*
*
*Market thinking so permeates our lives that we barely notice it
anymore. A leading philosopher sums up the hidden costs of a price-tag
society.*
By Michael J. Sandel <http://www.theatlantic.com/michael-j-sandel/>
There are some things money can’t buy—but these days, not many. Almost
everything is up for sale. For example:
• *A prison-cell upgrade: $90 a night. *In Santa Ana, California, and some
other cities, nonviolent offenders can pay for a clean, quiet jail cell,
without any non-paying prisoners to disturb them.
• *Access to the carpool lane while driving solo: $8. *Minneapolis, San
Diego, Houston, Seattle, and other cities have sought to ease traffic
congestion by letting solo drivers pay to drive in carpool lanes, at rates
that vary according to traffic.
• *The services of an Indian surrogate mother: $8,000. *Western couples
seeking surrogates increasingly outsource the job to India, and the price
is less than one-third the going rate in the United States.
• *The right to shoot an endangered black rhino: $250,000. *South Africa
has begun letting some ranchers sell hunters the right to kill a limited
number of rhinos, to give the ranchers an incentive to raise and protect
the endangered species.
• *Your doctor’s cellphone number: $1,500 and up per year. *A growing
number of “concierge” doctors offer cellphone access and same-day
appointments for patients willing to pay annual fees ranging from $1,500 to
$25,000.
• *The right to emit a metric ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere:
$10.50. *The European Union runs a carbon-dioxide-emissions market that
enables companies to buy and sell the right to pollute.
• *The right to immigrate to the United States: $500,000. *Foreigners who
invest $500,000 and create at least 10 full-time jobs in an area of high
unemployment are eligible for a green card that entitles them to permanent
residency. Not everyone can afford to buy these things. But today there are
lots of new ways to make money. If you need to earn some extra cash, here
are some novel possibilities:
• *Sell space on your forehead to display commercial advertising:
$10,000.*A single mother in Utah who needed money for her son’s
education was paid
$10,000 by an online casino to install a permanent tattoo of the casino’s
Web address on her forehead. Temporary tattoo ads earn less.
• *Serve as a human guinea pig in a drug-safety trial for a pharmaceutical
company: $7,500.* The pay can be higher or lower, depending on the
invasiveness of the procedure used to test the drug’s effect and the
discomfort involved.
• *Fight in Somalia or Afghanistan for a private military contractor: up to
$1,000 a day.* The pay varies according to qualifications, experience, and
nationality.
• *Stand in line overnight on Capitol Hill to hold a place for a lobbyist
who wants to attend a congressional hearing: $15–$20 an hour.* Lobbyists
pay line-standing companies, who hire homeless people and others to queue
up.
• *If you are a second-grader in an underachieving Dallas school, read a
book: $2.*
To encourage reading, schools pay kids for each book they read.
We live in a time when almost everything can be bought and sold. Over the
past three decades, markets— and market values—have come to govern our
lives as never before. We did not arrive at this condition through any
deliberate choice. It is almost as if it came upon us. As the Cold War
ended, markets and market thinking enjoyed unrivaled prestige, and
understandably so. No other mechanism for organizing the production and
distribution of goods had proved as successful at generating affluence and
prosperity. And yet even as growing numbers of countries around the world
embraced market mechanisms in the operation of their economies, something
else was happening. Market values were coming to play a greater and greater
role in social life. Economics was becoming an imperial domain. Today, the
logic of buying and selling no longer applies to material goods alone. It
increasingly governs the whole of life. The years leading up to the
financial crisis of 2008 were a heady time of market faith and
deregulation—an era of market triumphalism.
