiling you you think you want to spoil your child but when you raise a child like that don't even allow them to to work don't allow them to do their own thing because maybe you want to focus on their education and or maybe you can protect them as a child so you try to give him everything as they're growing up or something so I don't think it's the parents fault and I don't think it's a child called because usually human nature you take the easier softer way out I mean most people would choose a type of situation where they don't have to work they don't have to do anything they can get taken care of but and they can have everything paid for whatever desire they want and I have to work for anything but that leaves the biggest hole the most huge emptiness inside of you that nothing can fill up except the one that money can't buy and I realize now like I could would rather get a ring from a crackerjack box diamond ring is it meant something coming from that person not a real but it's true money makes everything easier but money breeds resentment when he breathes doubt and trust cuz I don't want to break my all these friends and then when you don't have any money anymore nobody wants to be your friend and like you don't know who to trust me there are certain people were there through it all and you will be there through it all but those are the hardest to differentiate because you always think or you were taught when you were little the people want something from you like I don't know we not only made me like in this
As clever as MSandel is in his moral arguments. They are just discourse, discourse that makes invisible what is obvious, this moral debate is a middle to upper class debate amongst members of mainly white race rich societies, that are worrying only about the inequalities within their societies, only laterally mentioning Greece or Spain ( they stil can feel morally outrage as they were the cradle of the civilization and philosophy M.Sandel professes almost as religion). Not the centuries capitalism and their way of living that have been sustained with the exploitation, slavery and pillage of Africa Asia and Latin America. This is a fraud moral debate that stays in moral discourse limits, whilst they sustain immoral wars on other countries to maintain their way of living. Whilst they debate public discourse morality, people in other countries are dying or living in modern day slavery so they can have laptops and debate.
+Guardarecuerdos Aren't those examples of what money shouldn't buy? Military and prisons in America have profit incentives. So do jobs being sent offshore. I think you missed the point. Unjust enrichments are a whole other topic.
+Guardarecuerdos I believe western philosophers are also addressing the issue of global inequality and the responsibility of the west and global institution i.e. Thomas Pogge. Sandel is just addressing a different issue that also requires attention. The problem of putting money-value on things that were once free, that essentially promoted societal equality, is increasingly visible in my country, in Africa. This problem could be more pronounced in the US but with globalization, such a culture will not take long before it is very visible in other societies. Hence I hope Sandel's idea of morality vs. money is taken up by all societies.
As I've said many times, Michael Sandel means well, but this moral righteousness in areas where he has little expertise is getting tiring. He tries to show the corruption in the life insurance market by chastising life settlement policies as inhumane because third parties are buying people's existing life insurance policies to then profit when they die. But he leaves out the other side of the equation. If the person selling the policy no longer has a need for it or can't afford it, why should they be forced to simply let it end, thereby losing the entire investment they put into it? If someone is willing to buy it, the policy holder can sometimes make 3 times the money they invested in it. What's wrong with that? It's a win/win. It may keep some people from losing their homes in old age. Next Sandel will say it's wrong for your loved ones to want you to buy a life insurance policy in the first place so they can profit off your death. It destroys the "purity" of marriage and family. I can just hear him now.
+Marshall Duncan No, it is not a win/win. There is something wrong with that situation: it's irresponsible to profit off of one's desire to have a dignifying funeral under the guise of "life insurance." And then to go so far as to not cancel the insurance when one can no longer afford an inflated insurance policy is adding insult to injury. So, you suggest that family, or anyone else, like say, an insurance company, *should* profit off of a loved one's death? I think at some point we need to draw a line as to when someone needs counseling or mental health services.
Robert Wilson III Not a word you've said makes sense. You don't understand what life settlements are. "The family" is not profiting here. The actual life insurance policyholder is the one profiting - and not in death, but in life. It's their policy and they've been paying for it all these years. Why shouldn't they be able to make a profit on it? What's wrong with that? Do you want everyone to live in poverty and misery? Read the Parable of the Talents. Now, regarding your belief that a family member or anyone else should not "profit off of a loved one's death" (which is a different issue than a life settlement), do you think it's more moral to leave your spouse in dire poverty when you die or to protect them with a nest egg? I think you have to expand your limited conception of "profit." In many cases, profit can be very moral and represent real caring for one's loved ones. You've been reading way too many Marxist textbooks.
Marshall Duncan I've never read a Marxist textbook, but I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders and I was educated in a Catholic school system, and the Catholic Social Teachings were taught to me since the 3rd grade -- which do oppose selfishness and greed. I agree that Wills that might help out a spouse or family member is fine, but it's not okay if wealth becomes an incentive to kill a spouse or family member, as is often the case in very ill older family members or high profile domestic murders. But Sandel is simply advocating that we have these specific conversations about what we feel is right and wrong, and not allow something so trivial as a market economy decide for us how we should choose to govern our civil lives. Finally, I do not think that insurance companies should profit on the life insurance they sell to people. It seems wrong to me that they are willing to bet on having an individual pay up until the day they die. It just seems wrong to me. Why do you feel that it should be okay for insurance companies to make a profit on life insurance? Don't you think everyone should have a nice funeral as a right? And not only those who can afford to pay some insurance company? In principle Sandel is making a larger criticism of our society. You know, we are a country built on law, and surely law is not made according to the market economy. Just imaging a time when congress's votes are consistently sold to the highest bidder, this is an oligarchy no? This sort of fully free market completely unregulated by any form of government that many people advocate is no longer a representative democracy, it is a time where only those with the most money have a voice in any issue, and only their needs are going to be met, exactly according to how they feel things should be. Sandel says no to this scenario, he argues, why should it be money that determines who has a political voice? Are we not a representative democracy in which all citizens have an equal voice? Frankly, I have to agree with mister Sandel on this issue. Libertarian views will only serve those with the largest wallets and that just doesn't fly with me and it's not how I want the country I live in to be run.
