YouTube Transcript:
The Moral Limits of Markets

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

Video Transcript

what should be the role of money and

markets in our society when I was a kid

seren and Rob maybe you had the same

experience if you went to an amusement

park part of the experience was waiting

in long lines for the popular rides that

no one liked waiting in the lines but

that was just what happened today that's

no longer

true in most amusement

parks if you don't like standing in long

lines and if you have the money you can

buy a FastTrack or VIP ticket pay extra

and jump to the head of the

line This is a small aspect of social

life hardly the hardly the most Grievous

moral challenge we face it also happens

in another place in Washington DC on Capitol

Capitol

Hill when Congress holds hearings

they set aside a certain number of seats

for the public on a first come first

serve basis there are many people who

want to sit in on the Congressional

hearings especially if it's a hot issue

but who don't want to stand in the long

lines that sometimes form a day in

advance sometimes two or three days in

advance it's now possible if you don't

want to stand in the line to attend the

Congressional hearing to go to a

company pay them a certain amount of money

money

and they will hire someone a homeless

person or someone else who needs to work

to stand in line for you you pay the

company $50 an

hour if the line is 2 3 4 days

long that's quite an expensive seat but

if you're a lobbyist you don't have time

to spare and so you can pay to get a

place at the head of the line and when

the hearing begins you can claim your

front row seat

one of the companies that specializes in

providing this service is called lineand

docomo get you a seat if you want to sit

in on oral arguments before the US

Supreme Court so if you were Keen to

hear the oral arguments over Obamacare

over or over same-sex marriage you could

to assure that you got in take another

very different kind of example if you're

a drug company and want to Market a new

drug to increase your market share we

take this for granted now most European

countries don't allow it but you can

Market it directly to Consumers on

television you've probably Seen Those

ads on the Nightly News or on sporting

events in fact if you've watched those

ads those incessant ads for prescription

drugs you could be forgiven for thinking

that the greatest Health crisis in the

world is not malaria or sleeping

sickness or river

blindness but a rampant epidemic of erectile

erectile

dysfunction marketing drugs directly to

Consumers we didn't always do it

Congress made it permissible a couple of

decades ago or take an even more fateful

kind of

example the way we F our Wars in Iraq and

and

Afghanistan there were more private

military contractors on the ground than

there were US military troops now this

isn't because we ever had a public

debate about whether we wanted to

Outsource War to private companies but

this is this is what has happened over

the past three

decades almost without realizing it

we've drifted

from having a market economy to becoming

a market

Society the difference is this a market

economy is a tool a valuable and

effective tool for organizing productive

activity but a market Society is a place

where everything is up for sale it's a

way of

life in which Market values and Market

thinking begin to reach into almost

every sphere of

Life Family Life personal relations

health education Civic life politics and

so the question I would like to put to

you for discussion this evening

is why should we

worry should we worry about becoming a

market Society I think there are at

least two reasons to worry but I want to

get your thoughts about it the first is that

that

the more things money can buy the more

it hurts to be poor the more it matters

whether you're affluent or

poor if the only thing

money governed access to were fancy

vacations and

BMWs inequality wouldn't matter all that

inequality putting a price on everything

the rampant commodification of social

life makes things makes it

harder to be

poor if money governs

access as it

does to where you live whether you live

in a safe neighborhood or a crimer

ridden one where you can whether you can

send your kids to a good school or not

very good

school what political voice you have

then inequality matters a lot more than

it otherwise would so one reason to

worry is that if more and more of life is

commodified how much money you have

looms much

larger but there's also a second worry

reason to worry about becoming a market

society and that has to do with a

something subtler the tendency of Market

thinking and Market values

to crowd out or to erode non-market

values worth caring about now to explore

this aspect of commodification or the

marketization of social life I'd like to

see what you think

think

about a certain story an

example to do with the wallus hunt in

the Arctic in the north of Canada for

centuries the Inuits built their lives

around subsistence walrus

hunting and then the 19th

century more and more came to hunt the

more and more people came Hunters to

hunt The

Walrus and The Walrus is not very good

at defending itself they are very slow

unthreatening creatures they were no

