Morality and the Free Market - Michael Sandel
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 лип 2009
- Complete video at: fora.tv/2009/07/20/Michael_San...
Political philosopher Michael Sandel argues that free market economics have affected American perceptions of ethics, morality, and value. By emphasizing the monetary value of human goods, says Sandel, Americans may be moving away from notions of emotional and social worth.
-----
Harvard Professor Michael Sandel deliveres a speech titled "Markets and Morals" as part of the Chautauqua Institution 2009 Summer Lecture Series. He tackles some of economics' toughest ethical questions, such as the business of commercial surrogacy and the price of citizenship. - Chautauqua Institution
Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980.
He is the author of Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge University Press, 1982, 2nd edition, 1997; translated into eight foreign languages), Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 1996), Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics (Harvard University Press, 2005), and The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering (Harvard University Press, 2007).
His writings also appear in general publications such as The Atlantic Monthly, The New Republic, and The New York Times.
I fail to understand how anyone could dislike this. The man has an amazing grasp on philosophy, politics and ethics and is a brilliant teacher. I wish I lived in America jsut so I could apply to Harvard. Keep teaching the world!
The problem lies within the assumption made by the buyer, that the fine essentially equated to an extension of normal services, when in fact the intent of the fine was to reduce such occurrences (the occurrence being the buyer expecting to be able to have access to a commodity--time beyond normal hours--that the supplier does not wish to supply but has no choice; they couldn't just leave the kids outside if the parents are late after all).
Bro, props to you for being so patient.
"Free" does here mean "free of boundaries apart from voluntary (or maybe arbitrary) preferences". And these preferences don't necessarily involve moral consideration of other human beings (e.g. egoism). And thus: yes, free exchange between human beings doesn't involve human rights values.
It is no statement about the content of human rights when I talk about "control by politicians". Politics is another factor that is worth consideration and sets boundaries to "free exchange".
Michael Sandel is brilliant and delivers his lectures with much eloquence. I wish I had him as a professor. I show my university students his videos.
My parents gave us extra allowance money for each good grade when I was in high school. Would Sandel say they were immoral?
On another note: I'm not implying politicians are morally more upright than traders, but they have different requirements and programs (e.g. controlled by public in other terms than enterprises). Moral evaluation is different from political as you can see politics is also about power and elections and other things. Moral evaluation must be instated via a public, not only (but also!) politicians, but journalists, publicists, scientists, philosophers and other people.
beautiful
Wassup people from POT4305
parents value that time higher than the agreed upon amount for extra time, more were willing to pay the extra money in exchange for the extra time. both parties benefited and so an amount of wealth was created by both. it's a perfectly moral free market explanation of what happened.
Sandel is talking about how using a monetary mechanism to solve a moral problem CHANGES THE PROBLEM INTO A MONETARY PROBLEM. Quite a few Economic-student-types (like that Alex Merced dude) seem to harp on his illiteracy for economic models. They don't realize that he's not talking about the model, he's talking about what the model acts on.
Coercive monopolies only exist within government or with government protection against competition. Without the coercive power of government, in a free market, as soon as a company abuses it's customers, a competitor would emerge.
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
What is objectively good and bad? How did you manage to observe the intangible? What metric did you use to assess morality?
You are asking important questions which are not all directly related to the problem and the statement in the video above. But here's what I can answer: Human rights are different to economic principles. They state a value of human life no matter what. The completely free exchange doesn't have these values (otherwise it couldn't be ultimately be called "free"). The control is instated in a political and moral evaluation - and moral can't be translated into monetary values. Or do you disagree?
Brilliant!
What "human rights" are denied in a free exchange between free people?
What sort of rules or rulers would you place above free people to control them? What are the rules for the controllers? What human right do they have which the other humans lack? How did they acquire those special rights? What if the humans being controlled claim that their human rights are being violated? What punishments will the controllers use? How are they justified? Who are the enforcers? How are the enforcers paid?
Concerning your second argument, here's what could happen with the "free expression" of values: If people don't value a group of the citizens at all and they have the freedom to express that, this group might be disadvantaged or even damaged. Exploitation of the African peoples was one example of this free expression of European "values".
That's why we have e.g. human rights. They express that there are values higher (human life, human dignity) than a free market.
Very interesting ideas.
I like his delivery style, very interesting, makes you think. But we do put prices on natural wonders i.e. what we consider it worth paying to preserve them.
@dsmfishgal Correction: "SHOULD we put a price tag on intimacy from our sisters?" My argument is that this steps on hallowed ground and is an example of the market damaging intrinsic intimacy, creating a situation where sex occurs where it otherwise would not, between people lacking respect for one another. Does this not create ramifications that reverberate throughout the entire social sphere, affecting us all either directly or indirectly, whether we consciously realize it or not?
problem is that it gives an incentive to high cost r&d care (MRI scanners, etc) but by doing so drastically drives up the cost of the more fundamental basic and preventative care. The problem with health care is it has never functioned well as a market because of basic problems of information, I would agree with you about monopolies in general but there are basic micro economic incentives in health care which make it advantageous to have some system/ regulation where everyone pays and recieves
@MartenThuren Depends which economists you read. Ironically I recently finished a book by an economist L.V Mises called "Human Action"
Anyway, I do think he was trying to say that in that example the market corrupted moral values of the people involved. I don't see his point however....
Simple. The parent experienced disutility from the guilt of inconveniencing the teacher because of picking up their child late. By introducing a charge this guilt, and hence the disutility is removed. The disutility from a small charge is actually less than the disutility which previously existed from the guilt. Hence why late pick ups increased. If you significantly increased the financial value of the charge then late pick ups would decrease again. This is all within very basic Economics.
@Aliothemage The point of his example is that there's a crowding out of intrinsic motivators by extrinsic ones, not that it was a horrible thing the parents came late.
So, to offer another example, is it a good thing if people are socialized with the idea that sex is a commodity for profit and use? Is marriage, then, just purchasing a piece of depreciating capital?
Our relationships with friends and loved ones are not market-mediated-- but they could be. And they'd change.
They are, but isn't his point that being fixated on monetary cost doesn't improve or incentivise what might be called 'civic responsibility'? Sandel is demonstrating that monetary cost cannot regulate or define every aspect of life in a way that we (and the school in question) have too often come to expect in recent years.
In this mixed economy,its hard to say, and if the government gets more involved, the answer will be even harder to find. But in a free economy, all you need is to find someone with the skills to perform the treatment and trade something for the use of their skills.
Healthcare in the US is expensive because of Medicare, medicaid, the HMO act of 1973, the FDA and licensing laws. All of these government initiatives have made healthcare very expensive not the free market.
@Sam26100 Yes, at the heart of austrian economics is "the human model" so to speak, but such a model must of course be very crude since human nature is so complex. The point of Sandel is not complicated though, he's just saying: There are social moral values that are hard to measure or just commonly ignored. Therefore, we can't ask an economist wether a political policy is good or bad.
Yes, he did say that the values were corrupted, but in this case it might be worth it anyway.
That was my answer. Its a question of values, if you WANT the child to live,you have to give what is necessary for that to happen.
But why do you have to be forced to give money to the poor, if you believe that you have a moral obigation to pay for their health, why dont you just give without waiting for tax day to come by.
the free market itself is defined , maintained and structured by government force. Its quite an oxymoron, look at Singapore, which rates at the top of the food chain in regards to "freedom of market indicators", it happens to be one of the most authoritarian governments in the world. In other words, when you say let the free market work, is like saying let the machine build itself.
Well put!
Those who want to substitute a "democratic process" for the market are often wanting a political solution, because they think they can dominate by force in that arena, instead of winning by peaceful persuasion in a free society.
Rand had it right!
Ok, so the parents needed someone to take care of their childer for a little longer and were willing to pay for that service. The care center provided that service and extracted payment for it. That is a fairly typical market situation, supply, demand, pricing. I see no problem in that.
@MartenThuren I'm an objectivist, not a libertarian per se.
Being on time for things depends on how much you care about what you're going to be on time for. The way I see it, before the parents had to pay the teachers for the extra time, the situation was less moral because the teachers were not compensated for the extra work they did. You don't know the teacher's financial situation, maybe they could use the extra money they ended up getting, so the situation is a win-win
well the fact that medicine was way cheaper before the FDA should be one indicator. There were plenty of academic journals and third party consumer reports that investigated drugs. Since they compete against each other and they don't have a monopoly on oversight the way the FDA does they would innovate and make prices come down.
You do not need to choose between money and morality. Money should be a means to morality, and vice versa. If you believe that morality occurs on earth, and for the sake of human betterment, it is a rather natural conclusion.
