Michael Sandel: Why we shouldn’t trust markets with our civic life
- Articles, Blog

Michael Sandel: Why we shouldn’t trust markets with our civic life

Here’s a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies? Today, there are very few things that money can’t buy. If you’re sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California, you should know that if you don’t like the standard accommodations, you can buy a prison cell upgrade. It’s true. For how much, do you think? What would you guess? Five hundred dollars? It’s not the Ritz-Carlton. It’s a jail! Eighty-two dollars a night. Eighty-two dollars a night. If you go to an amusement park and don’t want to stand in the long lines for the popular rides, there is now a solution. In many theme parks, you can pay extra to jump to the head of the line. They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets. And this isn’t only happening in amusement parks. In Washington, D.C., long lines, queues sometimes form for important Congressional hearings. Now some people don’t like to wait in long queues, maybe overnight, even in the rain. So now, for lobbyists and others who are very keen to attend these hearings but don’t like to wait, there are companies, line-standing companies, and you can go to them. You can pay them a certain amount of money, they hire homeless people and others who need a job to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes, and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins, can take his or her place at the head of the line and a seat in the front of the room. Paid line standing. It’s happening, the recourse to market mechanisms and market thinking and market solutions, in bigger arenas. Take the way we fight our wars. Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were U.S. military troops? Now this isn’t because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies, but this is what has happened. Over the past three decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution. We’ve drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies. The difference is this: 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: personal relations, family life, health, education, politics, law, civic life. Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming market societies? For two reasons, I think. One of them has to do with inequality. The more things money can buy, the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters. If the only thing that money determined was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs, then inequality wouldn’t matter very much. But when money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life — decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns — when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal. And so the marketization of everything sharpens the sting of inequality and its social and civic consequence. That’s one reason to worry. There’s a second reason apart from the worry about inequality, and it’s this: with some social goods and practices, when market thinking and market values enter, they may change the meaning of those practices and crowd out attitudes and norms worth caring about. I’d like to take an example of a controversial use of a market mechanism, a cash incentive, and see what you think about it. Many schools struggle with the challenge of motivating kids, especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard, to do well in school, to apply themselves. Some economists have proposed a market solution: Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades or high test scores or for reading books. They’ve tried this, actually. They’ve done some experiments in some major American cities. In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C., they’ve tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A, 35 dollars for a B. In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read. So let’s see what — Some people are in favor, some people are opposed to this cash incentive to motivate achievement. Let’s see what people here think about it. Imagine that you are the head of a major school system, and someone comes to you with this proposal. And let’s say it’s a foundation. They will provide the funds. You don’t have to take it out of your budget. How many would be in favor and how many would be opposed to giving it a try? Let’s see by a show of hands. First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand. And how many would be opposed? How many would — So the majority here are opposed, but a sizable minority are in favor. Let’s have a discussion. Let’s start with those of you who object, who would rule it out even before trying. What would be your reason? Who will get our discussion started? Yes? Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I’m Heike, and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation, so in the respect that children, if they would like to read, you just take this incentive away in just paying them, so it just changes behavior. Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away. What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation? HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn. MS: To learn.
HM: To get to know the world. And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then? Then they stop reading? MS: Now, let’s see if there’s someone who favors, who thinks it’s worth trying this. Elizabeth Loftus: I’m Elizabeth Loftus, and you said worth a try, so why not try it and do the experiment and measure things? MS: And measure. And what would you measure? You’d measure how many — EL: How many books they read and how many books they continued to read after you stopped paying them. MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that? HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way. (Laughter) (Applause) MS: All right. What’s emerged from this discussion is the following question: Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt or crowd out the higher motivation, the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey, which is to learn to love to learn and to read for their own sakes? And people disagree about what the effect will be, but that seems to be the question, that somehow a market mechanism or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson, and if it does, what will become of these children later? I should tell you what’s happened with these experiments. The cash for good grades has had very mixed results, for the most part has not resulted in higher grades. The two dollars for each book did lead those kids to read more books. It also led them to read shorter books. (Laughter) But the real question is, what will become of these kids later? Will they have learned that reading is a chore, a form of piecework to be done for pay, that’s the worry, or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake? Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out is something that many economists overlook. Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange. Market exchange, they assume, doesn’t change the meaning or value of the goods being exchanged. This may be true enough if we’re talking about material goods. If you sell me a flat screen television or give me one as a gift, it will be the same good. It will work the same either way. But the same may not be true if we’re talking about nonmaterial goods and social practices such as teaching and learning or engaging together in civic life. In those domains, bringing market mechanisms and cash incentives may undermine or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes worth caring about. Once we see that markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves, can change the meaning of the social practices, as in the example of teaching and learning, we have to ask where markets belong and where they don’t, where they may actually undermine values and attitudes worth caring about. But to have this debate, we have to do something we’re not very good at, and that is to reason together in public about the value and the meaning of the social practices we prize, from our bodies to family life to personal relations to health to teaching and learning to civic life. Now these are controversial questions, and so we tend to shrink from them. In fact, during the past three decades, when market reasoning and market thinking have gathered force and gained prestige, our public discourse during this time has become hollowed out, empty of larger moral meaning. For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions. But once we see that markets change the character of goods, we have to debate among ourselves these bigger questions about how to value goods. One of the most corrosive effects of putting a price on everything is on commonality, the sense that we are all in it together. Against the background of rising inequality, marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools. This isn’t good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line. Here’s why. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different social backgrounds and different walks of life encounter one another, bump up against one another in the ordinary course of life, because this is what teaches us to negotiate and to abide our differences. And this is how we come to care for the common good. And so, in the end, the question of markets is not mainly an economic question. It’s really a question of how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy? Thank you very much. (Applause)

About Ralph Robinson

Read All Posts By Ralph Robinson

99 thoughts on “Michael Sandel: Why we shouldn’t trust markets with our civic life

  1. 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.

  2. Interesting, this is basically an argument against something like the class system in the UK, which when you look at it was born from extreme differences in the power of individuals. Trust me you don't want it. While you could argue that it starts out as a meritocracy, it always ends up as an aristocracy if you do nothing about it.

  3. 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.

  4. 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!

  5. This entire lecture makes a false distinction between values and prices. Monetary prices are just exchange values where one of the products is a general medium of exchange (money). But there is no genuine split between value(utility) and prices. The monetary demand for pork is effected by certain peoples religious values. The supply of labour is effected by deciding you have more important things to do than work.

    What the "free market" really means is that each individual is able to economise their time and resources according to their own values within the law. So even if you value it you can't steal peoples stuff. And even if you value differently you can't stop the state stealing your stuff.

    Society isn't an ontological entity. It's a form of human action. Everything is already determined by peoples values. Why is their any reason to think that letting prices (monetary values) work in militarism or the penal system is a bad thing? Society IS exchange.

  6. In the Civil War rich people could buy someone else to go fight in their stead.  So, this is not totally without precedent.  I think the cuts in line in an amusement park are disgusting, and I would never knowingly go or support an amusement park that did that.

  7. The problem with democracy corrupted by the market system is that so far all we can still do about solutions to this is to talk and watch videos but nothing can be done because those people who cut in line have cut us all out of line.

  8. And this is something NEW? "Money Talks" is probably the oldest saying I know! No, I take that back; "For the love of money is the root of all evil" is probably older. Heck… Golden Calf, anyone?

  9. Seems to me this is about the rich feeling just a little bit guilty about what they have become! Nothing will come of it.

  10. If we had a universally satisfactory solution to problem of "ought" (like we do the question: what is the chemical composition of salt) then we would not have replaced the search for it with economics. Sandel's assertion that we "ought" to replace what ended up replacing the search for a universally satisfactory "ought" merely begs the question. And he teaches the big moral philosophy course to Harvard undergrads?! Oy!

  11. Adding the value of monetary idea into the motivations of individual "interest", "passion", and "curiosity" is just so poor to define the qualities of a human being….

    Everything with money is just a part value of convenience… not the value of humanity.

  12. My parents tried paying for good grades with my brother and I in the 80s.
    The net result was that I only cared about the two classes where I could get paid, and my brother didn't bother trying at all. So I learned english when I got internet and noticed someone was actually using that language. My brother finished his education last year, in this 30s. 
    I don't much like the outcome of paying for learning. Do you?

