Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
The Moral Limits of Markets | New Economic Thinking | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: The Moral Limits of Markets
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Share:
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
Transcript Extraction Form
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.
Chrome Extension