Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
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.
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.
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
So as a socialist (lets be honest about what Sandel actually is) he wants government to take the place of the market, intellectuals and politicians to make decisions for the masses and take the place of our right to make our own choices. If the day care had set the cost for the "late child pick up" correctly, the parents would have shown up on time. His moral interpretation is lifeless unless he is willing to allow God into the equation, which of course progressives will not allow.
@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 dont believe that the market can erode our morals without our approval. If company A has a cheaper product than company b, but company b does not pollute, each time we choose the cheaper product, we are voting for the "less moral" company. So to say that the markets erode our morals is wrong. we erode our own.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I agree that individuals have some responsibility. However, I think you are making the assumption that everyone is always thinking about the impact their purchase has and that they always have the necessary information to do so.
i think the knowledge should be there. I would not outlaw child labor. I would have companies put on their product, that they use child lbor. that way, you can choose.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp So let me get this straight. You would be willing to use force to make someone put info on their products, but you wouldn't be willing to use force to make sure 5 year olds aren't working in factories or 9 year olds working in the coal mines ?
it is a 5 year olds right to work. It should absolutly be illegal to make a 5 year old work. but in some countries, that is their best opportunity for a good life.
I would use force to make sure people are aware of what they are buying and spending their money on. I am considering it lying to not do so.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Why do you think a 5 year old has an inherent right to work? "but in some countries, that is their best opportunity for a good life." Or they could go to school.
"I would use force to make sure people are aware of what they are buying" Then you are violating your libertarian non aggression principle. It isn't lying to withhold information.If they don't like the fact that it doesn't have the information they don't have to buy it.
every person has the right do do what they want, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. So, if a 5 year old chooses to work, then he/she can work.That being said, i do believe in age restriction, on alcohal and other drugs, because people must be able to make an informed decision.It is exactly the same as lying. If there is no warning, the consumer is to assume there is no problem with the good.So by having no warnings you are lying about the quality of the good
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You are a walking logical contradiction. If every person has the right to do what they want,including 5 year olds, how can you stop a 5 year old from smoking crack or choosing to have sex with an adult ?
" If there is no warning, the consumer is to assume there is no problem with the good."Why is regulation justified in this one extra special case ? No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. I am sure you wont find much support for this from other libertarians.
I am a libertarian, because i believe a person is responsible for their own wellbeing. If a person knows what crack will do to him, and still chooses to take it, then they will have to live with the consequences. I have year old can not choose to take crack because they lack the maturity level to make an informed decision. That is why a 5 year old cannot do drugs, or vote, or drive. Age is not a direct indicator of mmaturity, but until there is a maturity test, ill run with it
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You might be libertarianish, but you are not a libertarian. A libertarian would not use force to make someone put a label on their product.
So a 5 year old is not mature enough to decide that is wants to smoke crack,but it is mature to decide that it wants to work in a dangerous job instead of going to school? Do you not notice that your thoughts are so full of contradictions before you commit t them ?
I believe in age restrictions. That being said, i think it is pointless for the american government to say child labor is bad. Maybe in america they can make such claims, but it is pointless to say that every child should not be allowed to work, when working moght be their best option. I see no contridictions. Maybe i have a certain kind of libertarian view, but either way, i am a libertarian.
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Wait so do you think the government should ban child labour in America or not ? "working moght be their best option." Actually the data says that going to school is by far the best option.
You can call your self a billionaire if you want,but it doesn't make it so. No libertarian would support mandatory labeling.
@oeidirsceoil At this point I usually call someone like you are moron and I do this for two reasons. One because you disrespect such a great thinking and ethicist as Michael Sandal by just labeling him something you dislike and ignoring anything he has to say because he is "one of those people". Second is because you wouldn't accept any rationally constructed argument I could give. What can someone like me say to someone so willing to put their fingers in their ears and yell "nananananna"?
If free markets are the solution the problem must be not enough war and poverty; there must not be enough corruption and strife; there must not be enough crime and artificial energy scarcity. We must need less compassion for our fellow human beings and less community spirit. We must need less cooperation and more competition. In short we need to embrace free market capitalism to prove to it's supporters that it will create hell on earth. It will make it easier to round them up and execute them.
this man's an idiot. America doesn't have a freemarket system.
Socialised education? Nationalised telecommunication and transport? Credit centralized in the hands of the state? Highly progressive tax on income? FCC? Are these freemarket ideals?
Anyone who thinks that the US has a freemarket is clearly deluded and must be ignored
@MOlSTmaker Michael Sandal is an idiot? This shows us the grasp your intellectual honesty. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong and especially when this person is a Harvard professor and one of the most respected intellectuals in the world. Maybe if would be better to assume, for the time being, that he isn't an idiot. I think he deserves some professional courtesy. BTW he never said we live in a pure free market system, so you are just lying.
Values higher than markets? Markets...free markets, give people choices. An adult individual ought to be able to choose for themselves and assume responsibility. I highly doubt corrupt bureaucrats and politicians can hold higher standards and values when everything they do is governed by politics and campaign contributions. This guy is a two bit moron. I feel as though I lost brain cells listening to him. And yea alalelalex, put a higher fine and they'll be there EARLY!
Free market, or free exchange according to free wills of individuals, is the most moral thing in the entire universe --- compared to any other mechanism.
Just like democracy --- democracy is efficient or not? it is not the question to ask here.
Democracy is about individual's ownership of the community. No more, no less.
@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?
@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?
His example of parents picking up kids late, illustrates exactly how free market works. --- The free market theory has a very simple explanation for this:
If the care givers DID want to prevent the late-pick-up happening, make the late fine high enough --- say, $1000 per late minute.
Then see what will happen.
So what is his point?
His point is he knows no logic, and he knows no free market, or he is poisoned too deeply by his messy liberal thinking.
@yyjhgbfyhtdrpz No you psychopathic dunce your idiotic example would be thrown out of court as unreasonable. A concept you cannot grasp because you're fucking insane.
His example of parents picking up kids late, illustrates exactly how free market works. --- The free market theory has a very simple explanation for this:
If the care givers DID want to prevent the late-pick-up happening, make the late fine high enough --- say, $1000 per late minute.
Then see what will happen.
So what is his point?
His point is he knows no logic, and he knows no free market, or he is poisoned too deeply by his messy liberal thinking.
@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.
In the Israeli example, the teachers and the schools ended up being compensated better for their extra time because of the market approach they attempted. How did that corrupt morality?
Even though I don't get paid when I read books, the long term goal of my reading is to become more knowledgeble and wiser, which will probably affect my ability to make a living. Hence in the long run, I am being paid with money for doing the extra work. That's not immoral.
@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.
@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....
@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.
@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.
@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
@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
I think this guys concerns are not really about Free markets perverting morals. I do not see even the most extreme free market society adopting the kind of measures (like paying kids to read) that he is worried about. Because people understand incentives & market boundries intuitively. The problem is he is taking the kind of formalistic theory done by Gary Becker & others, & governments (foolish)attempts to retrofit it for their own purposes at face value.
This guy MUST get gov't funding or from a gov't licensed endowment. It's an absurd argument.
What an absurd point -- "late fees resulted in more late pickups -- thus incentives create a negative reinforcement." Did the teachers mind getting paid extra, was that questioned asked. If my 8hr day is worth $30 per hour and my 15min over is worth $30, then my most valuable time is 15min of overtime.
Oki I will bite. So his story is believable, not his explanation/comment? Why did you (the parent) pick up your child on time more often when there is no late fee than when there is late fee?
@hodor -- A "late fee" is a service offer, not a punishment. When the value of the late fee is greater then the service rendered the amount "over" is a punishment -- I still wouldn't call it a punishment, just a fine or penalty. Like over-draft charges.
It's the conclusion he draws, that's what's absurd.
@OctoBox Why did you (the parent) pick up your child on time more often when there is no late fee than when there is late fee?
Why cloud the issues with calling it a punishment or not?
If late fee is a service offer, then that is exactly what he said. By putting a price tag on 'being late', something on the mind of the parents changed and unexpected result happen.
If it were 0$ vs 15$, then normal (economic) rules should work. But the 0$ was a faulty assumption, not the rules themselves.