Robert Wilson III You may never have read a Marxist textbook but you are an indoctrinated Marxist all the same. Everything you believe seethes Marxism - from your belief that the market economy is "trivial" to prohibiting insurance companies from making a profit on their services. Newsflash: if you don't allow them to make a profit they will go out of business and the government will have to take over their function... which it appears is what you want. But the government performs that function already in one big area. It's called social security. How's that working? Dysfunctionally to say the least. The return people get on their money is a fraction of what they'd get if they invested the money privately in similar non-speculative investments. This translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars lost over the course of a lifetime to the ever growing government Leviathan. And the government raids the trust fund all the time making it a Ponzi scheme. Your money isn't even in there. The government has to borrow from future generations to pay you your meager retirement check. What a great insurance plan those wise stewards of the people have created. Not! There are other societies that have attempted to live according to the principles you espouse - Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. All were bankrupted by taking power away from "trivial free markets" and giving it to government bureaucrats so everything could be "equal." What happened? 90% of the public became impoverished while the 10% who worked for or were affiliated with the government became filthy rich from corrupt dealings. Is this your alternative to trivial free market capitalism? What created the wealth and prosperity we enjoy in America? It was those horrible capitalists. John D Rockefeller literally "brought the light" to middle class America, cheaply and efficiently when kerosene replaced whale oil and wood as a better source of illumination. This gave people the time and freedom to be more productive in other areas. New technologies quickly sprung up - mass production, automation, etc adding to the social wealth. Without all this we are still back in the dark ages. Instead of focusing on taking things away from other people, as Bernie Sanders does, focus on all the opportunity we have in this country to create things ourselves. We don't simply have to tend a meager farm plot and spend half our day collecting wood or dung to burn as our only source of heat and light.
Marshall Duncan We don't disagree on everything. I don't like bureaucracies at all, and I would never encourage such a thing. I really like having robust and motivated companies working to innovate and solve problems -- what I don't like is when companies use this ability to innovate to target wealthy individuals. For example, Tesla has revolutionized the auto industry, but, their cars start at $75,000, which prices out the vast majority of all people, and therefore, minimizes the impact of their incredible innovation by ensuring that a small percentage of the population can afford to buy a Tesla. In my opinion, Tesla should have created an electric car for the sake of reducing Co2 emissions, not a toy for the wealthy to help them feel better about themselves. Likewise, a new startup, Nebia, has created a revolutionary shower head that uses 70% less water per second than a traditional shower head by atomizing the water particles as they flow through the shower head, but, its a $400 shower head -- this is unacceptable. Both Tesla and Nebia could have made their products cheaper without sacrificing the products ability to make a difference in resource management, but instead, it would seem to me that they chose to take advantage of their new innovation to maximize profit and to target a small wealthy population. This, to me, is the true nature of a completely unregulated and free market. In such a libertarian system it might be true that innovation and solutions to problems could be solved faster and more efficiently, but only to the tune of who will pay most for that product -- and this is the wrong mentality to go about working through serious problems that impact the future of our species and our planet. Ultimately, a completely unregulated and completely free market will undoubtedly lead to an oligarchical society. A place where those with the most money will have the strongest voice in decision making, and a place where all people will be in a mad frenzy to accumulate the most wealth, and therefore, the most power possible. This, to me, is an ugly society; one that reduces humanistic values to mindless economic laws insensitive to the very emotions that people are capable of expressing: empathy, selflessness and the common good. Moreover, how do you suppose economics would handle law and criminal justice? Would you suggest that America become a completely government absent lawless place where wealth is the absolute measure of political voice and power? Or, would you prefer that our government be bought and sold like sports arenas -- "Congress sold to the highest bidder." None of this makes any sense. When we talk about law and lawmaking, and the governing of people, it is not an economic question, it's a question of moral philosophy and one of political theory. The free market has no business creating law and enforcing law. Now, I believe in Capitalism to handle the trivial things of life just fine, like who gets to have a sports car or an all metal cell phone or whatever it is that people like -- but capitalism and it's economic theories have no business sticking their noses in humanistic questions such as abortion, capital punishment, murder, access to public democratic events and so on. These things are beyond the scope of economics and they should stay this way. It just so happens now that questions regarding the right to health insurance and the growing concern regarding vast amounts of wealth corrupting our representative democratic system have seemed to caught economists' attention. Make no mistake, the question was never about what was best economically, it has always been about whether or not we should value the economists' views, whether or not their input is valuable to our humanistic concerns. We are concerned with with is "just." Not what makes sense economically. These things are different and it's important that these distinctions are made, because after-all, it would seem to make great economic sense to murder your grandparents if it meant you might inherent a huge will. And this happens. And it's our representative democracies job to determine whether or not such an act of murder is morally justifiable. Hopefully with this example you can see how what makes sense economically might not be best for our country and it might not be seen as important by our lawmakers when there are more important fundamental humanistic values at stake. Finally, I challenge you to apply your free market principles to the concept of the Constitution of the United States. I think you will find that the vast majority of the Constitution is written to precisely value and defend the humanistic qualities that I would argue lie outside and beyond the scope of economics, and frankly, are much more important. Eliminating government altogether would be disastrous, as would wiping out all business people. But there needs to be a line drawn at some point, and it's our representative democracy's job to draw that line. And drawing that line requires arguments like the one we are having right now, and free market principles could never accomplish this feat. And this is what Sandel is getting at in his lecture. That we, the people, need to have these democratic debates in public and not be afraid to disagree and hear each others arguments. This way we might develop a better understand and come to a mutual disagreement at best, or a working compromise at worst. The argument being made is that relying on economic principles leaves us with no choice and no voice. And this is why economics should not be involved in questions regarding civic life.