match for hunters with guns the

population was

decimated and so the Canadian government

banned walrus hunting but carved out an

exception a small exception a quota of

walrus's that the Inuit people could

continue to hunt to preserve their way of

life decades passed and then

recently the Inuit people came to the

Canadian government with a proposal a

proposal in the spirit of the age I

suppose you could say they said look we

we could use some extra income won't you let

let us

sell our quota of walruses to Big Game

Hunters who would like to come shoot

them we won't increase the number of

walruses shot we'll keep within our

quoda but if we can sell the right to

shoot the walruses then

we can make new income as guides we'll

take the hunters out we'll show them

where the walruses are they will shoot

them we'll Harvest them skin them we

will use the skin and the meat and the

blubber just as we always have done but

now we will have a new source of income

now from the standpoint of standard

economic reasoning this seems like a

pretty unobjectionable

proposal no more wall walruses are

killed than would otherwise be the case

everybody is better off there are big

game Hunters now who have the chance to

do what they couldn't do before go up to

the Arctic and shoot a walrus the Inuit

Community will make more

money so from the standpoint of standard

economic reasoning it sounds like a

pretty good

deal and yet some people

people

OB let's hear what people I'd like to

hear what people here have to say about

this case if you were the Canadian

government if you were making the policy

what would be your view let's just see

by a show of hands how many would how

how many would give them the right to

sell their walrus hunting quotas raise your

not all right so we have a pretty good

division which is a great point to begin

a conversation pretty good division of

the of the room let's first

hear from someone who objects someone

who would not grant them the right to

sell the quota it's like a tradable

permit we it's used in many areas of

policy what would be wrong with that

someone who objects who can articulate a

reason um I'm afraid that this might uh

lead to some sort of a arms race kind of

a situation where once they see this money

money

stream uh you know then others will

offer more money to buy these licenses

and then inovit could go and Lobby the

Canadian government why don't you

increase the number of Wes we can kill

uh because we'll generate more income

and and we'll give you a cut as some

sort of attacks to the Canadian

government and so they would see it's

win win win all the way except for the

walruses you know

so something the walruses wouldn't win

on that scenario on the arms race

scenario it's a bit of the slippery SL

the slippery slope to killing more

walruses because everyone will want a

piece of the revenue no that's all right

but let me just ask you this does that

prevent the further demand to kill more

walruses it it's okay it will lead you

mean as a practical matter they will see

a revenue raising opportunity here and

that will happen and it will prove irresistible

irresistible

yes it will prove itable all right so

now that's an objection that worries

about how this thing will

unfold and you're worried about the

walruses losing out in the end um but

it's different from the objection in

principle that was raised that just

finds it somehow morally objectionable

to cater to the to these preferences

desires to shoot a walrus that that

doesn't bother you no we don't apply it

uniformally we kill uh unless you are a

vegetarian you are killing all kinds of

animals and then we don't seem to be

worried about that so why are we worried

about Wales okay let's see if there's

someone else let's see if there's

someone else uh yes in the blue shirt I

think I guess I go by a principle that

cultures require some kind of uh

principal rules of some kind uh that are

not up for sale I mean and while in this

case you're asking the Canadian

government to impose a particular rule

or to reinforce a traditional rule uh of

the Inuit upon the Inuit when they

decide that or at least some of their

representatives are asking for uh

relaxation of that rule I would say um

you know in most cases I would I would

not want to to have a commodification of

a particular valuable cultural property

like that but what is what actually is

being commodified here what value is

being commodified do you think the same

number of walruses are dying no more

until this liy slope kicks

in but just on the matter of

principle the symbolic un you're

changing the symbolic universe of the

culture okay which may have already been

changed by other factors which but in

any case you're you're

institutionalizing the if the W I don't

know Inu culture well enough to know if

the walrus has some kind of you know uh

role in it but any case by selling this

right you're changing the symbolic

Universe in a way that all right

changing the symbolic Universe somehow

all right we'll have to try to elaborate

that a little bit let's see see if

there's someone who all right what what

would you say Yes um do you care about

the way of life of the uh Native people

up there and if so that's something the

government gave thought to and if

they're going to sell the hunting rights

that changes their way of life so I I

don't know the answer to where that

leads but that does change things and

the other topic is as the government the

Canadian government you just say well

you know X number okay to kill that they

can maintain the population and if

that's the way you want to go then you

say okay well then whoever pays the most

to kill each one is that as a government

what you want do that's interesting so

there you know I'm not quite sure why

not auction off directly the right you

know someone for a million dollars can

go kill one and the Canadian government

would maximize income that way and that

and probably they don't want to do that

because probably if they think that

hunting is a sport that people should

all do the same they just want to

control the number killed but not

necessarily allow just the highest

biders to do it but separately do they

want the native people to continue their

way of life okay that's interesting why

not just let the Canadian government

specify the number of walruses and then

have an outright auction what do you

suppose by the way they uh the market

going market rate is for coming and

shooting of walrus I don't know know but

it's probably pretty high and probably

lots of people who like to hunt couldn't

afford it and then you have the whole

question does a sport become um

something that's just to the higher

bitter or is it something that people as

as citizens should equally have access

to a lottery or whatever to be able to

okay let's let's hear if there are some

we've heard a number of people who are

uneasy with this policy but at least

half the half the Gathering here favored

it so let's hear now from someone who

who having heard the arguments against

against has a rejoinder um I think the

Inuits they have the rights to um get

more U welfare from the Canadian

government to advance um their

well-being and I think that's a

legitimate cause for them to to trade

and sell this and this legitimate cause

will override the animal protectionism

which is um in favor of the rights for

wallrus I think um people wait wait wait

animal protectionism though remember no

more walruses are dying what's the

animal protectionism CL I think well the

animal protectionism is um the argument

of the professor the slippery oh I see

the worry that sooner or later more will

be taken if we um if we take out that

possibility then I think um the Ino

definitely have a legitimate cause to

walruses it's not like hunting a

rhinoceros mhm or a a lion or something

where there is the thrill of the chase

where it's risky where it's challenging

where it is at least a kind of sport or

so I'm

told the walrus doesn't run away the

boat comes right up within 15

ft and one uh there was an account of

this in a New York Times magazine

article that described this going to

shoot a walrus like taking a very long

boat ride to shoot a bean bag

chair now I think that's behind the

suggestion that there's

something well unworthy or even maybe

perverse in the desire to do this why do

you want to do it actually the reason

they want to it's not for the sport and

the thrill it's because hunting

organizations have lists of that that

Hunters aspire to complete the the

Arctic 5 or the I don't know the Andy

five and so the walrus is one of the

ones on the list so let's suppose that

that's the reason it can't be for the

thrill of it what do you say to the argument

argument

that the that social policy and economic

reasoning even shouldn't count certain

preferences if they're Bas in unworthy

like this one what what would you say to

that um I think um we have a lot of

unworthy Desires in our daily lives and

those people

if they don't if they don't instead of

killing walrus they might probably end

up killing like people on the street and

I would say that that kind of act

activity is a recreational activity that

help people to release their desire and

people would pay for that because

there's a demand for releasing that

desire and I

think commodifying this uh activity is a

good way for the society to release that

kind of

and at the same time generate some that

can benefit at the end day I see okay so

you have a kind of moral economy of

violence or or a vice such that if it's

if it's not given expression here it'll

come out there so why not let them shoot

walruses is there someone else who would

like to defend the policy against the

objections that we've heard hearing the

argument I'm a walrus and I'd be a lot

happier with some sensible regulation

that would help ensure that more

walruses weren't killed absent that

regulation all right it's a version of

the slippery slope but it's on the side

of possibility that it would go without

regulation that's sensible to contain

the kill but now we're assuming assuming

that there is regulation in place and

that it won't give way which admittedly

could be challenge who else who else

would like to reply in defense of this I

guess I would make an argument um in

terms of the inu's right right and uh

saying who are we or who is the Canadian

government to have any say in the rights

that they would have had if Canada

doesn't exist in the first place in

which case they could do whatever they