  13. But.. wouldn't it be funny if EVERYTHING can be bought with money? What if EVERYONE is motivated ONLY by money? That sounds like a wonderful world to live in. Imagine the next Einstein or Hawking, instead of becoming a great physicist, becomes a Wall Street banker? The next Picasso becomes a marketing strategist. Imagine beautiful ads covering every inch of space. I also like the idea of squeezing as much money out of your employees and a Darwinian society where people are super competitive and crave the spotlight and backstab one another. "What a wonderful world" plays in the background

  14. This is one of the reasons why I'm an artist, because no one can buy talent, much less teach it. Let the rich kids have the 'best' art schools and galleries, whatever that means. It's easy for a rich artist to pay or trade art to get their work into any gallery or museum they want, but that has no bearing on the beauty of my work or its sale. I think what I'm saying is it depends on how we define 'private.' Is an amusement park line a private thing? It doesn't feel private. Being alone in my studio painting what I really want to paint feels far more private. If a rich person gets to show art that I don't like at the Whitney, and I sell a painting on etsy for a price I'm happy with, to someone who truly appreciates it for what it really is, then who cares? Now, if my township makes me pay some kind of art studio fee every time I go to work, or I have to pay an annual artist tax, then we'll talk.

  15. Essentially… Too lengthy for such a simple point-..We removed God… And turned Money into God… Unfortunately Money can't buy virtues. Virtues are cultivated in the "civic life" by seeing your neighbour as yourself. So since we can't buy virtues in this "cash is King" environment, well the only alternative is that we risk loosing those virtues… Patience for example.

  16. All the examples until military contractors were ways to make better use of time for people who worked to have the money to afford it. If money can't be used for this, why work? If I can't buy a vacuum cleaner to speed up house work, washer not to wash my clothes by hand, TV to enjoy my leisure time, why should I slave at a job which places me in situations I have not desired and causes me to do things I may not particularly like, all so I'll have it better in my "private time".

  17. 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.

  18. Michael Sandel is right about this one.

    I am of very modest means. I have very unusual health problems, and, for me, access to appropriate health care is limited. My doctors have told me that providing me with first rate medical care is a public good. What they learn in treating me has influenced how they treat others, and they are better doctors because they know me.

    I live in public housing authority elderly / disabled housing. I am trapped because it is a very bad idea for me to take Section 8 housing. (My elderly mother, who is well-off, refuses to go to an elder law attorney and have a proper estate plan done. When my mother dies, and if I was on Section 8, I would loose my housing subsidy. I live in the second most expensive area of the US and, without the subsidy, I couldn't afford to live in a modest apartment a reasonable distance from my health care providers.) My slumlord landlord only enforces the terms of the lease related to money (don't pay the rent, get evicted) and those terms required by State and Federal regulations. It refuses to enforce 'quiet enjoyment' provisions of the lease. Because of this, the Trailer Trash tenants (about 15% of the residents) , who are supported by Trailer Trash Management, rule the roost. I have the right to 'quiet enjoyment'', the right to live in a safe and secure environment. Because I am of modest means, but not so poor that I qualify for legal aid, but can't afford an attorney (even though I have an excellent case), the courthouse door is essentially barred. My slumlord landlord can violate the terms of the lease with impunity, because I can't afford to go to court and have a judge order that the lease be enforced.

    Copyrights and Patents are worthless if you can't afford to enforce them. This is a major problem for small businesses / start-up companies, who are operating on a shoestring and who have discovered that a larger, better funded organization played 'me too'. Might makes right.

    Another interesting and related concept is the 'tragedy of the commons'. According to Investopedia, The tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals neglect the well-being of society (or the group) in the pursuit of personal gain. For example, if neighboring farmers increase the number of their own sheep living on a common block of land, eventually the land will become depleted and not be able to support the sheep, which is detrimental to all. Read more: Tragedy Of The Commons Definition | Investopedia

  19. 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.

  20. School / Highschool = preparation for college
    College = preparation for the work force
    The work force = money incentive

    There has always been that intrinsic market motivator for students… So many honor roll kids if you ask them will say they get good grades to get into a good college to get a good job.

    Learning for it's own sake is fine. If you want kids to do better in school then allow a more flexible and entertaining curriculum for one, and for two throw grades out entirely.

    When I teach others how to do something in the real world I do not give them a grade… Why should schools?

    i showed my sister how to change the flat tire on her car. I didn't give her a grade… but she knows how to do that.

    I taught a friend how to play the guitar. He was not given a grade either…

    I enlightened all of you who read this post, and you are not being graded on that either.

  21. I wonder if he gets paid for his talks on morality. If so then it is the marketization of the philosophy…. Imagine Socrates getting paid for his talks and discussions…..