@hodor -- He argued that market norms can crowd out non-market norms; his suggestion was "we need to regulate the market (the consumer) so 'we' (the non-consumer?) can presume higher knowledge." He was talking about deciding democratically (which is absurd -- it can never be had, because the debators are chosen by-way of abdication of will or voting and bribery or lobbying). He was talking about "moral" decisions being taken out of the market and decided by "whom?" The Electorate?
@OctoBox He might have argue to regulate markets later on, but he clear did not do such thing in this segment.
He argue that the Act of putting a price tag on something that didn't have one, thus introducing market _game_ to that thing, might not always be such a great idea.
Late fee should have been great idea. Most people would expect it to work. I suspect even the parent initially expect he would a greater effort to be on time.
I find your lack of faith in our democracy Disturbing.
@hodor -- You can go back and re-read what I wrote, I was quoting and paraphrasing "this" video.
This country was not founded as a "democracy" -- Democracy, Monarchy, and Capitalism have one thing in common -- "slavery" (mass slavery and genocide). Corporatism (what we have now) has in common with the others something called Military Colonialism -- it is economic-fascism (by definition).
@hodor -- He said that the moral questions (that come up in market based economics) should not be handled by the market itself (the consumer or individual); there is only one other way to handle these decisions and that is by comittee (electorate). The electorate can only license, create laws, fine-penalize, subsidize, certify (etc) -- all of which is a subset of regulation.
@hodor -- I guess you did not pay attention to the whole video, it is very clear now. I was not talking about his "point" I was talking about his conclusion
It is easy to see the failure -- The dollar amount was not high enough to be a disincentive. Let's say the teacher has to stay after with the child and the teach normally makes $30 per hour. For every 15mins after the teach must wait charge $50 per. Some teachers would offer to wait for those who wanted to leave. It's not a negative.
@OctoBox You´d then be treating unfairly the parents who have less money resources (which would be highly affected compared to the "rich" ones). Also, if you put a very bad policy in an otherwise very good company you know, maybe you won´t get clients and the ones you already had would leave.
Also some politicians (e.g. Reagan) "thought" a similar "solution" to the "drug problem" and it didn´t remotely turn out as planned
@Burdell22000 -- "treating un-fairly?" How is a service for profit and gain "fair" or "un-fair" -- it is either paid or not, we can't concern ourselves with non-essential services. Poor parents need to get there on time or they need to coordinate with other parents (to back each other up). This is how my parents handled it -- they organized themselves and they were all poor to middle-class.
Reagan was an actor, a democrat, a Goldwater then a Neoconservative Republican -- a fairweather fan
@Burdell22000 -- There's nothing in my argument that would rationalize the "logical" extensions you've made: I'm not a fan of Reagan, I do not agree with Capitalism, Corporatism, Communism, Democracy, or Socialism -- therefore you are have a two-sided argument with me as the spectator and you as both opponents. Let me speak for myself, oh wait I already did. Let me rephrase, go back and "read" what I wrote, then muster a logical rebuttal.
@OctoBox I don´t feel like reading any more of your messages, I just felt the need to speak about your last one.
If you ever have a private kindergarten and put 50€ for each 15 mins. that parents arrive late then good luck with it, and thank you for your former response. Cheers.
ohhhh, I see... you lack an understanding of feudalism!
okay, well, the objective morality was that the feudal lord owned the land, and that he let the peasants live there, like a landlord would, the payment was in tithes I believe, which was based on labour of the land, as opposed to working in a specific place on a different lord's land, land and labour were tied together, as opposed to today's landlords and so on
Sandel's arguments are crap.First, there is no such thing as intrinsic good about reading.Second,there are different types of incentives that can be used to get the desired effect.His biggest mistake is saying markets are about money.Wrong!They are about value.
Paying a child to read more or instilling in a child that being knowledgeable improves self worth ,are both incentives.You can use either one to get a child to read,but one of them will have a more beneficial effect.
Human beings are already valued as commodities...insofar as you equate a person with their labor and consequent remuneration. (Or, with prostitution, as a human qua human.) I think the market has won. Hasn't it? Morality is relative. Values are subjective. Money talks, bullshit walks--as the saying goes. I like Sandel, though...his book "Justice" is very good. (I wish somebody *had* paid me to read it...instead I worked pro bono...)
and what values are those? values based on the virtue of violence of the state? values based on the coercion of taxation? values based on the tyrrany of the majority and culture?
you dont decide to 'use' markets, YOU CAN ONLY OPRESS THEM.
@DavidsIllustrations You, along with many others who are commenting on the video, seem to have missed the point of what he was saying, particularly if you watch the entire video on fora.tv. He raises the questions of how markets change our perspectives and how those changed perspectives can change our morality as a society and as humans. And since he explicitly says during the lecture that they are simply questions he offers to be argued, I think you missed the point entirely.
@DavidsIllustrations Just because something "correlates with the nature of man" does not make a thing moral. That's like, saying, it's natural to be jealous, therefore, jealousy is moral.
Nor is something moral, "because it works". Sandel's example was specifically used to demonstrate the _failure_ of market principles to create penalties for bad behavior. The penalties were motivators _distinct_ from morals, when before, there was only the moral character of the parents for motivation.
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.
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.
@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.
"Last time I heard, every corporation in America supports this so-called 'free markets' "
You are misinformed. Plenty of corporations make it their business to advocate for corporatism instead of the free markets. They benefit greatly from bigger govt because of things like the bail outs, subsidies, regulations (which help them establish monopoly like powers).
@diapasonify Free market is the natural interactions between individuals. What you are saying is that all human are immoral. A little silly don't you think?
Corperations are not for free market, corporations want bailouts and monopoly. They will always try to get these through government, so the bigger the government the more corporatism.
There is a university in the United Kingdom called the University of Dundee. It's in Scotland. I would very strongly urge Chinese students who're thinking of coming to the UK to undertake undergrad or postgraduate studies to NOT enrol at the University of Dundee. Many Chinese students at this university have been racially abused (either verbally, and in some cases physically.) Some lecturers at this university are very racist towards Chinese students and the city of Dundee is also VERY racist.
@nocturnezero 'Despite the laudings of Randian regressives, corporations are inherently opposed to competition.' Never read any Rand have you... The worst villain in Atlas Shrugged is the chief executive of a corporation who constantly acts to get government help. However one of the heroes is an executive that resists government interference.
Maybe your errors are caused by the fact that you think people 'inherently' possess certain opinions...
You cannot compare the totalitary system of the former Soviet Union with Venezuela or Cuba.
If you ever went to Cuba or Venezuela you would see that medical service and life expectance for ALL people is quite good.
Socialism is not communism.
Any totalitary system is born to fail. It often happen that systems turn against their members when the system itself seems to be more important than the people it serves.
It does not matter if you name it communism, socialism or (fake) democracy.
i guess the only reason why goverment pay so less for education is that they fear a to well educated nation. a well educated country has so many benefits but the most goverments (ore most of theire members) had to leave if the "corwd" is to well educated.
I think we should talk about "how is it" not "how should it be", so if you throw away normative and idealistic point of view, you will easily understand that money is one of the best instruments to manipulate people and make them do what you want them to do...
Wow, you're way off!! Economics is not just about people paying for things. Its also about incentives, why people act the way they act, why people want this over that in their purchasing decisions, including why people choose this or that career over this or that career, even why some kids study and others don't. I can tell you right now, if kids got money for getting good grades, you watch how quick grades would shoot up across the board. Just my opinion though, just as you are entitled to your
This guy works for the government, no wonder. They won't tell you that you've never had a freemarket in your lifetime, they even had REGULATIONS labelled "DE-REGULATIONS" and then claimed that de-regulating was a bad idea. LOL. People, don't trust this guy. He's a shill. He's trying to play God , hoping to control market forces for his government buddies and Cartels. See the truth, don't get fooled, inform yourself because it is very easy to destroy this "free market is evil" theory. peace.
His point isn't that markets are evil, but markets produce a certain kind of thinking about action, and this goes for regulated or non-regulated markets. The reading example is the best, as it shows how markets encourage instrumentalization of life, rather than the constitutive living of it. Markets have a certain structure that produces a certain kind of agency and way of thinking. And thus markets are not appropriate in many contexts.
