Michael Sandel: What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets

Unlike some of the people here, I think this lecture was good! The best thing about Sandel's lecture is that it doesn't lead to the "answer" he has in mind but that it keeps people thinking on both sides of the argument! Brilliant!

The best mind, heart and educator I have seen in my last 40 years of life. Honoured and grateful to have discovered his works and thoughts.

This is astonishing. I've always seen things in a complete economic, materialistic point of view, for it seems as though the rational thing to do; but there's apparently a flaw in standard economic reasoning, when it comes to morality. The research cases about nuclear waste and donation by kids really strike me. Seems I've been underestimating people's attitudes and social practices when it comes to values and norms and non-material demands.

I adore to watch Sandel take such a refreshing approach.. Certainly one of the leading ethical/political thinkers today..

Love that a 17 year old is the most insightful of the bunch.

behavioral economics is so interesting

This is a better lecture not only discussed among students, but more levels of people are participating in, they've got their unique life experience respectively, they can tell more with that. Money is so strong, and powerful tool for people on earth to control and manage others. That is really the success of market economy. Money itself is kind of power, only government, the central bank has the power to release money, that is money.

So marvellous! As usual, truly speaking. Apparently, there are certain things that cannot be replaced by anywho and anything. Something that is a virtue for us can't be for sale. Something that we truly must protect and try to discourage any exposure on it. Our behavioral underlying principles in some cases contradict the common sense for the sake of our existence, I guess. Reasoning of math, economyics, physics isn't able to explain every single deviation of us from the common sense. We get to know more, we get to see more, but there is something that perhaps will be a mystery for a long time.

While I do agree that turning causes into financial transactions may corrupt the intrinsic values in these causes, let's take, for instance, the example of the Swiss community turning down the "bribe"-- I think the discussion missed to raise the issue that Switzerland has a relatively good economic standing and their constituents are relatively leading better lives than the rest of the world. Because of this, it is easier for them to act out of their civic responsibilities because they feel secure enough to survive despite the risks. But what about those living on the poorer side of the globe? These financial transactions in exchange for the risk they will take then become a MUST instead of a "learning opportunity". Those who have barely enough to survive reasonably set aside cultivating life values because they are busy trying to survive and afford daily essentials.

That's a deep insight. Uncertainties are cleared now

Karen is such a Karen

money is one of the best incentives, depnds how you use it, and the context is used, the value bsed context

I love his examples. They're emotionally moving while being thought provoking at the same time.

From my visits to America I can confirm that there are separate societies within this country and people live different lives. There are benefits and there are drawbacks. Major benefit I see is elimination of envy on the poor side, and elimination of mess (in all possible meanings) on the rich side. The major drawback I see is that the poor understand the reason why some people are rich, because they don't know them. This might turn back on the rich.

So my grandfather was way ahead of his time and market. In the mid 1980s, at the end of every term (aka semester), he paid ONE shilling for whoever was 1st position in class, 50 cents for 2nd place, and 25 cents for 3rd place. And we (the scholars) were beside ourselves whenever we earned our keep.

As kids, we start off getting grades for what our teachers/parents want us to learn, but eventually, if we're really, really lucky, we wake up to an "epiphany" moment and realize what a joy it is to learn, a moment that carries us through our whole lifetimes. BUT that's because we want to please others, to be acknowledged by others, not by money?

i find it fascinating that many attendees believed that we should not use a cash incentive to cultivate the love of learning in children (a public good), but do not consider the many ways that we already use cash incentives to cultivate public goods, like affordable housing (Low Income Housing Tax Credit), the purchase of real estate (mortgage interest deduction), or business development in low-income areas (New Markets Tax Credits . . .

There MUST be something in between? What if humans are extreme?

children should be motivated reading books because is good for them. And how good it is should the teacher demonstrate. Many has a limited value, education is life

I think there is a real possibility that Xaviar and Karen came from two different economic experiences.