What about the ethics of paying tax, if you have no say in where it goes. For instance, if youre against the multiple wars in the middle east, but you do appreciate having working infrastructure, would it be morally right or wrong to refuse paying tax?
patent laws and laws of intellectual monopolies. Laws wherein AT&T lobbied for laws that only allowed them to compete in certain areas.Standard oil used anti-trust laws to squash all of his competition when they would come up with innovation.
As for commodity prices rising you have to look at the inflation caused by the federal reserve according to the M3 measure of the expansion of money supply.
Economics - "The social science that deals with the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services. Modern theoretical Economics is perhaps best viewed as the study of human decision-taking and its implications, under useful simplifying assumptions, particularly about rational behaviour and human motivation." - The Penguin English dictionary, 2000.
"The completely free exchange doesn't have these values (otherwise it couldn't be ultimately be called "free")"
A free exchange between human beings doesn't have human rights values? Is that what you meant to say? What do you mean? What meaning are you assigning to "free" other than voluntary?
"The control is instated in a political and moral evaluation"
What does this mean? Is it a human right to be controlled by politicians? Are politicians moral while traders are not? Please be clear.
@OctoBox If you have an alternative explanation on why the parent come late more often. Say it or shut it.
Read up on the reforms to anti-trust laws done in the 90's due to the microsoft anti-trust cases. Also read Armentano and his work on anti trust regulation.
I disagree with saying "the intrinsic value of reading", because there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is relative, contextual. It is a relationship between objects of evaluation and desires.
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
Civic virtue is arbitrary. That's my point. That's the problem. Romance is one of the many tools that people use to justify or obfuscate irrational thoughts and behavior. Money helps quantify and calculate value. It supports rational thought.
@freesk8
Part 1
Most people accept that we don't pay taxes at the end of a gun, but because we have entered into a social contract, that some things are so big and expensive, that we should pool our resources to pay for them and we do so.
Every time you drive on a road, bridge, tunnel, fly out of an airport etc, you are using government built projects paid for mainly by others, at the barrell of a gun, if you want.
Are you sure his mic is close enough to his mouth? I can barely hear his tongue moving around
@Sam26100 The morals that got corrupted was "you should be in time for things". As a libertarian (I've been one myself, and I assume you're one since you read Mises) it's easy to focus so much on money that you don't consider other values. Life is more structured by morals than by money, but that's much less obvious.
Well, the idea wasn't that you should be allowed to be late because you pay, but that's how the parents interpreted it.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you own your own body, or is it owned by society?
If neither, who does own your body?
I define ownership as the right to control something, as long as in doing so you significantly harm the rights of no one else.
Feel free to define ownership your own way if you don't like my definition.
@OctoBox Why did you (the parent) pick up your child on time more often when there is no late fee than when there is late fee?
Why cloud the issues with calling it a punishment or not?
If late fee is a service offer, then that is exactly what he said. By putting a price tag on 'being late', something on the mind of the parents changed and unexpected result happen.
If it were 0$ vs 15$, then normal (economic) rules should work. But the 0$ was a faulty assumption, not the rules themselves.
Economists make observations and attempt to explain them using different theories. We then make testable predictions - or is science something else in your little universe? It is a very complicated science, and like any science it's more complicated and makes more accurate predictions the more you understand it. You can have all of the contempt you like for Economists and their work. But the fact remains that we're getting better at managing the Economy throughout the developed world.
@EsotericThrone
The "gunpoint" argument assumes an unwillingness to pay taxes. I have no problem paying my taxes because of the incredible benefits I get by doing so.
Why would would private industry have built the roads and infrastructure? And better yet, why didn't they?
They would first have to buy thousands of square miles of land, build the roads, and then put a toll about every mile to make it profitable. Sound good to you?
The government is the best answer for some jobs.
You avoided my question.
@Sam26100 I think it was meant as an example illustrating how monetary values can "compete" with other values, not as an example of "this is where markets go wrong". In this case, the monetary values involved may have been more worth, but this might not always be the case. Economists aren't very good at explaining human action.
@oeidirsceoil No he thinks the market erodes our moral rules, leaving only market rules. Its obvious that it does. Think of advertising aimed at children or weapons manufacture or pollution. Any "market failure" is a good example. Your solution is set the price correctly - but what he is saying is that the ideal solution functioned WITHOUT a price, it was a non-market solution, and it was more efficient.