Listen. If you have a bubble economy which Keysnes advocate, OF COURSE YOU WILL OVERCONSUME, because you are FOOLED into thinking ressources are plentiful , undermining the MINING and AGRICULTURE factors. If you have regulations, you won't mine or cultivate as much. If you have a government telling you all is well and dandy and prices are kept low through bubbles; OF COURSE you will act irrationally, because you do not see the subjective economy.
This has nothing to do with what I have said, nor what Sandel says. I know very well that we do not have a pure free market, but I don't see that as a bad thing, because markets encourage relations between people that are strictly instrumental, and don't encourage the facilitation of social relations that can constitute some form of civic friendship. This is not efficiency or the rational allocation of finite resources; this is about what is just, and what justice requires.
My answer wasn't very direct to your comment but i hoped to get to the root of the issue. And i don't agree with the instrumental part simply because... If you use the example of a hockey team, you can put all the best players in the same team.. Doesn't mean they will do a good job. You need the right composition for your team to be good in as many aspects as possible. If the team does not respect itself, it just doesn't work. There is just not as much incentive. You just want out.
The comparison between a hockey team and a firm does not work because hockey is a practise with goods internal to it, where a business has no goods internal to it, it is just done for one end securing money for sustenance or whatever end. Hockey is something that is done absent of external consequences; the same cannot be said of business.
Okay, so a hockey team can perform poorly? Somehow hockey teams aren't there to make money off of? Why do you think there are different leagues to begin with? Different levels of skill for different leagues. Sure there are other factors, i'm no sports analyst but the point is very clear, there is no difference. No team can function efficiently if there is no symbiosis within it. It is exactly why we keep firing new guys at work, they slow down the chain and can't think 3 seconds ahead to help.
Without a certain consistent symbiosis within the structure of a team, i just don't see how a capitalist company would work. Besides, if you look into the past , few decades ago, you will notice america was the most egalitarian nation, FILLED with family companies. As time goes by, there are more and more regulations, and less companies can afford to compete in the market. Automatically leading into higher prices, bubbles, increase in health problems, mental problems, etc.
" The sophistry of merchants inspired by the spirit of monopoly has confounded the common sense of mankind " Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations , ed. Edwin Cannan , Univ of Chicago Pr pg. 519.
In other words you believe in force to prevent people spontaneously marketising various scarcities, so as to allow certain agents to control how and where other people economise. Seems a lot like Socialism that destroys growth by making people reduce the wealth of others in order to gain wealth themselves. If no-one initiates force, if coercion is negated, you'll see morality/productivity.
Although I agree entirely with your criticism of what Hayek derided as 'scientistic' economics.
Right, social worth shouldn't be tied to monetary worth, we should stick to the good old ways: Racism, sexism, nationalism, arbitrary political or religious titles, family lineage, etc. Because the world was so much better off when those were at least as important or more important than money.
I'm not saying Sandel is wrong, I'm saying I think he's wrong. I'm saying I disagree with his moral views on value and the attitude he seems to radiate when espousing them.
I agree that all of the above are problematic (racism, nationalism, sexism etc.), but that does not mean that we have to choose between monetary worth being equated with social worth, or some parochial perspective. Sandel himself has a romantic streak which sometimes makes him romanticize family and nation in particular, but I don't see what is wrong with a perspective of social worth based on civic virtue in principle, so long as it is not based on what is arbitrary.
I am not sure what in particular you think is wrong with Sandel's thinking about value. If it is his biological naturalism than I am with you, but if it is that he thinks there are objective goods shared by humans, members of a family or a political community I have to disagree.
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.
Marketization actually leads to a form of irrationality, in that it cannot evaluate social or individual ends, it can only evaluate the efficiency of means. The market does not question if a subject should value x but just says that they do value x and therefore if they have the money and others are willing they can have x. Instrumental rationality is mere effective calculation of efficient means, and it tells us nothing about whether our ends are rational or irrational.
The trouble with this is that the good is prior to the right, so the market's structure is based on an account of the good for humans (the good as individual choice/proprietarianism). My question is if civic virtue is abritrary why isn't the ethical basis of the market also arbitrary? Either both are rival accounts that we need to adjudicate between in terms of their correctness in terms of ethical value, or both are completely arbitrary because objective ethical value is a myth.
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.
What decides moral standards is practical reasoning. Of course reasonable values conflict. But in order for a value to be reasonable it must be given supporting reasons. Desiring or valuing a thing is NOT a reason in and of itself.
My point regarding evaluation of efficiency of means was that we need to evaluate where such evaluation of efficiency is appropriate through reasoning with one another, and that the efficient pursuit of ends that are not rational is not rational.
This is the same mistake that every objectivist and so many others make. You equate morality with utility and pretend that your position is based firmly or even solely in reason but you have no reason for using utility to determine morality. Morality is an intangible that, by its nature, cannot be observed. So who are you to tell me that I should not spend my life in the pursuit of acquisition of things? How do you know that's wrong? Why do kids like AppleJacks? They just do.
Of course I don't know for sure that it is wrong, I never pretended to epistemic certainty. And I am open to arguments that suggest that I am wrong about the particulars of value, but I am not open to the vapid argument that because we cannot know objective goods, that your values should be respected. This position is arbitrary because if we cannot know objective goods, there is no good reason to respect individual choice and autonomy.
Why should I value your right to choose if all talk of objective values or goods is nonsense? Obviously you could still be right about value, but I don't think you are because the fact-value distinction cannot cope with out ethical experience. You may be tempted to explain away states of valuation in biologistic terms, but this means that the experience of having learned something in terms of ethics is just an illusion, and phenomenologically that does not make sense.
So, because we can't observe the intangible, my moral values should not be respected but yours should? Nice philosophy, I wish to adopt it as my own and subscribe to your newsletter.
If you really think that there is no good reason to respect my individual choice then that's your call. You are welcome to try to interfere with my autonomy but you'd run into my difference of opinion and the myriad forms of force I'm willing to use in defense of my beliefs.
I think there are plenty of reasons to respect autonomy, but they are all based on the objectivity of a certain set of goods, virtues and values. My point was not that I want to necessarily limit your autonomy, but that the value of the ideal of autonomy itself depends upon the objectivity of values, and therefore that you cannot even defend your own ethical perspective by virtue of ruling out the truth value of ethical statements.
Again with the insistence on objective moral values. Look, a moral value is just what someone thinks is right. The idea of autonomy doesn't require objective moral values. Just look at feudalism; when it was popular in Europe it was considered morally just, commoners owed their labor and loyalty to their lord. Now the idea of an absolute monarch or other supreme ruler is pretty unpopular in most of the western world. Did what is morally right change or just an opinion?
that's why they shouldn't have issued fines for late picks ups, but rather after a certain amount of late pick up, the child is excused from the daycare permanently.
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.
Of course late pick ups increased. This is not a complicated point, and certainly not a revelation beyond the frontiers of Economics. Economics is a complicated science and you're misleading people by imposing limitations on the subject as a whole which are actually just a result of your lack of understanding of Economic theories.
You may well be an expert in your field, but Economics is clearly not your forte.
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.
That's not "simple", except in a trivial sense that it's easy to state. A just-so explanation that is hardly scientific, because numerically calculating that disutility is ferociously hard.
That there *is always* a utility function is another problematic assumption... but I digress.
Don't get me wrong, "utility" has utility, :) but free market fanatics make a big mistake when they model human decision making too simply. Marx made a similar mistake, in a different way.
No-one is trying to ascribe a numerical figure to a given amount of disutility, least of all me. We can use ordinal values and revealed preference to analyse the whole scenario. The only point i'm making is that the observation of late pick ups increasing is not a revelation which is beyond the scope of Economics. This Michael Sandel guy clearly doesn't know the first thing about Economics. That's not a crime, but he shouldn't then lecture about markets and behaviour. It's pure arrogance.
Sure, you won't ascribe a numerical value to the utility, fine. However, you can kiss your utility function goodbye. And with it, your efficient market. ;)
There is 0 evidence that humans carry around anything looking even vaguely like a utility function for making decisions beyond the purely trivial.
Do you really believe that you understand enough about human nature, decision-making and group dynamics that your self-admittedly "simple" model will work? Isn't that a far deeper arrogance?
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.