The era began in the early 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher
proclaimed their conviction that markets, not government, held the key to
prosperity and freedom. And it continued into the 1990s with the
market-friendly liberalism of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who moderated
but consolidated the faith that markets are the primary means for achieving
the public good. Today, that faith is in question. The financial crisis did
more than cast doubt on the ability of markets to allocate risk
efficiently. It also prompted a widespread sense that markets have become
detached from morals, and that we need to somehow reconnect the two. But
it’s not obvious what this would mean, or how we should go about it. Some
say the moral failing at the heart of market triumphalism was greed, which
led to irresponsible risk-taking. The solution, according to this view, is
to rein in greed, insist on greater integrity and responsibility among
bankers and Wall Street executives, and enact sensible regulations to
prevent a similar crisis from happening again. This is, at best, a partial
diagnosis. While it is certainly true that greed played a role in the
financial crisis, something bigger was and is at stake. The most fateful
change that unfolded during the past three decades was not an increase in
greed. It was the reach of markets, and of market values, into spheres of
life traditionally governed by nonmarket norms.
To contend with this condition, we need to do more than inveigh against
greed; we need to have a public debate about where markets belong—and where
they don’t. Consider, for example, the proliferation of for-profit schools,
hospitals, and prisons, and the outsourcing of war to private military
contractors. (In Iraq and Afghanistan, private contractors have actually
outnumbered U.S. military troops.) Consider the eclipse of public police
forces by private security firms—especially in the U.S. and the U.K., where
the number of private guards is almost twice the number of public police
officers. Or consider the pharmaceutical companies’ aggressive marketing of
prescription drugs directly to consumers, a practice now prevalent in the
U.S. but prohibited in most other countries. (If you’ve ever seen the
television commercials on the evening news, you could be forgiven for
thinking that the greatest health crisis in the world is not malaria or
river blindness or sleeping sickness but an epidemic of erectile
dysfunction.) Consider too the reach of commercial advertising into public
schools, from buses to corridors to cafeterias; the sale of “naming rights”
to parks and civic spaces; the blurred boundaries, within journalism,
between news and advertising, likely to blur further as newspapers and
magazines struggle to survive; the marketing of “designer” eggs and sperm
for assisted reproduction; the buying and selling, by companies and
countries, of the right to pollute; a system of campaign finance in the
U.S. that comes close to permitting the buying and selling of elections.
These uses of markets to allocate health, education, public safety,
national security, criminal justice, environmental protection, recreation,
procreation, and other social goods were for the most part unheard-of 30
years ago.
Today, we take them largely for granted. Why worry that we are moving
toward a society in which everything is up for sale? For two reasons. One
is about inequality, the other about corruption. First, consider
inequality. In a society where everything is for sale, life is harder for
those of modest means. The more money can buy, the more affluence—or the
lack of it—matters. If the only advantage of affluence were the ability to
afford yachts, sports cars, and fancy vacations, inequalities of income and
wealth would matter less than they do today. But as money comes to buy more
and more, the distribution of income and wealth looms larger. The second
reason we should hesitate to put everything up for sale is more difficult
to describe. It is not about inequality and fairness but about the
corrosive tendency of markets. Putting a price on the good things in life
can corrupt them. That’s because markets don’t only allocate goods; they
express and promote certain attitudes toward the goods being exchanged.
Paying kids to read books might get them to read more, but might also teach
them to regard reading as a chore rather than a source of intrinsic
satisfaction. Hiring foreign mercenaries to fight our wars might spare the
lives of our citizens, but might also corrupt the meaning of citizenship.
Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not affect the
goods being exchanged. But this is untrue. Markets leave their mark.
Sometimes, market values crowd out nonmarket values worth caring about.
When we decide that certain goods may be bought and sold, we decide, at
least implicitly, that it is appropriate to treat them as commodities, as
instruments of profit and use.
But not all goods are properly valued in this way. The most obvious example
is human beings. Slavery was appalling because it treated human beings as a
commodity, to be bought and sold at auction. Such treatment fails to value
human beings as persons, worthy of dignity and respect; it sees them as
instruments of gain and objects of use. Something similar can be said of
other cherished goods and practices. We don’t allow children to be bought
and sold, no matter how difficult the process of adoption can be or how
willing impatient prospective parents might be. Even if the prospective
buyers would treat the child responsibly, we worry that a market in
children would express and promote the wrong way of valuing them. Children
are properly regarded not as consumer goods but as beings worthy of love
and care. Or consider the rights and obligations of citizenship. If you are
called to jury duty, you can’t hire a substitute to take your place. Nor do
we allow citizens to sell their votes, even though others might be eager to
buy them. Why not? Because we believe that civic duties are not private
property but public responsibilities. To outsource them is to demean them,
to value them in the wrong way. These examples illustrate a broader point:
some of the good things in life are degraded if turned into commodities. So
to decide where the market belongs, and where it should be kept at a
distance, we have to decide how to value the goods in question—health,
education, family life, nature, art, civic duties, and so on. These are
moral and political questions, not merely economic ones.