I've never heard any Economist say "I've got it all figured out", they're just producing the best models they can given the available evidence. I'm not aware of any neoclassical dogma, or are you suggesting a break form the empirical method entirely??
You are right that the US has a history of supporting dictators.
I agree with you that this policy is stupid, immoral, and against our own interests.
But the free market has demonstrated that it tends to provide better conditions for the poor than socialism.
This is the most important lesson from the fall of the Berlin Wall, as well as N. vs S. Korea, and Cuba.
No I did not admit that. Standard Oil and major companies always use anti-trust to crush their competition. If you knew anything about these laws you would know this.
oeid - you've missed the point. The "market" did set the price - it was/is a business.
@Aliothemage It does make a profit, yes, but Yunus didn't start it FOR profit. Even it earned below-market returns or operated at a slight loss, he would still do it.
In this case a market mechanism has been used to acheive a worthy goal. But it was not the case that Yunus' greed, restrained by the rule of law, was turned into social good by the invisible hand in spite of him.
You make a fatal error in ignoring the difference.
@Aliothemage Yeah ... the whole micro-loan thing has issues that are questionable.
@TimeWarp66 It's true. Despite the laudings of Randian regressives, corporations are inherently opposed to competition.
Here is where I find the implication that some services are not moral to pay for:
:49, 1:13, 1:27, 2:16, 2:53, 3:40, 4:00, 4:20 and 4:46.
This guy wants to substitute a political/democratic solution in the place of a market solution for many personal decisions. In other words, he wants to use force to get individuals to do things his way, and he thinks he can win his fight in the political realm but not in the peaceful, civil realm.
He complains that "market norms crowd out non-market norms."
EsotericThrone put it well.
Just because most people accept taxes, doesn't make it moral.
The social contract is flawed.
Where did I sign?
Can my ancestors bind me without my consent?
Is it practically possible to read all the provisions of the contract? If not, it is invalid.
Is it really possible to opt-out? If not, it is not a valid contract.
I have no way to live other than to use roads. By virtue of the fact that it is practically impossible to live without them, I may use them.
Caps on salaries & tax subsidies forced employers to provide health insurance. Seniors & poor covered by Medicaire & Medicaid. As result patients dont pay directly for care, costs are hidden & thus they overuse healthcare services & dont monitor spending, shop around or switch providers. This protects providers from competition & raises prices. Government dictates who can do what, & the number of years of training required, increasing cost. FDA raises costs. Patient-provider agreements are
@yyjhgbfyhtdrpz A topic I would like Michael Sandel to discuss is prostitution, which I believe his arguments make a good case for the need to seriously think about what we commodify. You may argue the prostitute is acting on free will, but can financial devastation be considered an irrelevant factor when considering another's will? Many prostitutes are single mothers or were groomed for the position as teens. Is it still free will? She would we put a price tag on intimacy from our sisters?
I totally agree with you that communism (really socialism, since the USSR was socialistic and not communistic) did not work because it "fundamentally ignored human nature."
What is the alternative to socialism? Well, socialism is centralized government control. The opposite is individual rights and limited government.
i.e. the free market and the Constitution.
That IS compatible with human nature.
With all it's flaws, it created the wealthiest, most powerful empire on earth.
I conduct myself with civility in any forum, even UA-cam. I insist on civility from those with whom I converse.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand the value of doing business with individuals instead of corps. Hiding behind a corporate veil (corp personhood) is like getting married with a pre-nup. It sucks out much of the passion and commitment.
Buyers get to decide from whom they buy. Boycotting corps can make sense for those who care, like you and me, but we will still have them.
@Sam26100 - true. But your missing the 3rd person. The kid. It's a win win lose situation. No way the kid wants to hang around at school.
As you say you dont know the teachers situation. They may not want to hang around at school for extra money, but the pay for being late system means they have to.
Also it turns them in to chilminders. Parents might just leave them there for hours knowing they just have to pay a bit more
Debate is only one, very tiny part of the political process. Most of that process occurs outside of the legislature. For instance, all enforcement happens outside, and at the point of a gun. So, no, I see the difference between debate and force, but I do not see the difference between law and force.
Force is justified in the defense of rights, so I have no problem with police, courts and defensive troops.
For all else, the free market works better, especially for the poor.
No. Using ordinal values doesn't mean that you "kiss goodbye" to the utility function. It doesn't work that way. I'm talking about basic indifference curve stuff. It's just a series of bundles of different "goods" which are valued similarly, so it really doesn't matter if you use ordinal values - it's all based on revealed preference.
Simple models make general predictions - if there was really "0 evidence" then it wouldn't be a science. Don't lecture on Economics if you've never studied it.
Well I say coercing people into providing their skills and labor to you is immoral or reducing the pay of a doctor strictly so universal healthcare would be implemented. What is immoral about freely trading goods and services with other people without forcing them to buy your services? Sir, people obtained their desired goods in the free market system when both parties trade.
i disagree with his analysis of the daycare example and here's why. the patents made a contract with the daycare. parents give so much money for so much time. if they violate the contract be showing up late, the daycare could refuse to serve that parent. so, few parents missed the pick up time. time is money and the agreed upon pay was no longer worth the time in trade. the daycare renegotiated the contract by offering more time in exchange for an amount of money worth the extra time. because
getting kids to read is not a matter of economics it's a matter of education.
in economics you pay for things you want or need, not to encourage people to keep making stuff.
money is a store of value not a way to manipulate people.
While Michael Sandel makes a very good point I think the title is misleading the free market is free from government While he is trying to make a point to not make everything commodities
What are your views on the world system of state sovereignty. Do you believe that the world ought to be comprised of separate sovereign states or do you believe that the whole world should be a part of the commons?
If it is the former than you are disingenuous as you would believe that it is governments that own the property instead of individuals. If it is the latter then you would be logically consistent. Just curious.
The question was, do you own your own body?
The reason I am asking that question is that it has logical implications for other types of property.
Feel free not to answer my question. But until you do, I won't respond to you any more.
Especially after you started calling me names.
That kind of thing only makes you look bad.
Sorry for you that there is nothing more understandable. Maybe it's the wrong medium in the UA-cam comments to debate such things. And yes, human rights and other moral standards are always a corrective for people's actions. They contain social sanctions which work different than monetary stimuli. So moral and human rights are a medium and standards to communicate affirmation or dissent to others.
@yyjhgbfyhtdrpz The point is not really about the child care center. The point is merely illustrated by it. Given a self centered perspective, there is no reason not to be late if there is not penalty for it. The types of values that makes people be on time anyway are fundamental for any society. What's good for individuals is not necessarily good for society, and society is not just a set of individuals! Read about the prisoners dilemma for a basic understanding of social dynamics.
restricted allowing excessive lawsuits. Special interest groups pushed over 1000 mandated benefit laws requiring unnecessary coverages. Third party payers have tried unsuccessfully to artificially control cost by requiring mountains of paperwork, raising prices & reducing time for treating patients. Healthcare is complicated. Thats a reason to keep government out of it. Government has never accomplished a goal. Stopped poverty, drug addiction, made us safer? No, it makes problems worse.
@WarVideo
At the absolute minimum I would be willing to accept that taxes go up a couple percent so that every poor child is covered.
In the US we pay about 30% on income tax per capita. In Britain, about 32.5%. For 2.5% in taxes, every single person in Britain gets free healthcare with absolutely no fear that a catastrophic illness could destroy them financially.
In the US, even people *with* insurance get financially ruined.
And you still haven't answered. I have.
@OctoBox
Oki I will bite. So his story is believable, not his explanation/comment?
Why did you (the parent) pick up your child on time more often when there is no late fee than when there is late fee?
I never wrote that.
I do not back dictatorship.
I support true free market policies because they are better for the poor in the long run than a state-controlled economy.
I do not support the US's backing of Pinochet.
But given that Pinochet was the leader, I DO back Friedman's advice to Pinochet: lower taxes, defending property rights and reducing barriers to entrepreneurship will help the poor.
Chile's private retirement accounts helped millions of poor people.
It's like if i gave you a gas burner and a litre of water to boil. You may know how long it would take the burner to heat the water to 100C, but that may not the amount of time needed to boil the water. If the atmospheric pressure was lower, for example on the top of Mt Everest, then the boiling temperature would be lower and it would take less time. More information and a better understanding of the science gives better predictions. Economics is more complicated than you seem to appreciate.
In the case of the Israeli school, both the school and the parents were better off! The school got more money, and the parents bought a service that they want.
So this is not an example of morals being corrupted. It is an example of the free market working to make everyone better off.
Now, I am assuming that the school charged enough so that it was worth their while...
There is nothing wrong with paying people for services. This is not a degradation. It is making people's lives better.
"every socialist experiment of any significance in the 20th century - without
exception - has either been crushed, overthrown, or invaded, or corrupted,
perverted, subverted, or destabilized, or otherwise had life made impossible for
it, by the U.S. Not one socialist government or movement ... was permitted to rise or fall on its own merits; not one was left secure enough to drop its guard against the all-powerful enemy abroad and freely and fully relax control at home." - William Blum
The Soviet Union (the biggest socialistic experiment) collapsed of it's own inefficiency, not from US efforts. The next biggest experiment, China, left socialism because it was not working.
N. Korea, Cuba and Venezuela are still pursuing socialism the most vigorously, and anyone can see that this is hurting their poor the most.
"list of efficient markets" Efficiency is relative. So compared to what? The U.S. market was more efficient than the U.S.S.R. and that collapsed. Eventually the U.S. will collapse too, because of government spending and inflation.
Nicaragua had no free market.
And I already told you that our support for such dictators was a bad idea.
I opposed the war in Nicaragua at the time, just as I opposed the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
@ferrozm
So your argument is:
1) Government harms companies because it encourages/forces monopolies which these companies don't want to become.
2) Government causes prices to rise artificially, a major factor in harming the health of companies because they would be soon priced out of markets
3) The government then breaks up the monopolies it itself created?
This is not even coherent.
@Pentazoid111
"Sir, people obtained their desired goods in the free market system when both parties trade."
What should a sick child with nothing trade?
So the parents picked up their kids later... what is the problem? If the parents are willing to pay for baby sitters then hire some one to care for them and pay them via the fines. Problem solved. The parents don't have to feel guilty, teachers don't have to stay at school late, ect. The market is the perfect solution.
YOU may be willing to pay taxes, but this does not allow you to force others to do so who do not so wish.
Government seized effective monopoly in roads.
There are many toll roads working profitably in America. I propose more. The local roads should be paid for by gas taxes only, and not subsidized by sales or income taxes. Property taxes should pay for residential streets. To the greatest extent possible, those who use a facility should pay for it, and in proportion to how much they use it.
@freesk8
Part 2
Second, there are a million things that I don't want to pay for either (Iraq War, drug war, farm subsidies) so we are in the same boat. You don't have a "winner argument" because we all have pet peeves re: wasted taxes.
Third, national healthcare specifically benefits *you* as well because you would be guaranteed never to have to suffer financial ruin if you underwent a catastrophic illness. It would be there if you need too.
@bapyou I understand your frustration, but I don't understand your view of Libertarians, I'm a Libertarian and I am completely against legislating abortion. I'm pro choice. Check out Freedomainradio podcasts they are very interesting.
@lexave
Why schill for the insurance companies lexave? We, like the citizens of every other western nation, deserve universal healthcare. Every human being does.
It goes without saying, but a child can't legally get a loan. But are they going to get a loan for the hundreds of thousands of dollars it costs to treat cancer and long hospital stays?
Not to the mention the fact that countries with some form of national care pay far less per capita and get far better outcomes.
Third world countries tend to have the LOWEST index of economic freedom according to Cato/Heritage study. They tend to have dictators who take the money of the poor. This is the opposite of free markets, which depend on the defense of individual property rights.
All economies are mixed, the question is are we too far towards big govt or do we need more.
I'd say in most cases, we need LESS power to the politicians and bureaucrats.
It only corrupts them.
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
So careful evaluation of efficiency of means is bad but arbitrarily assigning a value to an end is good? Again, it comes back to who decides what is moral and who are they deciding this for. If you get to set moral standards for others then what gives you the right to do that? If the answer is nothing then you're just imposing your opinions on someone else.
like for marist econ
"Free markets are for the wealthy."
Then explain the Grameen Bank. This was a bank started in Bangladesh, one of the most impoverished nations on earth, which makes micro-loans for interest to the poor who are then able to buy sewing machines, cell phones, and education, ect which allow them to make money on their own. That FOR PROFIT bank has raised more ppl out of poverty then ANY govt program ever has and it did it without costing the tax payers a dime.
Reality > Ideology.
I have no idea what it is to which your comment refers. Therefore, your comment has no context and is meaningless.
Reply Sally Morem
He just says money did have subjective values. Like individuals, government, animals, objects, gods and friendships, money should not be trusted definitely especially that you don't even understand how it works.