"Simple models make general predictions" that are frequently wrong. ;)
I can play at condescension too: Don't pretend you are doing Science when you're an Economist. Rule #1 of a real science is knowing to what confines your simple model is applicable. "Usually not in extremes" is something ideologues seem to forget.
And using indiff curves means you've discarded any absolute utility measure, which is why I said "decisions beyond the purely trivial". People can't compare apples to oranges.
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.
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.
Different theories? Economics is the most dogmatic science there is. If you do not except the neoclassical dogma you are out. It is not as if people throw away their bullshit mathematical models when they fail at predicting something, they just change the mathematical model.
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.
Actually, economics is more complicated than you appreciate. My criticism with the neoclassical synthesis is that they pretend they have it figured out, when in fact at best their models are heuristic devices as the phenomena they are trying to explain cannot be captured in a model. Further, there is something a distinct about human action in that it results from consciousness that makes it difficult to capture from a third person perspective...
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??
Nah, it's really not complicated. "Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man
as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be."
- Isaac Morehouse
All it comes down to is a God complex. I'm really starting to beleive those who so desperately try to discredit capitalism actually hope to get in the government scam. Isn't that what intellectual dishonesty is about?
The point I am really making is that the natural science model is inappropriate for economics. I have gathered more insight from heterodox economic scholars than from any practitioner of the neoclassical synthesis. The main problem with contemporary economics is that it tries so hard to be like the natural science's that it forgets the purpose of social science which is grasping the experience of social agents in the economy.
And who are these "heterodox economic scholars" ?? - Could you provide an example?? Who is the Economist? What does he disagree about? Why does he disagree about it? And why should I accept that he is correct in his analysis? - What evidence is supporting his view??
You, economists, are emperors wearing no clothing, or, better yet, you are to science what astrology is to the cosmos, and hiding behind that smug self confidence does not change the fact that you practice junk science.
"you are to science what astrology is to the cosmos"
That simply is not true. Economics is just as vigorously scrutinized as the physical sciences. you can also easily see the proof their economics works when looking at world poverty levels. Those nations such as India and china which have recently adopted free market reforms are rising out of poverty faster they any nation has in history. The facts verify economic theory every day.
He did not finish the study. They rose the price to something much logical and the parents DID pick up their children in time. He poorly used the study as true reference.
Actually, he made the point perfectly. The difference between charging nothing and charging /almost/ nothing is that in the latter case people ignored their moral behavior, because the transaction became a market based one. That, basically, is his point, and the study supports it.
Why so many people (in the USA) seem to be *afraid* by the state and the government is a question I'm asking. So they prefer to rely on private corporations ? Or mafia ? Or... what... ? Or just themselves, like the cave men ? Duh ??
A willingness to pay doesn't change the essential and basic fact that when anyone IS unwilling to pay, (and these people certainly exist), the taxes are indeed ENFORCED at the point of a gun. The fact that enforcement isn't necessary for most citizens is completely irrelevant. Concerning the roads and etc. - You don't seem to be familiar with basic libertarian arguments... which for the record I haven't even endorsed here. To be blunt, your questions have been answered thousands of times over.
Plus, on its own, its a nice analysis of why reducing everything to economic pluses and minuses is unhealthy and hurts our society as a whole to benefit a few. But, yes, all these internet Objectivists getting all reactionary because they see the golden age of their ideology crumbling with the world economy and a new zietgeist blossoming is AWESOME.
If the market were free in education, the cost would come down and more could afford it. Quality would go up for the poor as well. If the economy were free, it would generate more money, and charitable orgs would distribute more aid, and do it more effectively, than any govt welfare or socialized med program ever could.
Big govt hurts the poor more than the rich. Rich can buy influence. Poor get screwed.
Thank you very much for making these lectures available.
anomistars 3 weeks ago
onlytheweak....... you obviously have never done crack before... your perception is bent
.
templedog69 1 month ago
Greed is Good and Liberalism should be destroyed....fuck morality
gopconservative78 2 months ago
beautiful
jsoldi1980 2 months ago
why does he look in his notes and speak? what a turnoff!!!!
afeefmirza 3 months ago
Free-marketism is the new opiate of the masses.
bolshevikML 3 months ago
free market in this modenized world crazy!!!!!!!!
TrueVibezAintTainted 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
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.
eggory 4 months ago
I appreciate Professor Sandel's commitment to open education. However, the comments on these pages just go to show the limits of such an endeavour...
... Or the need for more, damn I hate philosophy :s
justnotcricket 5 months ago 2
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.
SuperNache 5 months ago
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
SuperNache 5 months ago
Intrinsic good or value is an oxymoron. What people belief to be good is subjective.
crazypants88 5 months ago
oeid - you've missed the point. The "market" did set the price - it was/is a business.
mcazala 6 months ago
So as a socialist (lets be honest about what Sandel actually is) he wants government to take the place of the market, intellectuals and politicians to make decisions for the masses and take the place of our right to make our own choices. If the day care had set the cost for the "late child pick up" correctly, the parents would have shown up on time. His moral interpretation is lifeless unless he is willing to allow God into the equation, which of course progressives will not allow.
oeidirsceoil 6 months ago
@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.
matlynch123 6 months ago
@matlynch123
i dont believe that the market can erode our morals without our approval. If company A has a cheaper product than company b, but company b does not pollute, each time we choose the cheaper product, we are voting for the "less moral" company. So to say that the markets erode our morals is wrong. we erode our own.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 6 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp I agree that individuals have some responsibility. However, I think you are making the assumption that everyone is always thinking about the impact their purchase has and that they always have the necessary information to do so.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
i think the knowledge should be there. I would not outlaw child labor. I would have companies put on their product, that they use child lbor. that way, you can choose.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 2 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp So let me get this straight. You would be willing to use force to make someone put info on their products, but you wouldn't be willing to use force to make sure 5 year olds aren't working in factories or 9 year olds working in the coal mines ?
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
it is a 5 year olds right to work. It should absolutly be illegal to make a 5 year old work. but in some countries, that is their best opportunity for a good life.
I would use force to make sure people are aware of what they are buying and spending their money on. I am considering it lying to not do so.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 2 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Why do you think a 5 year old has an inherent right to work? "but in some countries, that is their best opportunity for a good life." Or they could go to school.
"I would use force to make sure people are aware of what they are buying" Then you are violating your libertarian non aggression principle. It isn't lying to withhold information.If they don't like the fact that it doesn't have the information they don't have to buy it.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
every person has the right do do what they want, as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others. So, if a 5 year old chooses to work, then he/she can work.That being said, i do believe in age restriction, on alcohal and other drugs, because people must be able to make an informed decision.It is exactly the same as lying. If there is no warning, the consumer is to assume there is no problem with the good.So by having no warnings you are lying about the quality of the good
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 2 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You are a walking logical contradiction. If every person has the right to do what they want,including 5 year olds, how can you stop a 5 year old from smoking crack or choosing to have sex with an adult ?
" If there is no warning, the consumer is to assume there is no problem with the good."Why is regulation justified in this one extra special case ? No one is forcing anyone to buy anything. I am sure you wont find much support for this from other libertarians.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
I am a libertarian, because i believe a person is responsible for their own wellbeing. If a person knows what crack will do to him, and still chooses to take it, then they will have to live with the consequences. I have year old can not choose to take crack because they lack the maturity level to make an informed decision. That is why a 5 year old cannot do drugs, or vote, or drive. Age is not a direct indicator of mmaturity, but until there is a maturity test, ill run with it
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 2 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp You might be libertarianish, but you are not a libertarian. A libertarian would not use force to make someone put a label on their product.
So a 5 year old is not mature enough to decide that is wants to smoke crack,but it is mature to decide that it wants to work in a dangerous job instead of going to school? Do you not notice that your thoughts are so full of contradictions before you commit t them ?
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
I believe in age restrictions. That being said, i think it is pointless for the american government to say child labor is bad. Maybe in america they can make such claims, but it is pointless to say that every child should not be allowed to work, when working moght be their best option. I see no contridictions. Maybe i have a certain kind of libertarian view, but either way, i am a libertarian.
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 2 months ago
@OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp Wait so do you think the government should ban child labour in America or not ? "working moght be their best option." Actually the data says that going to school is by far the best option.