To resolve them, we have to debate, case by case, the moral meaning of
these goods, and the proper way of valuing them. This is a debate we didn’t
have during the era of market triumphalism. As a result, without quite
realizing it—without ever deciding to do so—we drifted from having a market
economy to being a market society. The difference is this: A market economy
is a tool—a valuable and effective tool—for organizing productive activity.
A market society is a way of life in which market values seep into every
aspect of human endeavor. It’s a place where social relations are made over
in the image of the market. The great missing debate in contemporary
politics is about the role and reach of markets. Do we want a market
economy, or a market society? What role should markets play in public life
and personal relations? How can we decide which goods should be bought and
sold, and which should be governed by nonmarket values? Where should
money’s writ not run? Even if you agree that we need to grapple with big
questions about the morality of markets, you might doubt that our public
discourse is up to the task. It’s a legitimate worry. At a time when
political argument consists mainly of shouting matches on cable television,
partisan vitriol on talk radio, and ideological food fights on the floor of
Congress, it’s hard to imagine a reasoned public debate about such
controversial moral questions as the right way to value procreation,
children, education, health, the environment, citizenship, and other goods.
I believe such a debate is possible, but only if we are willing to broaden
the terms of our public discourse and grapple more explicitly with
competing notions of the good life. In hopes of avoiding sectarian strife,
we often insist that citizens leave their moral and spiritual convictions
behind when they enter the public square. But the reluctance to admit
arguments about the good life into politics has had an unanticipated
consequence. It has helped prepare the way for market triumphalism, and for
the continuing hold of market reasoning. In its own way, market reasoning
also empties public life of moral argument. Part of the appeal of markets
is that they don’t pass judgment on the preferences they satisfy. They
don’t ask whether some ways of valuing goods are higher, or worthier, than
others. If someone is willing to pay for sex, or a kidney, and a consenting
adult is willing to sell, the only question the economist asks is “How
much?” Markets don’t wag fingers. They don’t discriminate between worthy
preferences and unworthy ones. Each party to a deal decides for him- or
herself what value to place on the things being exchanged. This
nonjudgmental stance toward values lies at the heart of market reasoning,
and explains much of its appeal. But our reluctance to engage in moral and
spiritual argument, together with our embrace of markets, has exacted a
heavy price: it has drained public discourse of moral and civic energy, and
contributed to the technocratic, managerial politics afflicting many
societies today.
A debate about the moral limits of markets would enable us to decide, as a
society, where markets serve the public good and where they do not belong.
Thinking through the appropriate place of markets requires that we reason
together, in public, about the right way to value the social goods we
prize. It would be folly to expect that a more morally robust public
discourse, even at its best, would lead to agreement on every contested
question. But it would make for a healthier public life. And it would make
us more aware of the price we pay for living in a society where everything
is up for sale.
Michael J. Sandel, a political philosopher at Harvard, is the author of *What
Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets*, from which this article is
adapted.
*READER COMMENTS*
That is an awesome article. Even the conclusion is good, which is rare
for socialist apologists. A debate is exactly the right solution but the
side that loses had better be willing to suck it up and agree to go along
with the program. And it can't be a loaded discussion, where one side
reaches into a religion box (or philosophy box, or natural rights box, or
some other box they have special access too and other's can't see inside
of), and pull out a "how it should be" mandate. I'm all for public debate,
like the kind we are having here but once mysticism enters the picture I'll
hold my own counsel. Morals are for churches.
<http://disqus.com/facebook-1190403383/>
Austin Barry <http://www.facebook.com/people/Austin-Barry/1190403383> 2
hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465961819>
The most absurd case of "money buys everything" i've seen was at the Port
Authority in NY. For $5, one could cut in line and board the bus first.