  22. I totally agree with Sandel when he says we are changing to marketing society. A society where everything is money. Even the social life and relationship. The reason for this is the cause of inequality in the society. When people cut the line or the pay a college in advance before even taking exam. This plants the idea that money is everything. You can do everything with money. Unfortunately, this creates isolation among people. The rich people interact with their kind and the poor with their kind. Even in the social events, they do not learn about each other, because the rich are in the VIP. I agree with him when he says we need to change this because the purpose of life is living and sharing with each other.

  23. Don't worry about the MARKET SOCIETY. Its always been the case. Just remember what the oldest profession is (prostitution). More generically, don't worry about ethics, morals, right and wrong. We went one better than utilitarianism and the categorical imperative with J S Mill's ON LIBERTY, you can do anything you wish as long as you don't harm others. But today we can go one better again and say "you can do whatever you wish as long as you don't break the law". Over the long term western parliamentary democracies can do no wrong in their domestic and foreign policy. If they make a mistake then you or I can call them to account. You have all the empowerment you need to do this; freedom of speech, a free press and parliamentary debate and scrutiny. In these circumstances the best argument can get out, be heard and win the day. And the weaker arguments can deservedly fail. There can be no better ruler than the best argument and that is what we have in modern western parliamentary democracies. Leading to my bottom line WESTERN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACIES CAN DO NO WRONG OVER THE LONG TERM IN THEIR FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY. What is right and wrong has moved on from ancient text written by people who didn't know the world was round to what is legal and what is illegal.

  24. Very silly ! He describes a clearly NON-market conditions – a lab condition/response where a monopsony group pays children to read arbitrary books of arbitrary length, against any reasonable group self-interest, and when they evaluate the results by completely different criteria than 'arbitrary' they (very unsurprisingly) are not ideal by these alternate valuations.

    He then asserts "the market" has a crowding-out effect, but there was obviously no market present in this case.

    Imagine instead a REAL market. Some interested self-parties – say parents, parent groups, grandparents or such – decided to pay their own set of children to read. They would certainly not pay the same amount for each book. They would likely not even pay the same to different children reading the same book. Instead they would negotiate a market price each side basing the negotiation on personal interests.

    The 'market problem' in Sandel's example is that there was no market !

  25. It took them years to understand the meaning of equality and justice, I wish they could have focused the life of Prophet Muhammad SAW who taught us the same thing 1400 years ago.

  26. your country professor, alas, has exterminated entire World! So it is too late! The marketisation (mcdonaldsizaitin) of the World has already done (mission completed). Eveything is for sale even human bodies, organs, parts. You have built a so called civilisation (or as Postman called: Technopoly) human race never saw worse! Early and late capitalism killed us. Game over!

  27. I am sorry but what you are telling seems to be just rethoric, fairy tale. The rest of World has been mesmerized by the figures like you, Rawls, Rorty, Habermas, Walzer etc. along with holywood stars. So you are the part of cali-fornication. When people are carried away your ideas, it becomes easier for your invisible hand to take their all havings away.

  28. your telos of bringing Aristotelian teleological approach and the idea good life as an alternative to deontological or utiliterian version of individüalstic atomism back to the future is impossile. As your famous saying. limits of justice!

  29. so the rich can live a life where they can buy everything and the poor have to be happy with what they have? If you say money cant buy everything it should count for both

  30. My thoughts are: Using money for motivation is always bad. Because it's usually viewed as not rewarding now but at some point in the future. A future that may not occur.

  31. Why should paying children to do well be such a problem?

    The whole purpose of education is to create high-earning, highly taxable, civilized people. There's value in an educated citizen and by coercing children to educate themselves, they'll be more useful in the long-run.

    Obviously, if it's shown not to work, then don't do it, but there shouldn't be any moral problem if it works.