You can call your self a billionaire if you want,but it doesn't make it so. No libertarian would support mandatory labeling.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
i wrote a have year old instead of a five year old. My bad
OnlyTheWeakNeedHelp 2 months ago
@oeidirsceoil At this point I usually call someone like you are moron and I do this for two reasons. One because you disrespect such a great thinking and ethicist as Michael Sandal by just labeling him something you dislike and ignoring anything he has to say because he is "one of those people". Second is because you wouldn't accept any rationally constructed argument I could give. What can someone like me say to someone so willing to put their fingers in their ears and yell "nananananna"?
thesparitan 5 months ago
If free markets are the solution the problem must be not enough war and poverty; there must not be enough corruption and strife; there must not be enough crime and artificial energy scarcity. We must need less compassion for our fellow human beings and less community spirit. We must need less cooperation and more competition. In short we need to embrace free market capitalism to prove to it's supporters that it will create hell on earth. It will make it easier to round them up and execute them.
elbowbiter1 6 months ago
this man's an idiot. America doesn't have a freemarket system.
Socialised education? Nationalised telecommunication and transport? Credit centralized in the hands of the state? Highly progressive tax on income? FCC? Are these freemarket ideals?
Anyone who thinks that the US has a freemarket is clearly deluded and must be ignored
MOlSTmaker 6 months ago
@MOlSTmaker
Michael Sandel is a Harvard lecturer. You are a YouTube troll.
Please leave.
CRISNCHIPS12398 6 months ago
@CRISNCHIPS12398 nice appeal to authority m8. instead of refuting me, you cite the fact that he's some lecturer and think you've won some argument?
MOlSTmaker 6 months ago
@CRISNCHIPS12398 Good response, people like MOIStmaker deserve nothing more. Just another free market fundamentalist
thesparitan 5 months ago
@MOlSTmaker Michael Sandal is an idiot? This shows us the grasp your intellectual honesty. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them wrong and especially when this person is a Harvard professor and one of the most respected intellectuals in the world. Maybe if would be better to assume, for the time being, that he isn't an idiot. I think he deserves some professional courtesy. BTW he never said we live in a pure free market system, so you are just lying.
thesparitan 5 months ago
USA WORSHIPS THE ALMIGHTY $ ... that is all.
mba2ceo 7 months ago
Values higher than markets? Markets...free markets, give people choices. An adult individual ought to be able to choose for themselves and assume responsibility. I highly doubt corrupt bureaucrats and politicians can hold higher standards and values when everything they do is governed by politics and campaign contributions. This guy is a two bit moron. I feel as though I lost brain cells listening to him. And yea alalelalex, put a higher fine and they'll be there EARLY!
Volomonoh 8 months ago
@Volomonoh You braying asshole.
nilbud 7 months ago
Well then increase the fine.... then the parents will pick up the children earlier.
alalelalex 9 months ago
Free market, or free exchange according to free wills of individuals, is the most moral thing in the entire universe --- compared to any other mechanism.
Just like democracy --- democracy is efficient or not? it is not the question to ask here.
Democracy is about individual's ownership of the community. No more, no less.
All remaining issues are oprational ones.
yyjhgbfyhtdrpz 1 year ago
@yyjhgbfyhtdrpz Get back to your fucking ayn rand books lamebrain.
nilbud 7 months ago
What is market, or free market, anyway?
Market is nothing but a place, or a platform, or a system, where people exchange their goods according to their own free wills --- no more, no less.
Is market efficient? That we can discuss.
Is market moral? --- this is misleading. This is to ask:
Is free choice moral?
Free choice itself does not necessarily lead to moral results. It is as if a new-born baby does not have to grow up as a moral citizen.
yyjhgbfyhtdrpz 1 year ago
@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?
dsmfishgal 1 year ago
@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?
dsmfishgal 1 year ago
Putting market and morality together, as a title, this thing itself is misleading, and therefore, questionable.
Say we have a speech titled "Morality and Government Oppression"?
yyjhgbfyhtdrpz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
His example of parents picking up kids late, illustrates exactly how free market works. --- The free market theory has a very simple explanation for this:
If the care givers DID want to prevent the late-pick-up happening, make the late fine high enough --- say, $1000 per late minute.
Then see what will happen.
So what is his point?
His point is he knows no logic, and he knows no free market, or he is poisoned too deeply by his messy liberal thinking.
yyjhgbfyhtdrpz 1 year ago
@yyjhgbfyhtdrpz No you psychopathic dunce your idiotic example would be thrown out of court as unreasonable. A concept you cannot grasp because you're fucking insane.
nilbud 7 months ago
His example of parents picking up kids late, illustrates exactly how free market works. --- The free market theory has a very simple explanation for this:
If the care givers DID want to prevent the late-pick-up happening, make the late fine high enough --- say, $1000 per late minute.
Then see what will happen.
So what is his point?
His point is he knows no logic, and he knows no free market, or he is poisoned too deeply by his messy liberal thinking.
yyjhgbfyhtdrpz 1 year ago
@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.
MartenThuren 1 year ago
@yyjhgbfyhtdrpz - I could set up a little business. picking up kids when parents can. Charge 100 bucks a kid. save them 900 each.
JaguarEarlobe 11 months ago
Moral? Terminators !!! Who are the Americans???
Neroscot 1 year ago
This guy is wrong.
In the Israeli example, the teachers and the schools ended up being compensated better for their extra time because of the market approach they attempted. How did that corrupt morality?
Even though I don't get paid when I read books, the long term goal of my reading is to become more knowledgeble and wiser, which will probably affect my ability to make a living. Hence in the long run, I am being paid with money for doing the extra work. That's not immoral.
Sam26100 1 year ago
@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.
MartenThuren 1 year ago
@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....
Sam26100 1 year ago
@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.
MartenThuren 1 year ago
@MartenThuren It might be worth it in spite of the moral values that got corrupted? I'm still not sure which moral values got corrupted though.....
The way I see it, paying people for their work is more moral than not paying them anything.
Sam26100 1 year ago
@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.
MartenThuren 1 year ago
@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
Sam26100 1 year ago
@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
JaguarEarlobe 11 months ago
I think this guys concerns are not really about Free markets perverting morals. I do not see even the most extreme free market society adopting the kind of measures (like paying kids to read) that he is worried about. Because people understand incentives & market boundries intuitively. The problem is he is taking the kind of formalistic theory done by Gary Becker & others, & governments (foolish)attempts to retrofit it for their own purposes at face value.
Malthus0 1 year ago
This guy MUST get gov't funding or from a gov't licensed endowment. It's an absurd argument.
What an absurd point -- "late fees resulted in more late pickups -- thus incentives create a negative reinforcement." Did the teachers mind getting paid extra, was that questioned asked. If my 8hr day is worth $30 per hour and my 15min over is worth $30, then my most valuable time is 15min of overtime.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox
Oki I will bite. So his story is believable, not his explanation/comment? Why did you (the parent) pick up your child on time more often when there is no late fee than when there is late fee?
hodor 1 year ago
@hodor -- A "late fee" is a service offer, not a punishment. When the value of the late fee is greater then the service rendered the amount "over" is a punishment -- I still wouldn't call it a punishment, just a fine or penalty. Like over-draft charges.
It's the conclusion he draws, that's what's absurd.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox Why did you (the parent) pick up your child on time more often when there is no late fee than when there is late fee?
Why cloud the issues with calling it a punishment or not?
If late fee is a service offer, then that is exactly what he said. By putting a price tag on 'being late', something on the mind of the parents changed and unexpected result happen.
If it were 0$ vs 15$, then normal (economic) rules should work. But the 0$ was a faulty assumption, not the rules themselves.
hodor 1 year ago
@hodor -- He argued that market norms can crowd out non-market norms; his suggestion was "we need to regulate the market (the consumer) so 'we' (the non-consumer?) can presume higher knowledge." He was talking about deciding democratically (which is absurd -- it can never be had, because the debators are chosen by-way of abdication of will or voting and bribery or lobbying). He was talking about "moral" decisions being taken out of the market and decided by "whom?" The Electorate?
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox He might have argue to regulate markets later on, but he clear did not do such thing in this segment.
He argue that the Act of putting a price tag on something that didn't have one, thus introducing market _game_ to that thing, might not always be such a great idea.
Late fee should have been great idea. Most people would expect it to work. I suspect even the parent initially expect he would a greater effort to be on time.
I find your lack of faith in our democracy Disturbing.
hodor 1 year ago
@hodor -- You can go back and re-read what I wrote, I was quoting and paraphrasing "this" video.
This country was not founded as a "democracy" -- Democracy, Monarchy, and Capitalism have one thing in common -- "slavery" (mass slavery and genocide). Corporatism (what we have now) has in common with the others something called Military Colonialism -- it is economic-fascism (by definition).
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox NO where in this video is he even close to promote regulation.
Bravo for being poser.
hodor 1 year ago
@hodor -- He said that the moral questions (that come up in market based economics) should not be handled by the market itself (the consumer or individual); there is only one other way to handle these decisions and that is by comittee (electorate). The electorate can only license, create laws, fine-penalize, subsidize, certify (etc) -- all of which is a subset of regulation.
"Poser" -- wow man, read between the lines.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox If you have an alternative explanation on why the parent come late more often. Say it or shut it.
hodor 1 year ago
@hodor -- I guess you did not pay attention to the whole video, it is very clear now. I was not talking about his "point" I was talking about his conclusion
It is easy to see the failure -- The dollar amount was not high enough to be a disincentive. Let's say the teacher has to stay after with the child and the teach normally makes $30 per hour. For every 15mins after the teach must wait charge $50 per. Some teachers would offer to wait for those who wanted to leave. It's not a negative.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox You´d then be treating unfairly the parents who have less money resources (which would be highly affected compared to the "rich" ones). Also, if you put a very bad policy in an otherwise very good company you know, maybe you won´t get clients and the ones you already had would leave.
Also some politicians (e.g. Reagan) "thought" a similar "solution" to the "drug problem" and it didn´t remotely turn out as planned
Burdell22000 1 year ago
@Burdell22000 -- "treating un-fairly?" How is a service for profit and gain "fair" or "un-fair" -- it is either paid or not, we can't concern ourselves with non-essential services. Poor parents need to get there on time or they need to coordinate with other parents (to back each other up). This is how my parents handled it -- they organized themselves and they were all poor to middle-class.
Reagan was an actor, a democrat, a Goldwater then a Neoconservative Republican -- a fairweather fan
OctoBox 1 year ago
@Burdell22000 -- There's nothing in my argument that would rationalize the "logical" extensions you've made: I'm not a fan of Reagan, I do not agree with Capitalism, Corporatism, Communism, Democracy, or Socialism -- therefore you are have a two-sided argument with me as the spectator and you as both opponents. Let me speak for myself, oh wait I already did. Let me rephrase, go back and "read" what I wrote, then muster a logical rebuttal.
OctoBox 1 year ago
@OctoBox I don´t feel like reading any more of your messages, I just felt the need to speak about your last one.
If you ever have a private kindergarten and put 50€ for each 15 mins. that parents arrive late then good luck with it, and thank you for your former response. Cheers.
Burdell22000 1 year ago
@Burdell22000 -- Okay, cheers!
OctoBox 1 year ago
I wonder what the free market says about slavery...
oh, wait, you're about to make an objective moral statement on that no matter where you stand on it ;)
it's like the phrase "everything is subjective"
which is itself, an OBJECTIVE statement
noobler9 1 year ago
ohhhh, I see... you lack an understanding of feudalism!
okay, well, the objective morality was that the feudal lord owned the land, and that he let the peasants live there, like a landlord would, the payment was in tithes I believe, which was based on labour of the land, as opposed to working in a specific place on a different lord's land, land and labour were tied together, as opposed to today's landlords and so on
you're so silly :p
noobler9 1 year ago
I read for enjoyment, I am living proof that there is intrinsic good in reading
get over your silly pseudo-intellectual self
noobler9 1 year ago
Sandel's arguments are crap.First, there is no such thing as intrinsic good about reading.Second,there are different types of incentives that can be used to get the desired effect.His biggest mistake is saying markets are about money.Wrong!They are about value.
Paying a child to read more or instilling in a child that being knowledgeable improves self worth ,are both incentives.You can use either one to get a child to read,but one of them will have a more beneficial effect.
TiaSaysSo 1 year ago
Why is reading intrinsically good?
largecapfan 1 year ago
Human beings are already valued as commodities...insofar as you equate a person with their labor and consequent remuneration. (Or, with prostitution, as a human qua human.) I think the market has won. Hasn't it? Morality is relative. Values are subjective. Money talks, bullshit walks--as the saying goes. I like Sandel, though...his book "Justice" is very good. (I wish somebody *had* paid me to read it...instead I worked pro bono...)
cantilever 1 year ago 2
3:31-3:45
and what values are those? values based on the virtue of violence of the state? values based on the coercion of taxation? values based on the tyrrany of the majority and culture?
you dont decide to 'use' markets, YOU CAN ONLY OPRESS THEM.
ColinN16 1 year ago
obviously the fine was affordable
simply raise the fine sharply and you will find parents or nominated guardians picking up students on time.
who says the teacher even has to stay
if the child was left by the gate alone I'm sure the parents would quickly find an incentive to be sure that their child was picked up on time.
not the greatest example of why monetary incentives damage our decision making process
nonsense
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
@DavidsIllustrations You, along with many others who are commenting on the video, seem to have missed the point of what he was saying, particularly if you watch the entire video on fora.tv. He raises the questions of how markets change our perspectives and how those changed perspectives can change our morality as a society and as humans. And since he explicitly says during the lecture that they are simply questions he offers to be argued, I think you missed the point entirely.
alansato 1 year ago
Capitalism is moral because it correlates with the nature of man in the realm of reality
it is moral because it works
DavidsIllustrations 1 year ago
@DavidsIllustrations Just because something "correlates with the nature of man" does not make a thing moral. That's like, saying, it's natural to be jealous, therefore, jealousy is moral.
Nor is something moral, "because it works". Sandel's example was specifically used to demonstrate the _failure_ of market principles to create penalties for bad behavior. The penalties were motivators _distinct_ from morals, when before, there was only the moral character of the parents for motivation.
nelsnelson 1 year ago
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.
stowbury 1 year ago
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.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@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.
hymnofashes 1 year ago
There is no morality in free markets.
Last time I heard, every corporation in America supports this so-called "free markets". Same corporations that asked for bailouts.
diapasonify 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Last time I heard, every corporation in America supports this so-called 'free markets' "
You are misinformed. Plenty of corporations make it their business to advocate for corporatism instead of the free markets. They benefit greatly from bigger govt because of things like the bail outs, subsidies, regulations (which help them establish monopoly like powers).
Aliothemage 1 year ago
@diapasonify Free market is the natural interactions between individuals. What you are saying is that all human are immoral. A little silly don't you think?
Corperations are not for free market, corporations want bailouts and monopoly. They will always try to get these through government, so the bigger the government the more corporatism.
Your intellectual laziness is stunning.
Sivels 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is a university in the United Kingdom called the University of Dundee. It's in Scotland. I would very strongly urge Chinese students who're thinking of coming to the UK to undertake undergrad or postgraduate studies to NOT enrol at the University of Dundee. Many Chinese students at this university have been racially abused (either verbally, and in some cases physically.) Some lecturers at this university are very racist towards Chinese students and the city of Dundee is also VERY racist.
hujintao3 1 year ago
@diapasonify
Most corporations hate free markets. They want to be, like you said, bailed out, and protected from competition by government imposed terrifs.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66 It's true. Despite the laudings of Randian regressives, corporations are inherently opposed to competition.
nocturnezero 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nocturnezero 'Despite the laudings of Randian regressives, corporations are inherently opposed to competition.' Never read any Rand have you... The worst villain in Atlas Shrugged is the chief executive of a corporation who constantly acts to get government help. However one of the heroes is an executive that resists government interference.
Maybe your errors are caused by the fact that you think people 'inherently' possess certain opinions...
StudentOfObjectivism 9 months ago
You cannot compare the totalitary system of the former Soviet Union with Venezuela or Cuba.
If you ever went to Cuba or Venezuela you would see that medical service and life expectance for ALL people is quite good.
Socialism is not communism.