Some people actually paid this (but not that many, so I was still able to
get a window seat). Eventually everyone will have to pay this, or be
perpetually stuck in the back seat. Does the "concierge" doctor see a
"regular" patient with an urgent medical need before a non-urgent patient
who is a member of the "premium" club? Can I use the money I stole to pay
for a prison cell upgrade?
4 people liked this.
<http://disqus.com/google-af3a41abd70cdef407c8a7e2c926e379/>
Reece Churilla 3 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465959884>
Compellingly reasoned and beautifully written. Thank you.
<http://disqus.com/facebook-100003045783057/>
Owen Caterwall<http://www.facebook.com/people/Owen-Caterwall/100003045783057> 3
hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465937105>
Well, in a society in which the singular moral value is the acquisition
and concentration of wealth and the power and influence it can buy, who
exactly do you think is even interested in this conversation? There is
little civic energy when a government like ours can clearly be purchased (
e.g. the US Supreme Court) and subsequently encode rules that ensure those
inequalities persist. America survives, poorly, on myth. The myth of
community, shared values and sacrifice, shared goals for civic betterment,
these shibboleths have faded from the public arena. Americans are united in
clans of hatred against difference, bonded in groups that wallow in self
congratulatory pride for their inevitable redemption, and eager to sell
their freedoms to any demagogue who echos their fears and
resentments. Market values as a determinant for social conduct is no
accident. It is the crass intention of an economic system that, in the
words of the old cliche, knows the price of everything and the value of
nothing. What does it mean to be an American when our former president
encourages the belief that the best response the collective citizenry can
have to national engagement in foreign conflict is to go shopping? I think
that Professor Sandel has defined the problem as well as it can be, but his
hope for a public conversation is, I fear, a fool's quest.
2 people liked this.
<http://disqus.com/elibal/>
elibal 5 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465870971>
Absolutely right.Why this subject is not discussed more, by the
intellectuals at least.So wider audience to hear and conceive hat there is
a huge problem in the modern societyBravo and thanks to the author!!
<http://disqus.com/elibal/>
elibal 5 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465867030>
......
<http://disqus.com/facebook-100000521827258/>
Bob Andray <http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Andray/100000521827258> 9
hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465791941>
Poor old Marx was right about the commodification of all human relations.
Unfortunately, it's too late for a debate; the winners in theso-called
"free market" are not interested, and what they say goes.
2 people liked this.
<http://disqus.com/facebook-100000521827258/>
Bob Andray <http://www.facebook.com/people/Bob-Andray/100000521827258> 9
hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465791732>
Poor old Marx was right about the commodification of all human relations.
Unfortunately, it's too late for a debate; the winners in the so-called
"free market" are not nterested, and what they say goes.
(Edited by author 9 hours ago)
2 people liked this.
<http://disqus.com/openid-29799/>
Steve <http://steve.macdonald.myopenid.com/> 6 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465851256>
in
reply to Bob
Andray<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465791732>
Yeah life sucks, Bob. Gulags and reeducation courts suck a lot harder,
bub.
2 people liked this.
<http://disqus.com/catterchatter/>
catterchatter 9 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465788364>
The dearth of comments on the subject speaks for itself. Apparently
we're not interested enough to have a conversation on the topic. I'm going
back to work. I need to make more more money so as to afford my opinions.
1 person liked this.
<http://disqus.com/NowTourist/>
JustWatching 12 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465705805>
Spit on a banker. Still free.
3 people liked this.
<http://disqus.com/jossief/>
jossief 9 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465792840>
in
reply to
JustWatching<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465705805>
Not if he sues you for battery
<http://disqus.com/NowTourist/>
JustWatching 1 hour
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-466026997>
in
reply to
jossief<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465792840>
Well said. I guess it's just become part of the American dream.
<http://disqus.com/carlianschwartz/>
carlianschwartz 19 hours
ago<http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/04/what-isn-8217-t-for-sale/8902/#comment-465409825>
With everything up for sale, why is consensual prostitution (with adult
providers of services for adult customers) illegal? Politics has become
prostitution of oaths of office.
What Isn’t for Sale?
**
******
