A Market for Votes?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2024
- Michael Sandel and Joe Stiglitz discuss why selling votes is bad for democracy, and how individual self-interest doesn’t always serve the public good
In this full-length interview from What Money Can’t Buy, political philosopher Michael Sandel and Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz discuss the limits of market mechanisms.
Enlightenment one photon at a time, back to basics is always helpful. Thanks for a great discussion
2 intellectual giants, real giants, with prestige, authorities, creativity, and experience... curiosity... It was a good start, but nothing more... You should start a session and not stop until you actually came up with some truly revolutionary ideas. You guys should not just die as nice guys, good talkers.. You can do much more..
we live in a society
Within this is another good illustration of why "representative democracy" is an oxymoron. The transfer of your democratic agency to a proxy is a trade, not necessarily a monetary one (although one is often implicit), but always a trade and not fundamentally different from the type of trade discussed.
Hamish: A trade? Of what for what?
I love Stiglitz, especially since he is an ardent opponent of inequality. If only people listened, we would ameliorate so many issues plaguing modern economies.
42 seconds and I have already some questions. First, is the democracy a mean or an aim? Second, do we always benefit equally from "public goods"? And viceversa: Do we suffer same consequences after a democratic decision? I mean the sir is an economist, and they take some things for granted....
The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money became an important part in determining elections. Later on this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And the to the army, and finally the republic was subject to the rule of emporers. - Plutarch
The subject of the genesis & morality of dignity is never broached in this video - or even hinted at. He stops short of reasoning out the issue as fully as he could.
Blog: Sounds like you're disappointed they didn't espouse your particular ideology regarding the "genesis and morality" of dignity. I think I can suss out what you mean by the "genesis" of dignity, but I have no clue what you mean by the "morality" of it--beyond their discussion of it, that is, which is reasonably extensive.
John Lawson I’m certainly happy to sound like what you think I sound like.
corporate donations is fine but selling your vote isn't?
You need an actual debate on why selling votes is wrong? It's like having a debate on why getting kicked in the balls is bad.
We need to go back to the core of this discussion. In my opinion, the discussion is mainly focused on the design of the mechanism.
Your comment just goes to show how clueless you are about liberalism and why the founders of the US were complete fucking NUT JOBS!
What difference does it make? people cast votes but the leaders do what they want for the highest bidder anyway. Did you vote for all these wars? For any thing? Did they consult you? Are people even informed to decide? ALL ANSWERS CURRENTLY EQUAL NO.
Thank you for this awesomely hilarious comment! True that!
Read in to Glen Weyl's theories of quadratic voting and you might change your mind
the market zealots, the neoliberal hegemony, should be gathered together and marched into the sea. The 'efficient markets' hypothesis has been shown over and over to be wildly wrong. By experiment, by real events. Only some markets work, and most don't, otherwise we would never have had to suffer 2008 and on. But ask an economist _which_ markets work well, and what are their characteristics, and how are they different from those markets that work poorly or disastrously, and you won't get an answer. The market zealots never examine the validity of their assumptions (their 'truth' is an article of faith) and ignore and deny all contrary evidence.
You mean 2008 where the gov massively supported the housing market, which lead to the housing market becoming a bubble and then later saved the banks with your money? yes yes more gov sounds like the right solution!
Benevolent omniscient dictator Stiglitz at it again with the, "oh no, I *truly* know better what you should do than you yourself".
God am I happy he wasn't my professor
Sheesh I don’t think that’s quite what he is saying.
Besides, do you trust market forces to take care of the economy? Or do you think there should be little to no intervention?
David Carlyon
Generally speaking little to no intervention has been much more successful. I think at the extremes in terms pf poverty and richness there’s room for intervention as both will have a hard time being reasonable.
For me there are many issues with all of his statements however, e.g. dignity is definitely a matter of money. Looking back in history executioners could be considered so immoral they would be spit upon in public, where reasonably people should simply be less ignorant and allow others to provide any service. His military example has pretty much the same issue, with guns for hire being almost as old as civilization itself.
LMAO dwarf throwing is an infringement of dignity how? LOL who is this guy and what does he do with his free time
Stiglitz dances around the Labour Theory of Value and can't commit. Just say it already: a just price is determined by social labor time
dmoneytron: Stiglitz would have to be pretty dumb to commit to the Labor Theory of Value, and he's very far from dumb.
Of what multiplier of skill?
The LTV requires an appeal to an unobservable "pure labor", which makes it useless for application or science.