wanted with the walruses so that would

be my argument in response so you agree

there should be a limit to protect the

walruses but what they do with their

quota is up to them yeah well I think

that the AR one of the arguments against

it sort of has a sense of um

protectionism of another culture that I

think is hard to justify to say well we

think that this is the way you've always

done that and it's a I think it's a

false belief that cultures need to

remain uh stagnant over time when they

don't in fact so the those who would

prevent them selling their quotas are

imposing on the Inuit Community a

certain conception about what's for

their own good yeah all right there

there's another

example this one from American history

of a policy that enabled people to buy and

and

sell a certain kind of

quota military service during the Civil

War the first draft law in the

north Abraham Lincoln's draft law had

the provision that if you

were there was lot there was a lottery

and there was conscription Community by community

community

and if you were drafted to fight in the

Civil War and didn't want to go and had

the money you could hire a substitute to

take your place people ran ads in the

classified ad sections of

newspapers uh advertising offering money

for substitutes

$1,000 up to $1,500 typically which was

a lot of money in those days to go take

your place to fight in the Civil War now

both parties you think about it from the

standpoint of economic reasoning both

parties are better off it was worth it

for the person hiring The Substitute

otherwise they wouldn't have offered the

money it was worth it for the person who

agreed to serve in his place now let's

take a quick vote on on that one how

many and here let's ask whether people

find this um find the system

objectionable or acceptable how many

objectionable and how many find it

acceptable okay a

handful most people here consider the

Civil War system unfair let's see how

many people think it's that an all

volunteer army of the kind we currently

have is unfair and how many think it is

fair how many think that the all

volunteer army is a fair way of

allocating military service a lot of

voting all right what these

what these examples suggest and this

really is the beginning not the end of a

discussion about how military service

should be allocated and whether it

should be by the labor

ask is what value exactly is being

violated why should military

service not be allocated by the labor

market but most other jobs are what is

it about military service we let people

buy and buy and sell other their labor

in other areas of life including risky

ones what is different or is there

something intrinsically different about

military surface in this respect someone

who voted who thinks doesn't like the

volunteer army should probably answer go

ahead because of patriotism and loyalty

to one's country and why do why do

patriotism and loyalty to one's country

mean that you shouldn't buy and sell

military service because it seems that

um you know seem that the country is

giving you so much you would you should

have a duty to your country and not sell

that responsibility to someone else and

try to get out of that Duty it's inh

here like it's basically something you

have to do because of what the country

has done for you so you can't just sell

that so if it's a civic duty right then

there seems something wrong with hiring

someone else to perform it right so if

you're called to jury D Duty yes you're

not allowed to hire a substitute to take

your place or for that matter your

vote it's an interesting question for

from an economic standpoint why should

there not be a free market in votes many

people don't even use their vote in the

election so what's wrong with it well if

you're right

about civic duty we do hesitate to allow

people to sell off or hire other people

to fulfill their civic duties what these

two examples

illustrate the walrus hunting and the

question of military service and civic

duty is

that we hesitate to allow buying and

selling of a of social practices or

think that some other value some higher value

value

is at

stake some higher

Norm patriotism and loyalty

loyalty

or the desire to accommodate the way of

life of the Inuit people but if this is

true then there are two I think two

implications for the way we do economics

that we need to

consider economists often assume that

markets are inert that they do not touch

or taint or change the goods they

exchange and this may be true

enough if we're talking about material

Goods like flat screen televisions if

you sell me a flat screen television or

give me one as a gift it will work just

the same either way the value of the

television won't vary depending on

whether there was a market relationship

but the same may not be

true when we're talking about

health or education or the environment

or the respect for the community and

culture of peoples same may not be true

when we're talking about Civic

duties in cases like these subjecting

social practices to Market valuation and

exchange may change their meaning may

change the character of the goods and it

may do so by crowding out the market

values may crowd out values Norms attitudes

attitudes

worth caring

about if that's true then to decide