Any totalitary system is born to fail. It often happen that systems turn against their members when the system itself seems to be more important than the people it serves.
It does not matter if you name it communism, socialism or (fake) democracy.
TheMannihilator 2 years ago
i guess the only reason why goverment pay so less for education is that they fear a to well educated nation. a well educated country has so many benefits but the most goverments (ore most of theire members) had to leave if the "corwd" is to well educated.
khosrow 2 years ago
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.
natdavi 2 years ago
I think we should talk about "how is it" not "how should it be", so if you throw away normative and idealistic point of view, you will easily understand that money is one of the best instruments to manipulate people and make them do what you want them to do...
GENERALxPATTON 2 years ago
Wow, you're way off!! Economics is not just about people paying for things. Its also about incentives, why people act the way they act, why people want this over that in their purchasing decisions, including why people choose this or that career over this or that career, even why some kids study and others don't. I can tell you right now, if kids got money for getting good grades, you watch how quick grades would shoot up across the board. Just my opinion though, just as you are entitled to your
HowardTheFrog 2 years ago
This guy works for the government, no wonder. They won't tell you that you've never had a freemarket in your lifetime, they even had REGULATIONS labelled "DE-REGULATIONS" and then claimed that de-regulating was a bad idea. LOL. People, don't trust this guy. He's a shill. He's trying to play God , hoping to control market forces for his government buddies and Cartels. See the truth, don't get fooled, inform yourself because it is very easy to destroy this "free market is evil" theory. peace.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
His point isn't that markets are evil, but markets produce a certain kind of thinking about action, and this goes for regulated or non-regulated markets. The reading example is the best, as it shows how markets encourage instrumentalization of life, rather than the constitutive living of it. Markets have a certain structure that produces a certain kind of agency and way of thinking. And thus markets are not appropriate in many contexts.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago 10
Listen. If you have a bubble economy which Keysnes advocate, OF COURSE YOU WILL OVERCONSUME, because you are FOOLED into thinking ressources are plentiful , undermining the MINING and AGRICULTURE factors. If you have regulations, you won't mine or cultivate as much. If you have a government telling you all is well and dandy and prices are kept low through bubbles; OF COURSE you will act irrationally, because you do not see the subjective economy.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
This has nothing to do with what I have said, nor what Sandel says. I know very well that we do not have a pure free market, but I don't see that as a bad thing, because markets encourage relations between people that are strictly instrumental, and don't encourage the facilitation of social relations that can constitute some form of civic friendship. This is not efficiency or the rational allocation of finite resources; this is about what is just, and what justice requires.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago
My answer wasn't very direct to your comment but i hoped to get to the root of the issue. And i don't agree with the instrumental part simply because... If you use the example of a hockey team, you can put all the best players in the same team.. Doesn't mean they will do a good job. You need the right composition for your team to be good in as many aspects as possible. If the team does not respect itself, it just doesn't work. There is just not as much incentive. You just want out.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
The comparison between a hockey team and a firm does not work because hockey is a practise with goods internal to it, where a business has no goods internal to it, it is just done for one end securing money for sustenance or whatever end. Hockey is something that is done absent of external consequences; the same cannot be said of business.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago
Okay, so a hockey team can perform poorly? Somehow hockey teams aren't there to make money off of? Why do you think there are different leagues to begin with? Different levels of skill for different leagues. Sure there are other factors, i'm no sports analyst but the point is very clear, there is no difference. No team can function efficiently if there is no symbiosis within it. It is exactly why we keep firing new guys at work, they slow down the chain and can't think 3 seconds ahead to help.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
Without a certain consistent symbiosis within the structure of a team, i just don't see how a capitalist company would work. Besides, if you look into the past , few decades ago, you will notice america was the most egalitarian nation, FILLED with family companies. As time goes by, there are more and more regulations, and less companies can afford to compete in the market. Automatically leading into higher prices, bubbles, increase in health problems, mental problems, etc.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
" The sophistry of merchants inspired by the spirit of monopoly has confounded the common sense of mankind " Adam Smith , The Wealth of Nations , ed. Edwin Cannan , Univ of Chicago Pr pg. 519.
hieronomy 1 year ago
In other words you believe in force to prevent people spontaneously marketising various scarcities, so as to allow certain agents to control how and where other people economise. Seems a lot like Socialism that destroys growth by making people reduce the wealth of others in order to gain wealth themselves. If no-one initiates force, if coercion is negated, you'll see morality/productivity.
Although I agree entirely with your criticism of what Hayek derided as 'scientistic' economics.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
Right, social worth shouldn't be tied to monetary worth, we should stick to the good old ways: Racism, sexism, nationalism, arbitrary political or religious titles, family lineage, etc. Because the world was so much better off when those were at least as important or more important than money.
I'm not saying Sandel is wrong, I'm saying I think he's wrong. I'm saying I disagree with his moral views on value and the attitude he seems to radiate when espousing them.
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
@Gammaclipper
I agree that all of the above are problematic (racism, nationalism, sexism etc.), but that does not mean that we have to choose between monetary worth being equated with social worth, or some parochial perspective. Sandel himself has a romantic streak which sometimes makes him romanticize family and nation in particular, but I don't see what is wrong with a perspective of social worth based on civic virtue in principle, so long as it is not based on what is arbitrary.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
I am not sure what in particular you think is wrong with Sandel's thinking about value. If it is his biological naturalism than I am with you, but if it is that he thinks there are objective goods shared by humans, members of a family or a political community I have to disagree.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
What is objectively good and bad? How did you manage to observe the intangible? What metric did you use to assess morality?
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
@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.
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
@Gammaclipper
Marketization actually leads to a form of irrationality, in that it cannot evaluate social or individual ends, it can only evaluate the efficiency of means. The market does not question if a subject should value x but just says that they do value x and therefore if they have the money and others are willing they can have x. Instrumental rationality is mere effective calculation of efficient means, and it tells us nothing about whether our ends are rational or irrational.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
The trouble with this is that the good is prior to the right, so the market's structure is based on an account of the good for humans (the good as individual choice/proprietarianism). My question is if civic virtue is abritrary why isn't the ethical basis of the market also arbitrary? Either both are rival accounts that we need to adjudicate between in terms of their correctness in terms of ethical value, or both are completely arbitrary because objective ethical value is a myth.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@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.
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
What decides moral standards is practical reasoning. Of course reasonable values conflict. But in order for a value to be reasonable it must be given supporting reasons. Desiring or valuing a thing is NOT a reason in and of itself.
My point regarding evaluation of efficiency of means was that we need to evaluate where such evaluation of efficiency is appropriate through reasoning with one another, and that the efficient pursuit of ends that are not rational is not rational.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
This is the same mistake that every objectivist and so many others make. You equate morality with utility and pretend that your position is based firmly or even solely in reason but you have no reason for using utility to determine morality. Morality is an intangible that, by its nature, cannot be observed. So who are you to tell me that I should not spend my life in the pursuit of acquisition of things? How do you know that's wrong? Why do kids like AppleJacks? They just do.
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
@Gammaclipper
Of course I don't know for sure that it is wrong, I never pretended to epistemic certainty. And I am open to arguments that suggest that I am wrong about the particulars of value, but I am not open to the vapid argument that because we cannot know objective goods, that your values should be respected. This position is arbitrary because if we cannot know objective goods, there is no good reason to respect individual choice and autonomy.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
Why should I value your right to choose if all talk of objective values or goods is nonsense? Obviously you could still be right about value, but I don't think you are because the fact-value distinction cannot cope with out ethical experience. You may be tempted to explain away states of valuation in biologistic terms, but this means that the experience of having learned something in terms of ethics is just an illusion, and phenomenologically that does not make sense.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
You just wrote a bunch of words that make very little sense in the context of each other.
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
@Gammaclipper
The length limit on Youtube comments ensures that they are not conducive to expressing relatively complex points.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
So, because we can't observe the intangible, my moral values should not be respected but yours should? Nice philosophy, I wish to adopt it as my own and subscribe to your newsletter.
If you really think that there is no good reason to respect my individual choice then that's your call. You are welcome to try to interfere with my autonomy but you'd run into my difference of opinion and the myriad forms of force I'm willing to use in defense of my beliefs.