what a lightweight (Sandel): so little there, there. really odd delivery and lame examples. more downmarket party game than 'philosophy' (Sandel is so-called professor of "political philosophy"), aka 'how to justify amoral politics.'
Money is supposed to create a more equal world and a fair social society. It should be a fair wage or income earned to provide a better life for both the provider of service receiving the money and the beneficiary of service paying for it. Labour and work must be rewarded for helping others in their communities through their ongoing hard work in services to others. As such, it is only a legal and fair transaction balancing the need to be of good service and constructively productive, versus the need to cover for a good decent lifestyle without having to be indebted or a failure and a burden on our society or family!
To answer the question at the end of the talk...radio talk show host Bob Brinker on Moneytalk often says we have the best government money can buy.
Just got done with his new book “what money can’t buy”
Man do we have a lot of work to do... but thanks for laying the ground work to get it done!
Sandel is a thinker. I hadn't heard the term market fundamentalist before. That is good term.
One of the best books i read, It has inspired me to do some undergrad research towards my thesis.
WELL, SEVERAL YEARS LATER , NOTHING HAPPENED IN MY LIFE .
I STILL CANNOT AFFORD THE CATHEDRAL ....
I believe you can buy friends but not genuine friendship. You can buy everything almost everything. But the question is how genuine that thing you bought is.
Well, a friend is equivalent to friendship for if it's not a friend then there's no genuine friendship anyways. This is assuming that it's a REAL friend. Also, if you bought a " friend", is that person really your friend or just your employee?
So appreciate his instruction!
Michael Sandel for President!!!
You are annoying.
He can't be president all the time, you should vary with other government positions fm time to time.
Supported..I think he will be a very good President.. very good and eloquent speaker ... touching on important topics with solutions and consideration of other people's opinions...
Late 1970's my friend and I went to clinic to sale broods, we took that money to go to buda temple for our spring break. That was in south Korea, we're high-school students then, we needed money....
Blood
Professor Sandel supported the idea of poor people selling their blood as a necessity.
If the preacher at my church was like the one doing the introduction here, I might still be going to church. lol
Well said
Professor Michael Sandel, I really enjoyed your debate on money and what it cannot buy. The very first point your mentioned brought it home for me. You mentioned that a rich man who commits a crime, cannot buy themselves a bigger cell. I would like to give some examples that actually proves this idea wrong. If you speak about the United States cell prison, you are probably correct, but what about other countries? Pablo Escobar was the wealthiest man in Bogota Colombia, and he had essentially a prison all to himself. Prisons in Mexico allow for “accommodations” for those who are willing to pay for them. The second example comes with buying friends. Yes, if someone is actively trying to buy friends, you may feel a difference with regards to feelings and sincerity brought by that person. However, what if one was not aware that his or her current friends are in it for the money? It is hard to prove other peoples motives. One cannot just go to someone and say I want to buy your friendship, or can they? Maybe someone can say I would like to invite you and your family to a paid vacation and have them get to know you better. With time, they may find you to be a good person and not accept your money. You see, the motives of people cannot be compared to simple assumptions like buying a puppy off the street. Even dogs have feelings. The third point you brought up about cash incentives to motivate students to read more books or study, was surprisingly not accepted. Again, when simply asked, “do you want money to study?” It is similar to the military example and them offering sign-on bonuses to serve your country. Maybe money can be the stimulus to get the person to enroll in a program and begin to reach their potential. I wonder what the audiences answers would be if they were actually offered that incentive but of course, said in another way. For example, Scholarships! “If you do well in school, you will get a scholarship toward your tuition for x amount of dollars so long as you meet certain criteria or write a report about a book you read every 3 months.” This is the same thing, just phrased differently. I likes your discussion on money used to teach kids lessons in gratitude. I believe that it depends on the age of the kid and what the child feels they are gaining to motivate them to write the cards. We use similar tactics every day without it being money. For example, “if you write thank you cards, I will let you play your videogames.” Or in psychology it is known as positive reinforcement. When a child does something good, they are encouraged and applauded so that they continue to do that said act. I don’t find anything wrong if the child is wanting to save money to buy a toy or a bike for doing tasks such as writing thank you notes. On the contrary, I believe that one can learn the lesson of value and understand how to responsibly do the right thing. Even if no money was involved, I personally find it sometimes a chore to write thank you letters, but I do it because it is the right thing to do.
Some days you don,t feel like being there but you being there is an inspiration, to some you never know how you can make some one day that much better. And able two not listen too negative words toward like me or some one else, well that,s what a great professor, is that stand up too the challenge and I's a great leader, that make,s an inspiration to some one when times you may really not want too be there, it make,s you an all star. Too me. It,s called shut up and listen and let Micheal sandel lead the way back two my Daddy. That I love, Linus Campbell.
For everything else, there's Mastercard.
Solution to all problems is SOCIAL EQUALITY. Abolish the wealth gap. If only people could see how simple it is.
Money is a technology, neutral until it is applied. Where money solved issues of unequal bartering (probably as they were then) so coins (btc-eth+) are addressing issues of money (as it is now).
the priest makes the best points because he understands power and how it can be abused by the upper echelons of the market system. everyone else reflects on the virtues and defects of the market system and fail to provide answers; pro-market people always like to say that 'we don't have a better system' or that this is the lesser evil. the truth is they do not want to assign blame and pass judgment. perhaps regulating 'sin' is too cumbersome and violence and greed are unavoidable
5:30 Starts
My mum used to pay me to do sums. Consequently, I was the best in my school at arithmetic from my first day of attendance, and I loved doing sums. I also stopped caring about the money, because it was gratifying to get the answer right. My mum also never preached to me about the "virtue of sums". At least one of my life examples seems to refute the watering down of morals by money.
That might be true for you, but not necessarily true for other people.
The speaker reminds me of professor McGonagall from Hogwarts -- lol :D.
I am a grade nine drop out for 32 years ago but I do read and I watched Michael Sandels book and watched his video on ethics twice , then about five years ago I have gotten more ill in the head and dont read or watch philosophy videos.
Your back watching now so its a step in the right direction!
It is paradoxical, we all know this. But, yet, have to be reminded.
it is just that fashion and are always winning the discussions. and ultimately it is the points of view that raise the ratings of the shows or that draw the crowds, in the case of public halls, that get to be represented.
I love when people use "the market" are a virtuous thing that must be protected.
Great talk. Thank you. It makes me think of how universities like Harvard are contributing to the "market society", as you describe it. Why are most students attracted to the elite schools: Prestige, power, reputation and especially career and money. Just look at their law and business school graduates. Where in the curriculum are ethics and leadership and empathy taught? How can graduates be awarded the Noble Prize without any understanding of society? I ask, what is Harvard's purpose, it's reason for being? Is it just intellectual knowledge, knowledge divorced from the soul? The universities have played no small roll in getting us where we are today. One powerful example is eugenics, a theory developed in the early 1900s and used by the Nazis to help support genocide.
Money is supposed to create a more equal world and a fair social society. It should be a fair wage or income earned to provide a better life for both the provider of service receiving the money and the beneficiary of service paying for it. Labour and work must be rewarded for helping others in their communities through their ongoing hard work in services to others. As such, it is only a legal and fair transaction balancing the need to be of good service and constructively productive, versus the need to cover for a good decent lifestyle without having to be indebted or a failure and a burden on our society or family!
Money are supposed to be a mean rather than an end.
prosím profesor môžete od povedať na otazku z ktoré univerzity WW2 vyšla a chyba meno profesora
In “How to balance inequality” on RUclips, A few calls to a friend in the White House about an inheritance cap to let people redistribute their wealth fairly, realigns man's mission here with his natural, higher purpose.
How to balance inequality
good speech
The only thing that money holds value is Faith. Without the peoples faith in money it is simply a piece of paper with green ink on it. We need to put more faith in humans and not allow money to play the whole instrument of our everyday lives. When we allow money to get into every aspect of life, morality dissolves and whoever has the most money lives the better life no matter who it is...
Read books and get rewards
Good
The question is: Except of the same WORD itself, what the now days political system has in common with Democracy?
Nice
Maybe
❤money can't buy love
oh now i even know what example he's gonna give for each argument :))
It's (almost) all very good Professor Sandel and I truly mean it; the quality of your speech is phenomenal. Thank you, you're an inspiration. But you shielded the banks when the time came at 59:23. You implicitly agreed to the status quo. Is private money sovereign or is the public sovereign over money? (of course the former) Do we, as a democratic people, want this state of affairs to continue? (what democracy?!) Will it continue? (until a new crisis) And more importantly, what is a potential alternative? That's where the Millenials come in :P Public rather than private money creation is needed to evade continued economic stagnation (bumping real estate price levels will eventually be socially problematic, no?) What does this mean concretely? Well, the Chicago plan, for instance, recommended by chief IMF economists and Nobel economists, could be a democratic solution to debt. And more to the point, direct instruments of democratic governance, like those in Switzerland which is consistently ranked the best governed, the happiest, the best educated advanced country in the world could be proven to work in large nations. For the sake of shared political consciousness and virtue, you should take a stand with these alternatives.
Just wow
17:24 cannot believe someone was bored by this
According to Prof. Sandel's opinion, the macket hollows out morality because of the lack of public disclosure. However, what is macket and where it comes from? In essence, macket is the product of our human beings. That is to say macket is the result of our public disclosure. Before the discussion what are the macket and public disclosure, we should not make the conclusion easily.
market buddy market... check out Grammarly.com perhaps?
a pre written card bought from the news agency for everything from new born to death is now commonly accepted in our society. A careful selection of a particular card can win the heart of its intended receiver. A wedding toast that is bought may one day be on the same level and will be common practice.
The new generation will know little
1:07:00 Corporations have created obesity. Not the market. The market has simply facilitated the free exchange between people willing to consume calories and the people willing to sell calories, at a given exchange rate (price). Perhaps the market can also provide the incentives to alleviate the problem with the overconsumption of gluttonous consumers.