where markets

belong and where they don't it's not

enough to engage in economics as if it

were a value neutral science of choice

that's how economics has presented

itself really since early in the 20th

century as a value neutral science of

choice but if Market reasoning and

Market practices crowd out values Norms

attitudes non-market Goods then we have

to ask in any given instance where we

would use a market mechanism what are

the goods at stake in the

practice whether they are Civic Goods or

communal Goods or cultural Goods or

environmental ones and will marketizing

the practice drive those out or diminish

or or erode them

but this carries a big implication for

economics which is it has to

reconnect with its origins in moral and

political philosophy back when economics was

was

invented the classical economists from

Adam Smith to Carl Marx and John Stewart

Mill they all understood their subject

economics to be a subfield of moral and

political philosophy

and and as markets today reach into more

and more spheres of social life that

feature of

Economics is one that I think we need to

reconnect with economics has to be reod

as a as a branch of moral philosophy

there's a second consequence

consequence

for if it's true that marketizing Goods

drives out certain attitudes and Norms

worth caring about and it's it's it's a

consequence for our public discourse

during the same

period that we've drifted into having a

market Society our public discourse has

become emptied of larger

meaning politics has become narrowly

kind of managerial and technocratic and

then we have the shouting matches on

cable television and talk radio and on

the floor of Congress and people wonder

why and sometimes the answer they give

is that too many people believe too

deeply in their moral convictions I

think something closer to the opposite

is true I think the reason our public

discourse is so impoverished is that it

fails to engage with larger questions of

meaning and moral purpose including

questions about how to Value Goods how

to Value the the social goods embodied

in practices from Health to education to

the environment to Civic life

now we tend to shy

away we tend to shy away from engaging

directly with arguments about the

meaning of goods in public life and the

reason we shy

away is we realize these are

controversial judgments people disagree about

about

them and so we reach for a kind of public

public

discourse that's empty of those big

questions and so I think the rise of

Market reasoning this is part of the

appeal of Market reasoning it seems to

offer a value neutral way of making

social choice that seems to spare us the

need to engage in debate about the

character of

goods but it's a false promise it's led

to the hollowing out to The Emptiness of

public discourse that we see all around

us it explains I think why citizens of

democracies not just here but around the

world are

frustrated with the terms the

Alternatives being offered by political

parties and by

reason I think we have two

reasons to

reconnect with big questions in public

discourse about economics one is it's

the only way we will be able to

decide as a Democratic Society where

markets serve the public good and where

they don't belong and second it's the only

only

way to elevate the terms of our public

discourse to engage with big things

nobody is inspired by technocratic

technocratic

managerial talk I don't suggest that we

will all agree if we have a morally more

robust kind of public

discourse but I do

think we will make this democracy better

we'll cultivate habits of listening and

learn listening to and learning from one

another even where the disagreements

persist and we also May develop a Keener

sense of the price we

pay for drifting toward a

thanks first of all thank you that's

very inspiring in uh how I say taking

the lid off the C worms that we have to

uh to delve into as I listen to your two

examples about the

Inuit and I have done a little bit of

running around up

in high latitudes myself but not hunting

I'm sorry not hunting you've been

fishing up there not hunting Sailing

sailing sailing okay but

uh uh and also when you talked about the

uh question of a voluntary Army the

thing that

makes me uncomfortable is that when

economists talk about episodes like that

they talk about them as though they're

devoid of

context a voluntary

Army will naturally push people who are

closer to

despair into risking their lives and

that's not a free choice that's a

coerced choice in my experience in

dealing with uh Eskimo culture

they pay tribute to the animals they

kill as part of their organic system and

their and the feelings they have

relative to the spirits and the

gods and when they start to let other

guys come in for

sport and shoot those animals to take

money are they not deforming something

that's dear to their

Traditions which they're doing as a

choice out of Despair to take care of of

people in a in a culture that's fighting

for subsistence so I I experienced some

abrasion in these examples that they're

really not free choices they're they're

coerced choices and we're just not

acknowledging that we're pushing people

up against the wall before they make the

choice yeah it's an it's an interesting

observation and I think what it points

to is there are really two and I think

this helps Force us to distinguish

between two

different questions we need to

ask before we can decide whether to

marketize a certain social practice one

is is the

choice really free how voluntary is the

exchange because part of the appeal of

markets is that it involves the

voluntary exchange among willing

participants so for example in the

debate about whether there should be a

free market in organs for

transplantation kidneys let's

say most countries don't permit it

but one

objection would be just along the lines

that you mentioned Rob that if if it if

there were a market in kidneys and the

sellers were desperately poor peasants

in the development

world who were under great economic

compulsion to feed their families to

provide an education for their family it

would be hard to call that choice

free we would say we might well say that

the that the coercion is built into the

necessity of their

situation if it's a desperate

deal so that's one issue how free is it

is the choice and then the second issue

free it might still be degrading take

the debate about

prostitution some object to prostitution

on the ground that typically prostitutes

are are coerced in effect by drug

addiction or desperate need for

money but then we could ask all right

what about imagine a roughly equal

Society or imagine prostitutes who were

not under great economic

necessity who freely

chose that

work would that remove all possible

objection well not necessarily because

there would still be the further

question about whether this whether

selling one's body for sex is consistent

with human dignity or respect for the

human person or whether it's degrading

independent of the question of Freedom

versus coercion so there really two

issues we have to two questions we have

to ask

is it truly

voluntary and secondly even if it

is um is this choice at odds with human

dignity or respect for the culture in

question or in this case human

sexuality and this takes us right to

questions about the good and those are

the questions that we hesitate to debate

in public discourse and I think we've

got to try to get over that habit we're

afraid to have public discussions about

deep values I think because there's a

pervasive fear that somehow they will be

more conflict ridden and violent and yet

the truth of the matter is is that the

effects of the commodification of value

are is far more violent in its effects

than those

conversations that so it it's a real

sort of distortion has taken place in

our understanding even of what violence

is and our understanding of what the

consequences are of of conflict um well

there are certainly cases

cases

where uh commodifying a good especially

under desperate circumstance where the

sellers are under desperate economic

circumstances if it's true that in those

cases it's not a voluntary Choice then

it is a kind can be can be a kind of

violence so I do I think that that's an

important Point there's also a closely

connected point

that I think one of the reasons we

hesitate to engage in public

debate about the nature of the good life

or the or the character of goods and

virtues is even if we don't think it

will lead to Wars of

religion and violence

we are concerned about the fact that in

a pluralist society we disagree about

the good so there will be controversy

there will be a clash

clash

and in a democracy we would wind up

others but I think and that's a serious

worry but it's not an answer to that

worry to say all right let's let markets

decide these questions for us for a

reason parallel to the point that that

you just made it's not that

markets will decide these questions in a

way that is neutral toward the right way

of valuing goods to consign these

questions to markets is to presuppose

that the proper way of valuing them is

as Commodities so if we don't decide

debate and decide questions of the

good in democratic public

discourse markets will decide these

questions for us it's not that there's

some neutral alternative some of us

economists after reading your book need

a little bit of advice you talk a lot

about love okay right in an earlier

session here we had two one former

Harvard professor and one current one

marcha sin and uh and uh Cornell West

and where things really heat up that

night was when a marcha offered he said

why don't we talk about love so in the Harvard

Harvard

tradition I look at the debate you've

had with Larry Summers the writings of

Dennis Robertson and also some of the

discussions in your book about giving

gifts economists would have you give

cash gifts right because otherwise

you're constraining what the person

receives right you could you could you

flesh us out and help us all with our love

love

lives well if it's and and love is

related to gift and the giving of

gift um I'd like to to get

to the topic of love and

economists through a concrete

example one of the

most influential studies about the

effect of

commodification in recent times was a

book the early 1970s by the British

sociologist Richard titmas some of you

probably remember this book it was

called the gift relationship and it was

it was about blood

donation and he compared the US and the

UK system of blood

donation in the UK there would you

couldn't buy and sell blood you could

only donate it voluntarily without pay

in the US you could donate blood at the

local Red Cross or you could sell it

there blood banks that bought and sold

it and his conclusion

was on practical and economic grounds

the British system works better a more

reliable Supply less tainted blood and

so on but he also made an ethical

argument against a market in blood

saying that if you allow the buying and

selling of

blood you drive out

out and

devalue the

altruism of

even this generated a debate including

among some economists who were paying

attention because from an economic point of

view if you have if some people want to

give stuff away and other people want to

buy and sell that that stuff both groups

should be free to proceed as they as they

they

choose just because blood is being sold

by some people somewhere doesn't mean I

can't still give it freely if I want to

The Economist would say and one

Economist who wrote a long critical

review of the titmus book fastened on

this point he's one of the most

distinguished American economists of his

time Kenneth

arrow and he

concluded his review of titmus

by making this argument against using Al

insisting on altruism as a basis for for

blood donation he said like many

economists this is Arrow I do not want

to rely too heavily on substituting

ethics for

self-interest I think it is best on the

whole that the requirement of ethical

Behavior be confined confined to those

circumstances where the price system

breaks down why he said because we do

not wish to use up recklessly the scarce

resources of altruistic

motivation so the idea

is that

altruism love sympathy generosity are

scarce resources that are depleted with use

use

now it's easy to see how this I would

call it economis IC conception of virtue if

if true

true

provides uh Good Grounds for extending

markets into every sphere of life

because other people can still go on

doing what they want if they want to be

generous and so on what I didn't realize

when I first so it's the idea that that

generosity and virtue are like fossil

fuels the more you use the less you have

I didn't realize when I read this that

this draws this this idea goes

back among economists this economistic

view of virtue to a highly respected

Cambridge UK

Economist who gave a speech at the

bicentennial of Columbia University here

not far from

here and the subject of his

lecture was what does it was a question

what does The Economist

economize and this this was U

this was Sir Dennis Robertson this is in

1954 at

Columbia and his answer was look he

realizes economists deal with the

aggressive impulses of human beings but

they still have an important moral

Mission and that is to help to to reduce

Serene to reduce the preacher task to manageable

manageable

The Economist can help by promoting

policies that rely whenever possible on

self-interest rather than altruism or

moral considerations and by doing this

The Economist save Society from

squandering its scarce supply of virtue

so here's where the idea first finds

full articulation and he ended with this

if we economists do our business well we

can I believe contribute mightily to the

economizing of that scarce resource love

the most precious thing in the

world now to those not steeped in

economics this seems like a strange way of

thinking I mean

imagine imagine a loving

couple would they really think to

themselves that they should treat one

another for the most part when they can

in calculating fashion so as to save

their love for the moments when they

really need it

that's the idea of hoarding love

love

and or would they or would it turn out

that loving acts toward one another

actually would

increase this Resource One I I heard

echoes of this years later Rob mentioned

that I had a actually taught a course

which was a series of debates with my my

colleague Larry Summers a course on

globalization and and markets

and when when he was president of

Harvard he was asked to to give the

morning prayer in Memorial Church at

Harvard and his theme

was um what economics can contribute to

thinking about moral questions

questions

and at the end of his his prayer his

commentary he he replied to those who

criticize markets for relying on

selfishness and greed and this is what

he said quote we all have only so much

altruism in US economists like me and

I'm quoting still think of altruism is a

valuable and rare good that needs

conserving far better to conserve it by

designing a system in which people's

wants will be

satisfied by individuals being selfish

and saving that altruism for our

families our friends in the many social

problems in this world that markets

cannot solve so this is Robertson

amazing uh reated

reated

now the metaphor I think is

misleading altruism generosity

solidarity and Civic Spirit these are

not like Commodities that are depleted with

with

use I think they're more like the the

better better metaphor is to think of

them as as muscles that grow stronger

with exercise and I think one of the

defects of the market Society we have

come to inhabit is that gives us fewer

and fewer occasion to exercise those

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…