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
@Gammaclipper
I think there are plenty of reasons to respect autonomy, but they are all based on the objectivity of a certain set of goods, virtues and values. My point was not that I want to necessarily limit your autonomy, but that the value of the ideal of autonomy itself depends upon the objectivity of values, and therefore that you cannot even defend your own ethical perspective by virtue of ruling out the truth value of ethical statements.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 1 year ago
@LikeAGlassAsterisk
Again with the insistence on objective moral values. Look, a moral value is just what someone thinks is right. The idea of autonomy doesn't require objective moral values. Just look at feudalism; when it was popular in Europe it was considered morally just, commoners owed their labor and loyalty to their lord. Now the idea of an absolute monarch or other supreme ruler is pretty unpopular in most of the western world. Did what is morally right change or just an opinion?
Gammaclipper 1 year ago
what crap is this! and isnt his example of "the parents coming late for pick up" taken out from Freakonomics by Steven Levitt?
I will not attend his class... a teacher who comes with a prepared speech written down on papers and dictating.. that's no Harvard teacher..
ocenty777 2 years ago
1:36 Israeli child care center example
altfuns 2 years ago
that's why they shouldn't have issued fines for late picks ups, but rather after a certain amount of late pick up, the child is excused from the daycare permanently.
;d
666norton420 2 years ago
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.
dakshinamurti 2 years ago
this guy seems full of shit to me, but I'm just a layman.
LeGioNoFZioN 2 years ago
No , No, No, No . . . NO !!
Michael Sandel. . . NO !!
Of course late pick ups increased. This is not a complicated point, and certainly not a revelation beyond the frontiers of Economics. Economics is a complicated science and you're misleading people by imposing limitations on the subject as a whole which are actually just a result of your lack of understanding of Economic theories.
You may well be an expert in your field, but Economics is clearly not your forte.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
So what kind of Economics, complicated or otherwise, explains this irrational behavior?
You have bluster, but you didn't actually offer the answer. So what's your economic explanation?
lexave 2 years ago
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.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
@ScepticalPenguin
That's not "simple", except in a trivial sense that it's easy to state. A just-so explanation that is hardly scientific, because numerically calculating that disutility is ferociously hard.
That there *is always* a utility function is another problematic assumption... but I digress.
Don't get me wrong, "utility" has utility, :) but free market fanatics make a big mistake when they model human decision making too simply. Marx made a similar mistake, in a different way.
lexave 2 years ago
No-one is trying to ascribe a numerical figure to a given amount of disutility, least of all me. We can use ordinal values and revealed preference to analyse the whole scenario. The only point i'm making is that the observation of late pick ups increasing is not a revelation which is beyond the scope of Economics. This Michael Sandel guy clearly doesn't know the first thing about Economics. That's not a crime, but he shouldn't then lecture about markets and behaviour. It's pure arrogance.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
Sure, you won't ascribe a numerical value to the utility, fine. However, you can kiss your utility function goodbye. And with it, your efficient market. ;)
There is 0 evidence that humans carry around anything looking even vaguely like a utility function for making decisions beyond the purely trivial.
Do you really believe that you understand enough about human nature, decision-making and group dynamics that your self-admittedly "simple" model will work? Isn't that a far deeper arrogance?
lexave 2 years ago
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.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
"Simple models make general predictions" that are frequently wrong. ;)
I can play at condescension too: Don't pretend you are doing Science when you're an Economist. Rule #1 of a real science is knowing to what confines your simple model is applicable. "Usually not in extremes" is something ideologues seem to forget.
And using indiff curves means you've discarded any absolute utility measure, which is why I said "decisions beyond the purely trivial". People can't compare apples to oranges.
lexave 2 years ago
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.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
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.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
Different theories? Economics is the most dogmatic science there is. If you do not except the neoclassical dogma you are out. It is not as if people throw away their bullshit mathematical models when they fail at predicting something, they just change the mathematical model.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago
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.
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
Actually, economics is more complicated than you appreciate. My criticism with the neoclassical synthesis is that they pretend they have it figured out, when in fact at best their models are heuristic devices as the phenomena they are trying to explain cannot be captured in a model. Further, there is something a distinct about human action in that it results from consciousness that makes it difficult to capture from a third person perspective...
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago
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??
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
Nah, it's really not complicated. "Anticapitalist theories share in common an inability to take human nature as it is. Rather than analyzing man
as a complex creature, anticapitalist theories tend to focus on what the theorist wishes man to be."
- Isaac Morehouse
All it comes down to is a God complex. I'm really starting to beleive those who so desperately try to discredit capitalism actually hope to get in the government scam. Isn't that what intellectual dishonesty is about?
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
The point I am really making is that the natural science model is inappropriate for economics. I have gathered more insight from heterodox economic scholars than from any practitioner of the neoclassical synthesis. The main problem with contemporary economics is that it tries so hard to be like the natural science's that it forgets the purpose of social science which is grasping the experience of social agents in the economy.
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago 6
And who are these "heterodox economic scholars" ?? - Could you provide an example?? Who is the Economist? What does he disagree about? Why does he disagree about it? And why should I accept that he is correct in his analysis? - What evidence is supporting his view??
ScepticalPenguin 2 years ago
Well there are many, but just to begin a list Veblen, Sen, Commons. Burczak, Non-Marxian Ricardian Socialists....
LikeAGlassAsterisk 2 years ago
You, economists, are emperors wearing no clothing, or, better yet, you are to science what astrology is to the cosmos, and hiding behind that smug self confidence does not change the fact that you practice junk science.
Supergompers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"you are to science what astrology is to the cosmos"
That simply is not true. Economics is just as vigorously scrutinized as the physical sciences. you can also easily see the proof their economics works when looking at world poverty levels. Those nations such as India and china which have recently adopted free market reforms are rising out of poverty faster they any nation has in history. The facts verify economic theory every day.
Aliothemage 1 year ago
He did not finish the study. They rose the price to something much logical and the parents DID pick up their children in time. He poorly used the study as true reference.
artformeandyou 2 years ago
Actually, he made the point perfectly. The difference between charging nothing and charging /almost/ nothing is that in the latter case people ignored their moral behavior, because the transaction became a market based one. That, basically, is his point, and the study supports it.
lexave 2 years ago
Why so many people (in the USA) seem to be *afraid* by the state and the government is a question I'm asking. So they prefer to rely on private corporations ? Or mafia ? Or... what... ? Or just themselves, like the cave men ? Duh ??
becomepostal 2 years ago
A willingness to pay doesn't change the essential and basic fact that when anyone IS unwilling to pay, (and these people certainly exist), the taxes are indeed ENFORCED at the point of a gun. The fact that enforcement isn't necessary for most citizens is completely irrelevant. Concerning the roads and etc. - You don't seem to be familiar with basic libertarian arguments... which for the record I haven't even endorsed here. To be blunt, your questions have been answered thousands of times over.
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
Comment removed
EsotericThrone 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is realllly evil.
danbblau 2 years ago
It's the cultural norms and morality...
GBS990 2 years ago
The fact that this video pissed off the various Randroids and internet libertarians only makes it better, in my opinion. Favorited.
niriafanorev 2 years ago 6
Plus, on its own, its a nice analysis of why reducing everything to economic pluses and minuses is unhealthy and hurts our society as a whole to benefit a few. But, yes, all these internet Objectivists getting all reactionary because they see the golden age of their ideology crumbling with the world economy and a new zietgeist blossoming is AWESOME.
eirefrance 2 years ago 3
It can be argued that all people in society benefit when the people which comprise that society are healthy and educated.
Education and health care should be available to all.
kshackleton 2 years ago 4
Sure, ed and hc should be available for a price!
If the market were free in education, the cost would come down and more could afford it. Quality would go up for the poor as well. If the economy were free, it would generate more money, and charitable orgs would distribute more aid, and do it more effectively, than any govt welfare or socialized med program ever could.
Big govt hurts the poor more than the rich. Rich can buy influence. Poor get screwed.
freesk8 2 years ago
If education and health care are provided for free, through taxes, then *everyone* can afford it.
Everyone benefits from an educated and healthy populace.
If you want to see free market economics run amok....go check out a third world country.
Mixed economies seem to work best for most of the people.
kshackleton