Дякую.
he didn't even mention how money corrupts politics
YOU CANNOT BUY INFINITE LIFE......IT IS GIVEN WITH OUR GOD....
FOLLOW THE CHOSEN ONE.
sandel, i believe is wrong on two points: that the unfairness of the market system rather than the values of goods themselves is what's prominent in the public discourse or in people's minds [this was the contention of the female debater]. people cannot help but be concerned with value. the other thing he is wrong about is that there is no public discourse on the value of goods. there always is -- tv shows, ads, talk shows, news shows are all constantly debating this.
Wow
George from Seinfeld 2:22
At 1:15:26 on you seem to demonstrate your own saying of a hollowed out public discourse :S It must be a 'thin edge of the razor' kind of thing for a Harvard professor and a Davos attendee to speak about these things surely? ;)
MICHEAL SANDEL--I WILL FOREVER REMEMBER YOU &ELIZABETH WARREN .
APRECIATIVE THRU ETERNITY . PWW
7:33 - THAT is is the most appalling morally wrong disgusting utterly evil and empty idea I've ever heard. Sterilization should not even be allowed even against pedophiles and that means a lot coming from someone who's been molested multiple times as a child it's a blessing to be able to create a child and bring it into this world and the very idea that. Even entered someone's head to try to make it a law or make it a reality is disgusting. Appalling.
That sickened me too. I get the driving premise of "unsupported children bad", but like the bit about paying to be the executioner, it's one of those plans that highlights an underlying immorality/failure - society should be capable of supporting the children and those poor women so that this sort of thing isn't even on the table.
how unhappy are the birds, the cattle and all other creatures who occupy this planet. A lottery win or a nice shiny something is never thought about and the fulfillment goes on?
Perez Scott Rodriguez Mary Lee Laura
The toaster would not be the same if I knew that it belonged to Hitler, I would burn it in lava.
Prosím rozoberte Kolonizaciou v moderne dobe s jej štruktúru ktorá není možné vidieť pre to že blokovan propagandou
SOY DE URUGUAY AMERICA DEL SUR .NO DE PODRIA TRADUCIR AL ESPAÑOL NOS INTERESA MUCHO ESCHUCHAR A SANDEL
Good grief. This panel was so bias that Stephanie flanders was the moderate! Even the moderator was obviously far left. The guy introducing at the start set the scene for the lack of debate, the torch was then taken up by the Sandel show. Don't get me wrong, I love to listen to him, even though I disagree with him, but I'd have loved to have seen someone like Thomas Sowell on the panel.
Well money is a drug for our brain, so whoever would try to defend cash incentive or money in general is probably an addict himself. :) Money, sadly, destroy many parts of our society. Maybe if we'd be taught at school useful things like what we should think about money, how to use them, that they are not a final goal etc. we might have a better society.
Far left? Far left?! What worries me most is I know you mean it seriously.
Well, they didn't have the money to get him 😉
The woman speaker could talk less and let Michel explain issues!!
Dont let a Capitalist know there are people willing to do work for nothing, indeed prefer to do it for nothing as reported in the carer account.
Monty Python - Merchant Banker Sketch
Nemecko diskriminuje celú EU Nemecko nemá právo veta rozkazovať kto kde za koľko kto bude pracovať na Nemecko
Money used to purchase something instead of putting in one’s own effort, skill, or integrity into producing it, would not erode any value (or worth) since the value was not there in the first place (or not as high as perceived).
If an intelligent designer of the universe exists, then all things have an inherent worth, which can be perceived as higher or lower but not actually changed. However, if there is no God then worth may he determined by desire, or perception.
Since the God of the Bible does exist, as humble logic requires; all things do have inherent worth, and money may deceive but not destroy it.
Except it doesnt
from Thailand,อะไรที่เงินซื้อไม่ได้ ตอบว่า สิ่งที่เงินซื้อไม่ได้ คือ ความไม่แก่ ความไม่เจ็บไข้ ความไม่ตาย ความฉลาด ความมีปัญญา ความดีในการคิด ในการพูด ในการกระทำ คนเรานี้มักติดอยู่ในวังวนแห่งความสงสัย ว่าความดีคืออะไร ความตายคืออะไร ชีวิตคืออะไ อะไรต่างๆ ทุกสิ่งทุกอย่าง ล้วนยกขึ้นสู่ปัญหาที่ปรัชญา ซึ่งได้ประโยชน์จากคำตอบของแต่ละคนน้อยมาก เพราะคำตอบของแต่ละคนก็ต้องทำให้สงสัยต่อไปอีกว่าใช่ไหม จริงหรือ แต่ถ้าหยุดตั้งคำถามและหันมาปฏิบัติในแนวทางศีล สมาธิ ปัญญา และเมื่อคุณถึงซึ่งควาทตรัสรู้ด้วยตนเอง คุณก็ไม่จำเป็นต้องถามใครอีก เพราะคุณคำตอบด้วยตัวของคุณเองแล้วที่เรียกว่า-Enlightenment_ถ้าพวกคุณทั้งหลายต้องการบรรลุสิ่งที่พวกคุณสงสัย สิ่งที่คุณมี-อวิชา- ความไม่รู้ คุณควรทดลองปฏิบัติตามแนวทางมรรคมีองค์ 8 เพราะเป็นทางที่คุณจะได้รับคำตอบจากแนวทางที่คุณเคยได้รับการศึกษาจากการอ่าน การคิด การโต้เถียง ซึ่งมันก็ไม่ลึกซึ้งพอที่จะทำลาย -อวิชชา - ความไม่รู้ของคุณ หลายคนชอบอ้างสถิติมากน้อยในการตัดสินความความถูกต้อง ควาทน่าเชื่อถือ แต่ในคำสอนขแง่พระพุทธเจ้าได้บ่งชี้เรื่องนี้ไว้ใน -กาลาสูตร- ว่าอย่าเชื่อเพราะอ้างตำรา อ้างสถิติ อ้างประเพณี อ้างเพราะตรงกับคสามเชื่อของตน อ้างเพระเป็นตรรกศาสตร์เป็นต้น
สิ่งที่เงินซื้อไม่ได้ คำตอบสุดท้าย คือคุณไม่สามารถซื้อความสิ้นทุกข์ได้ คุณไท่สามารถซื้อความสุขที่แท้จริงได้ คุณซื้อได้แต่ความสะดวกสบายเท่านั้น แต่คุณไท่สามารถซื้อความไม่หิว ความไม่โลภ ความโกรธ ความไม่รู้ตามความเป็นจริง คุณไม่สามารถซื้อ คุณไม่สามารถซื้อสิ่งมันมีมันเป็นในตัวมันเองของทุกๆสิ่งที่ไม่มีใครสามารถบังคับมันได้ เมื่อบุคคลใดบรรลุถึงโลกุตรธรรม คุณก็หลุดพ้นความรู้ ความคิดแบบโลกียธรรม หลุดพ้นความคิดแบบปรัชญา และพบความจริงว่า การหลุดพ้นจากความทุกข์ทั้งปวงไม่สามารถซื้อได้นอกจากต้งปฏิบัติให้บรรลุถึงด้วยตัวของคุณเอง พระพุทธเจ้าให้คำตอบนานมาแล้ว 2600ปีกว่ามาแล้ว ด้วยการละทิ้งราชสมบัติ ทิ้งความเป็นพระราชา มาตรัสรู้สิ่งที่คนไม่สามารถซื้อได้ที่ใต้ต้นโพธิ์ที่เรียกว่า อริยสัจ หรือ ปฏิจจสมุปบาท
Nc
what hells is this? i can't understand
الرجاء.من.السيد.ميشال.سندل.النضر.والنص.القانوني.في.السيد.بترسن.اكل.من.وقتي.الكثير.وهو.يتعلل.بعلل.واهيه.منذ.ان.اعتمدناه.اخذ.اجره.ثلاثا.مرات.في.السبعون.مليون
والي.لان.لم.يتدم.فيافي.انجار.شبرا.واحدا.ويعلل.بالكفيم.ومشابه.الرجا.من.سيادكم.الحل.مع.هذا.الشخص.اما.ان.ينجز.ماوكل.به.او.يتخلي.وشكرا
Kto aktivoval WW 2⃣ mimo Európy
Blood
Sandel got thrashed, lol
I know most people usually think once they become rich. Their troubles will be over and it seems so dumb but Jay Z was right I don't have a lot of money but I've never had to work for stuff and people think O only rich people say money can't buy everything but all I know is I've wasted so much money looking for what I now realize I'll never be able to buy or persuade or try to manipulate or try to get some how and I'm not trying to get any type of like sympathy its not like old poor little rich girl cuz that's like you know contrary to popular belief not how I am but you realize and usually it's too late so many years have gone by when you having a test drive or something maybe it wasn't ingrained in you as a child you were spoiled and its not its not their fault for spoiling you you think you want to spoil your child but when you raise a child like that don't even allow them to to work don't allow them to do their own thing because maybe you want to focus on their education and or maybe you can protect them as a child so you try to give him everything as they're growing up or something so I don't think it's the parents fault and I don't think it's a child called because usually human nature you take the easier softer way out I mean most people would choose a type of situation where they don't have to work they don't have to do anything they can get taken care of but and they can have everything paid for whatever desire they want and I have to work for anything but that leaves the biggest hole the most huge emptiness inside of you that nothing can fill up except the one that money can't buy and I realize now like I could would rather get a ring from a crackerjack box diamond ring is it meant something coming from that person not a real but it's true money makes everything easier but money breeds resentment when he breathes doubt and trust cuz I don't want to break my all these friends and then when you don't have any money anymore nobody wants to be your friend and like you don't know who to trust me there are certain people were there through it all and you will be there through it all but those are the hardest to differentiate because you always think or you were taught when you were little the people want something from you like I don't know we not only made me like in this
This is just too British for me to understand...
profesor ktorá vojna sa dá porovnať WW 2 s ktorou
If you have mnoney and want more friends, buy a fancy yacht, invite people for all-expense-paid weekends.
As clever as MSandel is in his moral arguments. They are just discourse, discourse that makes invisible what is obvious, this moral debate is a middle to upper class debate amongst members of mainly white race rich societies, that are worrying only about the inequalities within their societies, only laterally mentioning Greece or Spain ( they stil can feel morally outrage as they were the cradle of the civilization and philosophy M.Sandel professes almost as religion). Not the centuries capitalism and their way of living that have been sustained with the exploitation, slavery and pillage of Africa Asia and Latin America. This is a fraud moral debate that stays in moral discourse limits, whilst they sustain immoral wars on other countries to maintain their way of living. Whilst they debate public discourse morality, people in other countries are dying or living in modern day slavery so they can have laptops and debate.
+Guardarecuerdos Aren't those examples of what money shouldn't buy? Military and prisons in America have profit incentives. So do jobs being sent offshore. I think you missed the point. Unjust enrichments are a whole other topic.
+Guardarecuerdos I believe western philosophers are also addressing the issue of global inequality and the responsibility of the west and global institution i.e. Thomas Pogge. Sandel is just addressing a different issue that also requires attention. The problem of putting money-value on things that were once free, that essentially promoted societal equality, is increasingly visible in my country, in Africa. This problem could be more pronounced in the US but with globalization, such a culture will not take long before it is very visible in other societies. Hence I hope Sandel's idea of morality vs. money is taken up by all societies.
As I've said many times, Michael Sandel means well, but this moral righteousness in areas where he has little expertise is getting tiring. He tries to show the corruption in the life insurance market by chastising life settlement policies as inhumane because third parties are buying people's existing life insurance policies to then profit when they die. But he leaves out the other side of the equation. If the person selling the policy no longer has a need for it or can't afford it, why should they be forced to simply let it end, thereby losing the entire investment they put into it? If someone is willing to buy it, the policy holder can sometimes make 3 times the money they invested in it. What's wrong with that? It's a win/win. It may keep some people from losing their homes in old age. Next Sandel will say it's wrong for your loved ones to want you to buy a life insurance policy in the first place so they can profit off your death. It destroys the "purity" of marriage and family. I can just hear him now.
+Marshall Duncan No, it is not a win/win. There is something wrong with that situation: it's irresponsible to profit off of one's desire to have a dignifying funeral under the guise of "life insurance." And then to go so far as to not cancel the insurance when one can no longer afford an inflated insurance policy is adding insult to injury.
So, you suggest that family, or anyone else, like say, an insurance company, *should* profit off of a loved one's death? I think at some point we need to draw a line as to when someone needs counseling or mental health services.
Robert Wilson III Not a word you've said makes sense. You don't understand what life settlements are. "The family" is not profiting here. The actual life insurance policyholder is the one profiting - and not in death, but in life. It's their policy and they've been paying for it all these years. Why shouldn't they be able to make a profit on it? What's wrong with that? Do you want everyone to live in poverty and misery? Read the Parable of the Talents.
Now, regarding your belief that a family member or anyone else should not "profit off of a loved one's death" (which is a different issue than a life settlement), do you think it's more moral to leave your spouse in dire poverty when you die or to protect them with a nest egg? I think you have to expand your limited conception of "profit." In many cases, profit can be very moral and represent real caring for one's loved ones. You've been reading way too many Marxist textbooks.
Marshall Duncan I've never read a Marxist textbook, but I'm a fan of Bernie Sanders and I was educated in a Catholic school system, and the Catholic Social Teachings were taught to me since the 3rd grade -- which do oppose selfishness and greed.
I agree that Wills that might help out a spouse or family member is fine, but it's not okay if wealth becomes an incentive to kill a spouse or family member, as is often the case in very ill older family members or high profile domestic murders. But Sandel is simply advocating that we have these specific conversations about what we feel is right and wrong, and not allow something so trivial as a market economy decide for us how we should choose to govern our civil lives.
Finally, I do not think that insurance companies should profit on the life insurance they sell to people. It seems wrong to me that they are willing to bet on having an individual pay up until the day they die. It just seems wrong to me. Why do you feel that it should be okay for insurance companies to make a profit on life insurance? Don't you think everyone should have a nice funeral as a right? And not only those who can afford to pay some insurance company?
In principle Sandel is making a larger criticism of our society. You know, we are a country built on law, and surely law is not made according to the market economy. Just imaging a time when congress's votes are consistently sold to the highest bidder, this is an oligarchy no? This sort of fully free market completely unregulated by any form of government that many people advocate is no longer a representative democracy, it is a time where only those with the most money have a voice in any issue, and only their needs are going to be met, exactly according to how they feel things should be. Sandel says no to this scenario, he argues, why should it be money that determines who has a political voice? Are we not a representative democracy in which all citizens have an equal voice? Frankly, I have to agree with mister Sandel on this issue. Libertarian views will only serve those with the largest wallets and that just doesn't fly with me and it's not how I want the country I live in to be run.
Robert Wilson III You may never have read a Marxist textbook but you are an indoctrinated Marxist all the same. Everything you believe seethes Marxism - from your belief that the market economy is "trivial" to prohibiting insurance companies from making a profit on their services. Newsflash: if you don't allow them to make a profit they will go out of business and the government will have to take over their function... which it appears is what you want.
But the government performs that function already in one big area. It's called social security. How's that working? Dysfunctionally to say the least. The return people get on their money is a fraction of what they'd get if they invested the money privately in similar non-speculative investments. This translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars lost over the course of a lifetime to the ever growing government Leviathan. And the government raids the trust fund all the time making it a Ponzi scheme. Your money isn't even in there. The government has to borrow from future generations to pay you your meager retirement check. What a great insurance plan those wise stewards of the people have created. Not!
There are other societies that have attempted to live according to the principles you espouse - Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. All were bankrupted by taking power away from "trivial free markets" and giving it to government bureaucrats so everything could be "equal." What happened? 90% of the public became impoverished while the 10% who worked for or were affiliated with the government became filthy rich from corrupt dealings. Is this your alternative to trivial free market capitalism?
What created the wealth and prosperity we enjoy in America? It was those horrible capitalists. John D Rockefeller literally "brought the light" to middle class America, cheaply and efficiently when kerosene replaced whale oil and wood as a better source of illumination. This gave people the time and freedom to be more productive in other areas. New technologies quickly sprung up - mass production, automation, etc adding to the social wealth. Without all this we are still back in the dark ages.
Instead of focusing on taking things away from other people, as Bernie Sanders does, focus on all the opportunity we have in this country to create things ourselves. We don't simply have to tend a meager farm plot and spend half our day collecting wood or dung to burn as our only source of heat and light.
Marshall Duncan We don't disagree on everything. I don't like bureaucracies at all, and I would never encourage such a thing. I really like having robust and motivated companies working to innovate and solve problems -- what I don't like is when companies use this ability to innovate to target wealthy individuals. For example, Tesla has revolutionized the auto industry, but, their cars start at $75,000, which prices out the vast majority of all people, and therefore, minimizes the impact of their incredible innovation by ensuring that a small percentage of the population can afford to buy a Tesla. In my opinion, Tesla should have created an electric car for the sake of reducing Co2 emissions, not a toy for the wealthy to help them feel better about themselves.
Likewise, a new startup, Nebia, has created a revolutionary shower head that uses 70% less water per second than a traditional shower head by atomizing the water particles as they flow through the shower head, but, its a $400 shower head -- this is unacceptable.
Both Tesla and Nebia could have made their products cheaper without sacrificing the products ability to make a difference in resource management, but instead, it would seem to me that they chose to take advantage of their new innovation to maximize profit and to target a small wealthy population. This, to me, is the true nature of a completely unregulated and free market. In such a libertarian system it might be true that innovation and solutions to problems could be solved faster and more efficiently, but only to the tune of who will pay most for that product -- and this is the wrong mentality to go about working through serious problems that impact the future of our species and our planet.
Ultimately, a completely unregulated and completely free market will undoubtedly lead to an oligarchical society. A place where those with the most money will have the strongest voice in decision making, and a place where all people will be in a mad frenzy to accumulate the most wealth, and therefore, the most power possible. This, to me, is an ugly society; one that reduces humanistic values to mindless economic laws insensitive to the very emotions that people are capable of expressing: empathy, selflessness and the common good.
Moreover, how do you suppose economics would handle law and criminal justice? Would you suggest that America become a completely government absent lawless place where wealth is the absolute measure of political voice and power? Or, would you prefer that our government be bought and sold like sports arenas -- "Congress sold to the highest bidder." None of this makes any sense. When we talk about law and lawmaking, and the governing of people, it is not an economic question, it's a question of moral philosophy and one of political theory. The free market has no business creating law and enforcing law.
Now, I believe in Capitalism to handle the trivial things of life just fine, like who gets to have a sports car or an all metal cell phone or whatever it is that people like -- but capitalism and it's economic theories have no business sticking their noses in humanistic questions such as abortion, capital punishment, murder, access to public democratic events and so on. These things are beyond the scope of economics and they should stay this way.
It just so happens now that questions regarding the right to health insurance and the growing concern regarding vast amounts of wealth corrupting our representative democratic system have seemed to caught economists' attention. Make no mistake, the question was never about what was best economically, it has always been about whether or not we should value the economists' views, whether or not their input is valuable to our humanistic concerns. We are concerned with with is "just." Not what makes sense economically. These things are different and it's important that these distinctions are made, because after-all, it would seem to make great economic sense to murder your grandparents if it meant you might inherent a huge will. And this happens. And it's our representative democracies job to determine whether or not such an act of murder is morally justifiable. Hopefully with this example you can see how what makes sense economically might not be best for our country and it might not be seen as important by our lawmakers when there are more important fundamental humanistic values at stake.
Finally, I challenge you to apply your free market principles to the concept of the Constitution of the United States. I think you will find that the vast majority of the Constitution is written to precisely value and defend the humanistic qualities that I would argue lie outside and beyond the scope of economics, and frankly, are much more important. Eliminating government altogether would be disastrous, as would wiping out all business people. But there needs to be a line drawn at some point, and it's our representative democracy's job to draw that line. And drawing that line requires arguments like the one we are having right now, and free market principles could never accomplish this feat. And this is what Sandel is getting at in his lecture. That we, the people, need to have these democratic debates in public and not be afraid to disagree and hear each others arguments. This way we might develop a better understand and come to a mutual disagreement at best, or a working compromise at worst. The argument being made is that relying on economic principles leaves us with no choice and no voice. And this is why economics should not be involved in questions regarding civic life.
what a lightweight (Sandel): so little there, there. really odd delivery and lame examples. more downmarket party game than 'philosophy' (Sandel is so-called professor of "political philosophy"), aka 'how to justify amoral politics.'
This was a disappointing waste of time.
Money is supposed to create a more equal world and a fair social society. It should be a fair wage or income earned to provide a better life for both the provider of service receiving the money and the beneficiary of service paying for it. Labour and work must be rewarded for helping others in their communities through their ongoing hard work in services to others. As such, it is only a legal and fair transaction balancing the need to be of good service and constructively productive, versus the need to cover for a good decent lifestyle without having to be indebted or a failure and a burden on our society or family!
Nice
Wow
Nice
Nice