  32. This isn't about markets but subsidies. Market thinking has been corrupted by aspergergian credentialism taking over academia and intellectually impoverishing the debates. Healthcare needs markets desperately! Here is a real paradox: insurance is socialism in the private sector! Absolutely, the spread of money values to all society is certainly corrosive and without moral constraints. Adam Smith was well aware of the moral problems of markets and wrote intelligently about them, as opposed to current autistic neoclassical economists. Many still argue these points outside of loser academia, which fosters no real depth or seriousness in arguments. The real reason that Smith is outdated is because we are no longer in a world of small proprietors but colluding multinationals and governments (partly caused by capitalist innovation and unemployment, a direction of causality many times denied). The issue of divisionary politics and the media is certainly a case he might like to explore. Large media companies target demographics and exaggerate differences to gain niches. This is extremely corrosive to democracy! It would not be totally wrong to end editorialism altogether in the corporate media. Sandel is correct to see the larger role of culture and tradition and his attack on deontological liberalism (Kant with a Humean face and a side of Rousseau) goes for the very jugular of Rawlsian liberals. My point is that Sandel is only arguing with idiots and strawmen abound. The problem is that our society has empowered idiots through the school system. Good luck making any progress there.

  33. This market was as efficient as your example allowed it to be
    The commodity was a set of people reading books
    The government or educational institutions were from the demand side the set of people were on the supply side
    They as any supplier would minimised their cost by reading minimum number of books and hence maximised their profit
    And the consumers i.e. The government maximised their utility

    However if the said consumer is a rational one then his or her utility function would have accounted for the number of books and pages in each book read by the set of children with the function entailing a monotonic transformation and then the cost minimisation would not have been as blatant and the children would have ended up reading more books and that too longer ones.
    Your example sir is too arbitrary to associate itself with the science of economics in my humble opinion.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. Providing a cash incentive for reading books is not a exactly market solution at least not a good market one. Because you give up 2 bucks for something of a lesser value to you now, in observable future and as well in theory (meaning you will not be able to extract a profit from it at all). This leads to valid conclusion – these 2 bucks per book read will lead to corruption of the child in most cases. But its not what markets do, it's what socialists do – because there is no profit made from that deal, you have to reallocate it, redistribute, while true markets don't operate like that, they create wealth by honest transaction.
    As a side note, absolutely correct point for market mindsets to participate in war and military industry – markets should not be allowed to trade in terror, intimidation and anything related to use or force.

  37. Actually, what has occurred over the last three decades in the United States is an accelerated loss of equality of opportunity as a societal value in favor of entrenched privilege. Adam Smith would describe this change as a shift to a rentier-denominated hierarchy under our socio-political arrangements and institutions. While the proponents assert this is simply the outcome of market forces, Smith would recognize the absence of what he would describe as "a fair field with no favors."

    It is worth remembering that Adam Smith was a professor of moral philosophy. His study of market forces was integrated with his analysis of societal forces.

  38. 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.

  39. Regardless, I enjoy capitalism. Capitalism it's the best system that we've ever had. Everything what seems to be better than capitalism is utopia. Quixotry is for dreamers. Come back to earth, kids

  40. #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…

  41. Michael Sanders solo dice gilipolleces. Nunca he visto a un vendedor de pocimas tan cuidado como este. Es patético.

  42. The short debate among the young german lady and middle-aged the american lady has been very enlightening- if you then reflect Michael Sandel´s conclusion about the future of democracy in a market society then the actual and obvious differences in german and american society are fully explained – hope to maintain our way and not to follow short term desires and egomania of some real estate managers

  43. Рассказывaю kak дeлaть110 бakсов каждый дeнь. Вся инфopмaция на кaнaлe.

  44. Learning for learning's sake is a pipedream. Almost no one does it. Grades in themselves are a type of incentive. Although there exist some people who will continue learning whether there is any incentive or not, if the incentives were taken away, the system will collapse.

  45. 13:05 onward Mr Sandel increasingly goes off the rails. market "society" hates DEMOCRACY; THE POWERFUL HEGEMONY is intrinsically anti-democratic; Merca is beyond salvage, no potential President will ever attempt a New Deal Save again, the Deep State will not allow it!

  46. For those who are interested, there is a Justice course of Michael Sandel offered by Harvard University. It is free. Here is the Youtube link:


  47. This ted talk matters whether people listen to it or not. It affects YOU. But hey, the best ted talk next year will be “how your shoes say something about you”. Oh God!

  48. I see most of people always believe that reading skills will promote intrinsic motivation, read more is means people can grasp everything related to acknowledge. Parents always try to buy lot of book, we have a lot of campaigns for children's reading. But, some in case that result in the counterproduction, I means "the concentration" is the most important, we can learn everything can absorb any areas if we have concentraton, reading just is one of a variety method, how can we help children the concentration? That is important. Because the time that we have so limited in life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *