Markets and Morals

Does it bother you that an online casino paid a Utah woman, Kari Smith, who needed money for her son’s education, $10,000 to tattoo its Web site on her forehead? Or that Project Prevention, a charity, pays women with drug or alcohol addictions $300 cash to get sterilized or undertake long-term contraception? Some 4,100 women have accepted this offer. Michael Sandel, the Harvard political theorist, cites those examples in “What Money Can’t Buy” his important and thoughtful new book. He argues that in recent years we have been slipping without much reflection into relying upon markets in ways that undermine the fairness of our society. (source: by Nicholas D. Kristof – NYTimes – 31/05/2012)

That’s one of the underlying battles this campaign year. Many Republicans, Romney included, have a deep faith in ability of laissez-faire markets to create optimal solutions. There’s something to that faith because markets, indeed, tend to be efficient. Pollution taxes are widely accepted as often preferable than rigid regulations on pollutants. It may also make sense to sell advertising on the sides of public buses, perhaps even to sell naming rights to subway stations. Still, how far do we want to go down this path? Is it right that prisoners in Santa Ana, Calif., can pay $90 per night for an upgrade to a cleaner, nicer jail cell?; Should the United States really sell immigration visas? A $500,000 investment will buy foreigners the right to immigrate; Should Massachusetts have gone ahead with a proposal to sell naming rights to its state parks? Boston Globe wondered in 2003 whether Walden Pond might become Wal-Mart Pond; Should strapped towns accept virtually free police cars that come laden with advertising on the sides? Such a deal was negotiated and ultimately collapsed, but at least one town does sell advertising on its police cars. “The marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives,” Sandel writes. “We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools. You might call it the skyboxification of American life. It’s not good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live.” “Do we want a society where everything is up for sale? Or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?” This issue goes to heart of fairness in our country. There has been much discussion recently about economic inequality, but almost no conversation about the way the spread of markets nurtures a broader, systemic inequality. We do, of course, place some boundaries on markets. I can’t buy the right to cut off your leg for my amusement. Americans can sell blood, but (perhaps mistakenly) we don’t allow markets for kidneys and other organs, even though that would probably save lives.

Wealthy people can, in effect, buy access to the president at a $40,000-a-plate dinner, but they can’t purchase a Medal of Freedom. A major political donor can sometimes buy an ambassadorship, but not to an important country. Where to draw the lines limiting the role of markets isn’t clear to me, but I’m pretty sure that we’ve already gone too far. I’m offended when governments auction naming rights to public property or sell special access, even if only to fast lanes on a highway or better cells in a jail. It is one thing for Delta Air Lines to have first class and coach. It is quite another for government to offer first class and coach in essential services that government provides. Where would this stop? Do we let people pay to get premium police and fire protection? Do we pursue an idea raised by Judge Richard Posner to auction off the right to adopt children? We already have tremendous inequality in our country: The richest 1 percent of Americans own more wealth than bottom 90 percent, according to Economic Policy Institute. But we do still have a measure of equality before law, equality in our basic dignity, and that should be priceless. “Market fundamentalism,” to use term popularized by George Soros, is gaining ground. It’s related to glorification of wealth over the last couple of decades, to the celebration of opulence, and to the emergence of a new aristocracy. Market fundamentalists assume a measure of social Darwinism and accept that laissez-faire is always optimal. That’s the dogma that helped lead to bank deregulation and the current economic mess. And anyone who honestly believes that low taxes and unfettered free markets are always best should consider moving to Pakistan’s tribal areas. They are a triumph of limited government, negligible taxes, no “burdensome regulation” and free markets for everything from drugs to AK-47s. If you’re infatuated with unfettered free markets, just visit Waziristan. 

Acerca de ignaciocovelo
Consultor Internacional

One Response to Markets and Morals

  1. Professor Uziel Nogueira says: Money making is the fundamental centerpiece of the US economic model. Market fundamentalism — that gained momentum in last few decades — is a natural off shot of the basic model. To politicize the ethic or moral aspect of it is silly. Both democrats and republicans are strong believers of the money-market model. After all, the US is the only country in the world in which we refer to a human being as he/she is ” worth a 6 figures”. Does anyone really believe that ” we do still have a measure of equality before the law — equality in our basic dignity — and that should be priceless.” ?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/opinion/kristof-markets-and-morals.html

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: