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

Dec 22, 2012 Tiffoknee the 3rd Conner rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Not to brag or anything (or maybe just to brag a little), but I actually knew of Michael Sandel's scholarship way before he wrote Justice, a book I didn't even read, but which achieved international acclaim and thus gave Sandel that coveted status of Superstar Public Intellectual. My introduction to Sandel's work was Democracy's Discontent. I did read the excerpt of What Money Can't Buy in the The Atlantic and enjoyed it. But I don't know that Dr. Sandel needed an entire book to make his argumen...more Not to brag or anything (or maybe just to brag a little), but I actually knew of Michael Sandel's scholarship way before he wrote Justice, a book I didn't even read, but which achieved international acclaim and thus gave Sandel that coveted status of Superstar Public Intellectual. My introduction to Sandel's work was Democracy's Discontent. I did read the excerpt of What Money Can't Buy in the The Atlantic and enjoyed it. But I don't know that Dr. Sandel needed an entire book to make his argument, even if it is a very important one: There are some places where markets need not be. This is not to say that there is not sometimes a time and place for markets and market principles, but to become so transfixed with market ideology as to believe that it should be permitted untrammeled access into every realm of our lives is to risk the commodification and trivialization of those very things which should be sacred. Doing what's right should not become doing what's right because it's what the market decides. Too many still fail to acknowledge that markets don't always make things better, in fact they sometimes make things worse. The balance of power coming into markets isn't always equal. The motivations people may have for giving themselves up to market forces aren't universal. Sometimes people accept what may appear to be the best the market can offer out or sheer desperation, not because it is the best option. As such, it is wrong to treat markets as assured and benevolent founts of opportunity. Markets can and do exploit imbalances and inequality. Sandel's argument is most compelling when he makes the case that this type of thinking runs the risk of permanently making us a two-tiered society, the haves versus the have-nots. It's already happening. The question for Sandel is how far are we willing to let it go?

Still, Sandel often resorts to repeating himself to make his argument. And that can become a bit tiresome. Luckily, the book is short, his writing is definitely not over-academic, but his concern about the issue is apparent. I much prefer Robert Reich's writing on these subjects, but Sandel's written a good book. I'd recommend checking a copy out from the library and giving it a go. (less)

5 likes · like · see review

Mar 13, 2013 Peggie rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Yes, there are some things money can't and shouldn't buy. But I think the real gem in this book is the author's reasoning. He doesn't just say buying adoptions is bad - but gives reasoned arguments about why that is bad. It was an eye opening book.

The author has this conclusion: “At a time or rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our ch...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 02, 2013 Philip rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Spoiler Alert: there is NOTHING that money can't buy. This book argues that there SHOULD be.
Michael Sandel is Professor of Government at Harvard. He gives a very popular series of lectures on Justice each year. [They are on YouTube.]
He's a proponent/critic of the Theory of Justice (John Rawls) that suggests there should be a "veil of ignorance" applied whenever rules or laws are devised. This "veil" essentially blinds people to all facts about themselves that might cloud what their notion of jus...more

like · see review

Feb 15, 2013 Billie Pritchett rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Michael Sandel's book What Money Can't Buy argues that much of American society, and surely other post-industial nations, has shifted from dealing in a market economy to being a market society. This means that what many of what were once viewed as public or social goods have increasingly become interpreted as market or marketable goods. To take an example, whereas once line-standing at amusement parks or ball games was a shared experience for rich and poor people, now for the right price people...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 01, 2013 John Martindale rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, economics, audiobook, politics

I watched Michael Sandel's excellent lectures on Justice, on Youtube, and i found his writing style, much like his Lecturing style. Throughout the book he is asking questions and allow differing opinions to be voiced and eventually states his own view. I definitely agreed with Sandel on somethings, like bribing children to to school work, often back-fires, and how paying folks to do what its already is there duty to do, is not always the best thing. And how placing a price take on somethings che...more I watched Michael Sandel's excellent lectures on Justice, on Youtube, and i found his writing style, much like his Lecturing style. Throughout the book he is asking questions and allow differing opinions to be voiced and eventually states his own view. I definitely agreed with Sandel on somethings, like bribing children to to school work, often back-fires, and how paying folks to do what its already is there duty to do, is not always the best thing. And how placing a price take on somethings cheapens or corrupts it.

He covered things like Ticket Hawking, Paying to jump lines, paying homeless to wait in line for you, paying for a fast lane on the highway. Things like being able to buy first class plane tickets (an example he didn't give) have been around a long time, but now there are more and more areas of life, where the rich can pay for extra conveniences and privileges. To Sandel these things are not "fair," he would wish for the rich and the poor to all have to wait their turn to get on the plane and fly side by side in cramped seating. To Sandel, its not fair for the rich to drive in the fast lane from work, while the poor have to creep along in rush hour traffic. But I am not so sure I agreed with Sandel on all his talk of fairness. For example, say I am a poor fellow, who is running late for a job interview, then in such a time, being able to pay for that fast lane and bypass the traffic jam is wonderful. I am not bothered that some rich people get to do it all the time. To me the fairness stuff is a bit petty and well, signs of Sandel being a guilt ridden Harvard professor.

To Sandel, things like being paid to give blood, are a form of coercion; for the poor don't really have a choice, cause they need money so much. But it seems to me that every opportunity the poor have to make money is "coercion", like working at McDonalds for example, few, I imagine like this job, but are "forced" into it, because they want to put food on their tables. To me it seems odd coming up with a list of the things that are coercive to the poor, and why its therefore, unethical. In my opinion your only cutting off from the poor a way for them to legally get a buck during hard times. And yet, I suppose something like prostitution, if made legal, would seem a more coercive option to the poor who can't seem to get money any other way.

But yeah, it was a decent book, thought provoking.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 13, 2013 Jeremy rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

My own initial worries were that an Ivy League professor would write an argument that requires some sort of familiarity with the vagaries of economic theory. But Sandel doesn't. He explains both the econ and the moral theory that represent the book’s central conflict/discussion in incredibly accessible terms, a prose style that seems to me entirely suitable for the target audience. There's very little disciplinary name-dropping or theoretical digression, and the presentation calls to mind an int...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 06, 2013 Sean rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I praise Michael Sandel for pillorying markets when they traffic in morally objectionable goods and services. But economists have admitted the amorality of markets. Markets do the best job of allocating scarcity but make no claim as to the worthiness of the good or service allocated to begin with. And so, yes, markets need limits, but this does not diminish the appropriateness of using a market based approach for morally neutral or beneficial goods and services.

Sandel spends too much of the boo...more I praise Michael Sandel for pillorying markets when they traffic in morally objectionable goods and services. But economists have admitted the amorality of markets. Markets do the best job of allocating scarcity but make no claim as to the worthiness of the good or service allocated to begin with. And so, yes, markets need limits, but this does not diminish the appropriateness of using a market based approach for morally neutral or beneficial goods and services.

Sandel spends too much of the book devoted to colorful anecdotes of the moral repugnance of certain markets in order to draw his readers in. I found the examples a bit much and wanted more theory and substance as to when markets should not function and instead another mechanism should surface. Nor does Sandel devote much text to the viable alternatives to markets.

I also found Sandel's conclusion hypocritical. He writes toward the end "something similar has been happening throughout our society. At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools ... It's not good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different backgrounds and social positions encounter one another, and bump up against one another, in the course of everyday life. For this is how we learn to negotiate and abide our differences, and how we come to care for the common good." This sounds compelling but then look closer and you find Sandel himself teaches at Harvard University and surrounds himself with the likes of Larry Summers and Greg Mankew. Why not take his teachings and message and convey them in a community college or public university rather than Harvard? Why not consort with the hoi polloi rather than Summers and Mankew? In its competitive admission process as a student and faculty member, Harvard itself perpetuates the separation that Sandel claims to lament and in fact top-quality higher education institutions such as Harvard have led to greater inequality rather than less in the past generation. I found pockets of elitism and superiority even in his own text supposing to denigrate these values and ultimately finished his book feeling unsatisfied.
(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 02, 2013 Sueij rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

What an incredibly cool book! A highly readable look at how markets and market-driven viewpoints have seeped into areas of life and society that used to be understood as separate from traditional "economics," and how morals must be considered as we move forward.

The author argues that economics cannot, as it is understood and used in the modern world, be separated from the question of morality. He uses readily accessible examples ranging from line-cutting (is it different if it's scalping ticket...more

like · see review

Dec 28, 2012 Lorna rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reading-group-jo-jody-and-hannah

Very easy to read and accessible, with great examples. Sandell writes in a gentle way, asking questions rather than stating positions. There is some overlap with his book "Justice: what's the right thing to do?'. Some of the examples of markets he gives in this book really made me think, for example I wasn't aware that in the US blood banks don't just rely on donations, they also buy blood, leading to it being supplied by poor, unskilled, unemployed low income groups, resulting in a redistributi...more

like · see review

Nov 28, 2012 Breakingviews rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Review by Martin Langfield (followed by a counter-review by Edward Hadas)

Is the world better off, or worse, if a poor person sells a kidney to a rich person who needs it?

A form of corrosive hubris has gripped modern societies, Michael Sandel writes in his new book, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets.” It is the belief that there are no taboo areas for markets.

A professor of government at Harvard University, Sandel argues the expanding, overly glib application of price mechanism...more

like · see review

Nov 08, 2012 Carla rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I haven't yet read Justice, but after reading this I certainly will.

This book helped me spotlight an uncomfortable internal tug-of-war that's been going on inside my head for most of my career -where is the line? As a marketer for most of my career, I have aggressively pursued every possible angle to get closer and closer to my target audience and push them to a desired action. As a startup manager in the day, nothing was beyond redesign and everything had a business model. But there was a nagg...more I haven't yet read Justice, but after reading this I certainly will.

This book helped me spotlight an uncomfortable internal tug-of-war that's been going on inside my head for most of my career -where is the line? As a marketer for most of my career, I have aggressively pursued every possible angle to get closer and closer to my target audience and push them to a desired action. As a startup manager in the day, nothing was beyond redesign and everything had a business model. But there was a nagging voice and Sandel gave that voice structure and a legit argument.

Through perhaps too many examples and sometimes circular arguments, he helped me find and define my line, which is anything but straight. My line said, 'it's okay to sell the naming rights to a ballpark, and maybe stamp a logo on the sand a million times at the beach where I grew up, but it's not okay to put Mountain Dew decals on the floors of our high schools and national landmarks because that erodes our perception, and overtime our shared responsibility, to maintain those assets. If it can be bought, then it's "their" problem.

It isn't until the end of the book (literally the last two pages), that he makes the most direct and poignant arguments. The one that hit home was "As naming rights and municipal marketing appropriate the common world, they diminish it's public character. Beyond the damage it does to particular goods, commercialism erodes commonality." He calls this "skyboxification", which I love. I went back and adjusted my "line" to include those ballparks and beaches after this follow-on paragraph: "Democracy does not require perfect equality, but it does require that citizens share a common life. What matters is that people of different background and social positions encounter one another, and bump up against one another, in the course of everyday life. For this is how we learn to negotiate and abide our differences, and how we come to care for the common good." I would also add, that this is how we come to understand context, opportunity and risk. It's through our shared experiences that we see new possibilities for ourselves, realize our true position on this earth, and find our compassion for those who are easily lost in the background.

I can't help but point to our online lives. We've found commonality online right? No. The ubiquitous predictive analytics, "friends only" gatekeeping and ever refined topic categories and forums are furthering our unconscious cocooning. Going forward, I will be even more deliberate in my attempts to subject my children to as many human experiences across as many chasms as I can without having a heart attack :)

P.S. Those final two pages of the book were big. I didn't want put it down right away, so I scanned the Notes, Acknowledgements and finally, About the Author and I stopped cold. "Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University. Was he in fact a victim of commercialism via well-meaning philanthropy instead of greedy corporate, but with the same end result?
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 07, 2012 Laura rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Another 3.5, this time because the author doesn't goes as far as his material should take him. Int he old debater's terminology, he doesn't extend his argument.

Sandel addresses the issue of whether there are places in our increasingly commoditized society, there are places markets should not go. He asks the question, "are there some things that just should not be for sale?" and then asks, "Why?" He talks about a wide range of examples - Christmas gifts, skyboxes, advertising on police cars and s...more

like · see review

Aug 10, 2012 Mauberley added it · review of another edition

This is a good example of practical philosophy and I recommend it to anyone who once saw a ball game at a palace (sic) like Tiger Stadium and now finds herself seated under the eyes of her skyboxed social superiors at MegaCorp Stadium and wonders why it feels so empty and disappointing. In Sandel's words, 'we [have] drifted from having a market economy to being a market society'.

The book offers a catalogue of fascinating examples from the scalping of tickets to a Bruce Springsteen concert to the...more

like · see review

Aug 08, 2012 Aries Poon rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I like Michael Sandel's What Money Can't Buy, in spite of some of his contestable arguments and examples. Our society really needs substantial discussion on morality and value, not just efficiency, and the book makes that happen.

Sandel's theory is that, market economics have expanded into many arenas where he argues they are not supposed to. For instance, a Texan government pays kids from underperformed public schools US$2 to read a book. Sandel argued that, while the US$2 does incentivize the k...more I like Michael Sandel's What Money Can't Buy, in spite of some of his contestable arguments and examples. Our society really needs substantial discussion on morality and value, not just efficiency, and the book makes that happen.

Sandel's theory is that, market economics have expanded into many arenas where he argues they are not supposed to. For instance, a Texan government pays kids from underperformed public schools US$2 to read a book. Sandel argued that, while the US$2 does incentivize the kids to read more, such incentive also "corrupts" reading into a job that's paid for; and once the incentives are withdrawn, the kids would stop reading.

Sandel's central thesis is "money corrupts." By corruption, he means more than bribery. Any monetary incentive that degrades, or erodes, the value of a good is corruption. The US$2 incentive degrades reading to a job, from learning or deriving pleasure from literature, he argued. When a government pays US$30 for a parent to abort his second child under a one-child policy, the government "commoditizes" parenthood and babies and thus degrading their meaning, he said.

While it's debatable whether monetary incentives really degrade the value of the good, he has made a very good point. Economics focus on results and how to reach there, and very often ignore the discourse on morality and value. (One might argue that's exactly the division of labor between economists and philosophers.) One of the beauties of economics is "value-free and judgement-free." When two consented adults agree on something and both parties are well off, the transaction is said to be "efficient," eg. prostitution, selling human organs, etc, and we all know those activities have some shady elements in the deals.

Sandel's another thesis is fairness, or coersion. Take the prostitution case as an example. Even though both the prostutite and client agree on a price and the deal, the prostitute is "coersed", or forced to do so, due to poverty. So any client pays a handsome amount of money would leave her, literally, no choice but to provide the sex service, and such "agreement" is not a free choice for the prostitute, he argued.

We don't have to agree with Sandel on his take on different examples, and it's unrealistic to ditch the "market approach" right away. What makes the book great is that he makes us re-think our society and how things are being "priced."

It's a very useful framework - not the only one, of course - to analyse public policies. Should the government incentivize one-child policy? should a school sell naming rights of buildings to meet its funding needs? should one pay US$3 to ride on a fast lane on a highway? should a government give monetary compensation to those who are affected by disposal of nuclear waste?

These are issues we face everyday. As a responsible citizen, our informed - not emotional - stand is very much needed.
(less)

like · see review

Jul 18, 2012 Greg Talbot rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

There may not be a more important topic for our country today than the moral limits of markets. It's a conversation coming in the forefront of American politics since the banking bailouts and Occupy Wallstreet. Our response to the growing economic inequality is going to have a dramatic impact on our future as a country.

Sandel has some interesting examples to demonstrate how markets are coming into spheres of life that they weren't before. Some of the more detailed ideas involve: line queues, bas...more

like · see review

Jul 15, 2012 Benjaminxjackson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Anyone who is interested in in the shape and direction of our society should read this book. In What Money Can't Buy, Michael Sandel provides an interesting counter-point to the market fundamentalism that dominates our society today.

In the United States we have been encouraged to let markets solve every problem, but there are limitations to the market. What Sandel asks is whether or not puttting something up for sale devalues it. Using examples including human blood, time, and civic involvement,...more Anyone who is interested in in the shape and direction of our society should read this book. In What Money Can't Buy, Michael Sandel provides an interesting counter-point to the market fundamentalism that dominates our society today.

In the United States we have been encouraged to let markets solve every problem, but there are limitations to the market. What Sandel asks is whether or not puttting something up for sale devalues it. Using examples including human blood, time, and civic involvement, he answers that selling something can cheapen it.

This can be a difficult argument to make, because we all value things like education and community involvement differently. Still, Sandel gives examples of how valuing things with money can actually lead to counter-intuitive results.

I think the underlying thought is that if you pay someone, providing an ancillary or outside incentive for what should be done because of its intrinsic good, then that person could be induced to do the opporite if a sufficient incentive were offered.

We live in an era of market-fundamentalism, which is just as powerful as any other kind of religious fundamentalism. Economists have pushed politicians and popular discourse to think of everything as being valued only in dollars and sense. It leads to economists saying things like "price gouging is good" after disasters.

The book covers issues like naming rights, line jumping, and sky boxes. Is it right to selll advertising on cop cars? Is it right to sell advertising space on our own bodies?

There is one aspect of these kinds of questions that I don't think Sandel adequately covers. He never talks about where markets fail. Although a market theoretically should cater to the desires of people, it can't cover needs and desires that aren't recognized. Markets also do not always allocate things efficiently or fairly or produce the best option. The proliferation of bad pop music is an easy example. Food deserts are another example of a market failure. Sandel talks about the moral failrues of markets, but I think that more discussion about technical failures of markets would have strengthened this book.

Nonetheless, in reading Sandel's book, there is an underlying assumption that there are things that are good and right. All is not relative in Sandel's world, and it is not in ours. "In adition to debating the meaning of this or that good, we also need to ask a bigger question, about the kind of society in which we wish to live."

I think everyone should read this book and think about what kind of society we want to live in, especially as we go through a round of elections where this discussion is being brought into sharp relief. Buy a copy or visit your library and get one. The questions in this book are some of the most important we face, and this is a side of the discussion that is too seldom heard. (less)

like · see review

Jun 14, 2012 Alun Williams rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I have sometimes been puzzled by how left-leaning people are outraged when privatisation, or the introduction of a market, are proposed as reforms to how a public service is delivered. I have never really understood why somebody would care about this, so long as the job gets done better and more efficiently. This book has changed my thinking, and I think its message needs to be debated widely and publicly.
The author, Michael Sandel, is an American political philosopher, and a professor at Harvar...more I have sometimes been puzzled by how left-leaning people are outraged when privatisation, or the introduction of a market, are proposed as reforms to how a public service is delivered. I have never really understood why somebody would care about this, so long as the job gets done better and more efficiently. This book has changed my thinking, and I think its message needs to be debated widely and publicly.
The author, Michael Sandel, is an American political philosopher, and a professor at Harvard. He wears his learning very lightly in this book, which is both short and easy to read, but nevertheless extremely thought-provoking. His central contention is that over the last thirty years the West has moved from having a market economy to being a market society, and that this has happened without any proper consideration of the consequences. Sandel argues that the introduction of a market, or other forms of commercialisation, has moral implications that need to be debated: if the debate does not take place than moral choices will in effect have been made unconsciously. Throughout the book Sandel gives a host of examples of small changes to how things are done, which cumulatively make for a world where there is far less public space, and where rich and poor, or the elite and hoi polloi, are more isolated from one another. Perhaps too many of these examples are drawn from American society for the book to be quite as relevant as it might be to the UK, (though the net is cast widely - with examples from China, Scandinavia and the UK), but at times I was chilled at the thought that some of the more recent developments in the US might soon be coming here too.
Sandel does not argue that the introduction of a market, or of financial incentives, is always wrong, just that one should not assume that there are no moral implications to doing so. In some cases the benefit of introducing a market may outweigh the costs. However, there will be few readers if any, who are not disturbed by some of the things that have been done in the name of reducing the cost of government.
Although I am being slightly generous in giving this book five stars on Amazon (it is a little too American for this British reader), I think every decision maker working in the public sector and government to read this book. Whether it exposes a dangerous unconscious assumption, or helps someone to articulate their opposition to change more coherently, or to better anticipate unintended consequences of a change they are proposing, this book will usefully inform the reader's thinking.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jun 08, 2012 Rob McMinn rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I loved Michael Sandel's series of lectures on Justice (free on iTunes), so when I read about this book in the Guardian, thought I'd get hold of it.

This is a very thoughtful and measured discussion of something that fills some of us with rage: the forced introduction of market forces into all walks of life and public service, from education and health through policing and political lobbying.

Sandel has two simple objections to the free market ideologues. One is to do with fairness; the other to d...more I loved Michael Sandel's series of lectures on Justice (free on iTunes), so when I read about this book in the Guardian, thought I'd get hold of it.

This is a very thoughtful and measured discussion of something that fills some of us with rage: the forced introduction of market forces into all walks of life and public service, from education and health through policing and political lobbying.

Sandel has two simple objections to the free market ideologues. One is to do with fairness; the other to do with corruption of things that are part of the public good. Introducing market norms, he shows over and over again, tends to squeeze out other non-market norms (like altruism and, you know, just being good to each other).

Reducing everything in life to an ability to pay creates unfairness: in education, in health, in employment, and in politics. Creating a market in things that are supposed to be free means that the wealthy have unfair access. He gives the good example of free theatre (Shakespeare in the Park). When people pay others to queue for them, or create a secondary market in something that was meant to be free, it means that access to the free theatre becomes difficult for those without the ability to pay: the very people who were meant to be the target audience. What Sandel doesn't point out, actually, is that events like free public theatre have already been subsidised and paid for by taxpayers; to create a secondary market in tickets is therefore doubly immoral, especially when those who do so are wealthy people who pay proportionately less tax than they should. But free theatre is just the tip of the iceberg, and the seeping of market forces into all walks of life is a cancer that eats away at our social contract.

A key point made by Sandel is that the cancerous spread of market norms means that having money matters more than ever. If everything is subject to market forces, it means that money can buy more things that it could ever buy before. This makes the increasing gap between the wealthiest and the poorest in our capitalist societies even more significant. It would be okay to be poorer in a society where the best education and the best healthcare was available to everyone, regardless of ability to pay. But when having money gets you better service and better access whilst at the same time squeezing out those who are unable to pay, wealth inequality becomes even more immoral.

A great and important book, this was probably more measured and reasonable than it would have been had I written it. It's also somewhat repetitive of the same two basic points (which I suppose only adds to its power). The last quarter of the book consists of endnotes.(less)

like · see review

May 28, 2012 Jon rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Sandel is a wonderfully clear writer, whose course on justice at Harvard is supposedly one of the most popular at the university. Here he lists all the ways market norms have crept into our lives and replaced other values. His first contrast is between the ethics of the queue (first come first served) being transformed to the ethics of the market (everything is for sale and you get what you pay for). His examples range from relatively innocent and ad hoc (bribing a maitre d' for a good table) to...more Sandel is a wonderfully clear writer, whose course on justice at Harvard is supposedly one of the most popular at the university. Here he lists all the ways market norms have crept into our lives and replaced other values. His first contrast is between the ethics of the queue (first come first served) being transformed to the ethics of the market (everything is for sale and you get what you pay for). His examples range from relatively innocent and ad hoc (bribing a maitre d' for a good table) to more institutionalized (buying more expensive tickets at Disney World which allow you to jump the queues for rides) to really egregious (buying your way to a doctor in China when peasants have to wait for days.) He moves on to selling blood, selling body parts, even selling space on your body for tatooed advertising. Some of his best stuff is on gifts, which economists HATE, because they wouldn't exist if people really operated the way economists say they do. Gifts ALWAYS result in "dead weight" loss of value (the difference between what someone pays for a gift to you, and what you would have paid for it yourself.) So even with the prevalence of simply writing a check as a gift, or the incredible growth of gift cards, people still (sometimes) insist on giving a real gift, because it represents attention, consideration, esteem and even love, some of the many values the market can't reflect. The dichotomy is perfectly represented by the man who caught Mark McGwire's record-setting 62nd home run ball in 1998 and then simply gave it to McGwire. He was honored for his heroic selflessness by an appearance on the Today show and a trip to the White House; but he was also excoriated by some economists for being foolish and profligate with something that could have generated wealth. Sandel asks why in our society it could no longer have been regarded as an act of simple decency? We have drifted from having a market economy to being a market society. Finally at the end he says that we have to decide by what values we want to live, because if we don't, the market will decide for us. And deciding means having to have some idea of what makes up the good life. But at that point his analysis stops. Just when I most wanted his opinion.(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 14, 2012 Barnabas rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. The title is ironic, as any of us who have read the book will agree the book debates what money should and should not be allowed to buy instead of what can or cannot. He chooses a title that satirizes itself, as an example that money has indeed bought what it should not be able to buy, the intellectual integrity of a scholar.

The writing style is repetitive, even for a philosophy teacher. Sandel asks the question of whether money crowds out other values, and he provides solid support for his ans...more The title is ironic, as any of us who have read the book will agree the book debates what money should and should not be allowed to buy instead of what can or cannot. He chooses a title that satirizes itself, as an example that money has indeed bought what it should not be able to buy, the intellectual integrity of a scholar.

The writing style is repetitive, even for a philosophy teacher. Sandel asks the question of whether money crowds out other values, and he provides solid support for his answer *spoiler alert*-yes. Unfortunately he doesn't approach the crowding out effect from an economics perspective, but instead insists that economics is not the appropriate lens through which to debate moral limits of markets. He uses outdated ideas of utility to provide a philosophical framework for his propositions.

Despite that, he lays and defends his propositions effectively within the framework he sets.

The central propositions (two) are :
1. Money can have a crowding-out effect on social norms and in doing so corrupt the social norm(which may in fact have a higher market value), by substituting one value for another.
2. Commoditization of goods taints the goods themselves and interferes with the manner in which we interact with them.

In a real-life scenario, he provides an example of how money crowds out civic responsibility.
In the instance of a school where parents chronically arrived tardy to pick up their children, he cites a remarkable study in which parents are fined for coming late to collect their children, and the tardiness rate increases, and after the fine is removed, the tardiness rate remains undiminished, suggesting a paradigmatic shift by the parents in their perception of the necessity of punctuality as a civic responsibility.

Sandel describes big brands buying advertising space on human bodies, an action that while inherently distasteful doesn't seem to have a real tangible basis for our discomfort. Sandel suggests that this invasion of the human body devalues the body by attaching a worth to it distinct from the intrinsic.

By analogy he describes the "higher virtues" love and generosity. By the act of giving of love, energy, and money he contends that we do not become faced with a scarcity of these resources, and that the economic paradigm of scarcity does not apply to virtues. In fact, the act of giving any of these things improves our ability to appreciate that which we have given. Only when we are willing to let things go can overcome the coercive effect of money insisting that we maximize our utility according to our budgets.

If he were to write a book focused entirely on how to overcome the economic paradigm of scarcity, I would probably find it a more compelling read. As the book stands, it remains a thought-provoking piece, though one more appropriate to an opinion column than a $27 book. There are some things that money can buy, but this should be free.

(less)

like · see review

May 08, 2012 Mike Edwards rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, pop-social-science, economics

Sandel here gets all the big things right--and a shockingly large number of the little things wrong.

His main thesis is absolutely correct: the introduction of money and markets can fundamentally change the character or nature of a particular transaction. Sandel is correct that society often does not fully appreciate this basic fact--which causes us to use monetary incentives in ways that can be more detrimental than beneficial.

Most of the time, but not all of the time. Sandel states that he's ju...more Sandel here gets all the big things right--and a shockingly large number of the little things wrong.

His main thesis is absolutely correct: the introduction of money and markets can fundamentally change the character or nature of a particular transaction. Sandel is correct that society often does not fully appreciate this basic fact--which causes us to use monetary incentives in ways that can be more detrimental than beneficial.

Most of the time, but not all of the time. Sandel states that he's just trying to start a conversation, to get people to appreciate the non-monetary costs of monetizing a particular transaction or situation. That is a laudable goal. But his tone is universally judgmental; sometimes absurdly so. His criticism of Billy Beane's A's for making walks more prevalent literally made my jaw drop; he literally used teams playing smarter baseball as an excuse to lambaste economics.

Moreover, his criticism of economics (in particular) and social science (in general) tends towards the dogmatic. He mostly cites fifty-year-old economics texts that grandfathered rational choice theory, and holds them us as emblematic of the discipline; a discipline which has become much more nuanced over the years, in part because of the types of criticisms that Sandel gives. Economics and Rat Choice Theory do certainly have their problems, but an inability to understand why people give gifts is not one of them. (Certain rat choice models, given their assumptions, cannot take that behavior into account--but most economists would agree that this is a problem with those particular models not a problem with the gift-giver, and certainly not a problem with all of Economics.)

Finally, Sandel asserts that the general "marketization" of society is a recent phenomenon, really since the 1980s. I remain unconvinced. There are plenty of examples of these types of phenomenon before 1980--Sandel himself cites some of them--and so all we're left with is Sandel's assertions that things really have gotten worse. That's an easy, and easily believed, assertion--it's why politicians make it all the time. But asserting that things have gotten worse is a long way from demonstrating it to be true--and Sandel doesn't come close to the latter.

So to summarize: Great Thesis, Sloppy and Biased Reasoning. (less)

2 likes · like · see review

May 01, 2012 Jorge rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics-economics, philosophy-ethics

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

" What Money Can't Buy" is the thought-provoking book that asks the ethical question, "Are there some things that money can buy but shouldn't?" With a plethora of fascinating examples, best-selling author and famed Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel once again dazzles the mind with philosophical mind teasers. In this enlightening edition, Sandel challenges the reader with economic ethics, are economic markets replacing our mo...more

like · see review

Feb 17, 2013 Ashley Suzanne rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: cannonball-read-v

From my review for Cannonball Read 5 ...

Alright, back to the non-fiction books I love. Michael Sandel is a modern philosopher who is interested in issues of justice. In fact, his book “Justice” is a fantastic read for people who are interested in philosophy but cringe at the idea of popping open Hume or Kant on a cold winter’s day.

This book looks at whether there are any moral reasons to not allow the market to ‘take care of things.’ Some of his areas of focus are likely ones that you have consi...more From my review for Cannonball Read 5 ...

Alright, back to the non-fiction books I love. Michael Sandel is a modern philosopher who is interested in issues of justice. In fact, his book “Justice” is a fantastic read for people who are interested in philosophy but cringe at the idea of popping open Hume or Kant on a cold winter’s day.

This book looks at whether there are any moral reasons to not allow the market to ‘take care of things.’ Some of his areas of focus are likely ones that you have considered previously (possibly over a beer with friends). Should people be able to sell their kidneys? Did that student really get into Harvard because of his talent, or because his mom could buy the entire campus twice over? Is that fair? Does it matter if it is or isn’t?

Sandel argues from a premise that some might not accept: that “making markets more efficient is no virtue in itself.” Instead, he’s interested in why people might cringe at the commodification of certain components of our lives. Why, if markets are so great and supposedly will sort out the distribution of goods and services in the most efficient way possible, do some markets make us so uncomfortable?

Each example in the book addresses one of two arguments – the argument from fairness and the argument from corruption. In the first case, we might consider where a certain market is fair if the person participating may not REALLY have much of a choice. Again, think about the kidney example. Sure we all own our bodies, but the concern with allowing a market in kidneys is that only the poor would end up selling them, essentially turning them into spare parts for wealthy people, and leaving people who cannot afford kidneys at the whim of donors. The second argument looks at whether the nature of certain things might be corrupted simply by market involvement. Advertising in schools is a prime example of that.

The book is broken down into five parts – an introduction to the issues he plans to address (and a background on markets and examples of market transactions that might raise an eyebrow), a section on incentives (and how they don’t always work the way you’d think), markets replacing moral discussion, the insurance market (which features my favorite portion of the book, where he examines third-party life insurance purchasing), and the right to name different public and private spaces (think Citibank Field in NYC). The concepts are not difficult to grasp and are well-written and interesting.

While I do have a philosophy background, I want to emphasize that one is not necessary AT ALL to enjoy this book. If you’re interested in markets and a discussion about why they might not always be the best way to distribute goods, this is a really great read for you. In fact, I suggest getting your favorite discussion partner (perhaps someone who doesn’t always agree with you) to read the book at the same time so you can have a lively chat about it all.(less)

like · see review

Apr 14, 2013 Laurent Videau rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: society

This book should be read by every policy maker.

Monetization of all aspects of our lives leads to decrease in altruism, often has the opposite intended purposes.

Economists defending monetization of all actions, exchanges, goods, base their reasoning on the fact that altruism, compassion are limited resources which get depleted as you use them. This is absurd; do you love your wife or children less the more you express this love?

As the author says: "But the notion that love and generosity are sca...more

like · see review

Jul 28, 2012 Les rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Oddly enough this book is more about what money can and does buy today.
... almost everything.

A world described as "having drifted from having a market economy, to being a market society."
*Market economy = A tool to be used
*Market society = A way of life

Rants & Facts after reading this book:

Want to bet on someone's death? There's a market for that, a $30 Billion dollar market.
------
Want to voice your opinion at a congressional hearing?
Wait you're turn in line, or pay someone recruited by Line ...more

like · see review

May 24, 2012 W. Bradford Littlejohn rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

A really excellent read, on many levels. Relaxing and enjoyable as well as disturbing and thought-provoking. Renowned political philosopher Michael Sandel surveys a host of recent phenomena that illustrate the ways in which the extension of market logic into more and more of our lives is crowding out moral considerations. If someone is willing to sell and someone willing to buy, then, according to the ever-more-prevalent mindset, more power to them—no need to stop and make judgments about the so...more

like · see review

Jul 29, 2012 Kylewong rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.

like · see review

Aug 15, 2012 Hans de Zwart rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Sandel has written a book that is chock-full of examples of market thinking invading into spaces in society where it didn't exist. He writes about things like advertising in schools, the ability to pay for the cellphone number of your doctor, paid prison cell upgrades, buying the name of sports stadiums (even buying what sports commentator have to say when somebody makes a homerun), speculation with life insurance policies (the quicker the person dies, the better the return on investment), bough...more

like · see review

Oct 01, 2012 Georges rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: filosofia

What money can't buy is an essay written by philosopher Michael Sandel an ethics expert. Sandel is also a college teacher at Harvard and his classes on justice are available in internet and later become a best selling book. As a philosopher Mr Sandel has more questions than answers and he explores the limits of what can be sold and if anything should have a market value. Is selling a kidney ok? What about selling the right to change the name of a known stadium, a subway station, or even to name...more

like · see review

May 05, 2012 Angie rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Michael Sandel is unsurpassed in writing books that are delightfully accessible while being intellectually rigorous. What Money Can't Buy lacks the academic references to classical thinkers that were in his book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do, which is a shame, but it is still one of the most thought-provoking books I have read in a long time.
Sandel’s subject is money, specifically how monetary incentives and disincentives are being used today in a wide array of realms where money was not...more
Michael Sandel is unsurpassed in writing books that are delightfully accessible while being intellectually rigorous. What Money Can't Buy lacks the academic references to classical thinkers that were in his book Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do, which is a shame, but it is still one of the most thought-provoking books I have read in a long time.
Sandel’s subject is money, specifically how monetary incentives and disincentives are being used today in a wide array of realms where money was not a factor in the past. Sandel is a philosopher, not an economist or political scientist, and so he asks, “What does this mean? And why should I care?” As he says in the introduction, "to decide what money should--- and should not ---be able to buy, we have to decide what values should govern the various domains of social and civic life. How to think this through is the subject of this book."
To explore the implications of the expansion of the role of markets in our lives, What Money Can’t Buy considers two primary aspects: fairness and corruption. The first aspect, fairness, is the more obvious: a wealthier individual will not be affected by a societal incentive/disincentive as much as a poor one. Granted, true, but I do not need a Harvard professor to tell me so. The second aspect is the more interesting: does the use of monetary factors corrupt our sense of values? Are there basic human rights and feelings that should be immune from market manipulation? An interesting example is that of a Swiss town that was a potential site for a nuclear waste dump. The town was a very good site for such a facility, and 51% of the town residents said they would accept it. They were then asked if they would accept the dump if authorities offered to pay an annual inducement of over $8000 per person. The rate of acceptance fell from 51% to 25%. Apparently the residents did not like having the issue turned from one of civic altruism into a pecuniary matter. People do believe that there are issues in which money should not play a role.
The book has wonderful examples ranging from Bruce Springsteen concert tickets to paying for an upgraded prison cell (!) to cap-and-trade. I especially loved the Springsteen example. People were scalping tickets to a Springsteen concert in New Jersey. You may or may not feel this is unethical. However, if you are also told that Springsteen deliberately kept ticket prices low because he is from NJ and wanted ordinary people to be able to come, AND this cost him an estimated $4 million in ticket revenue, does this affect your opinion?
Although I thought Sandel’s examples were well-chosen, thought-provoking, and enjoyable, I wish the actual discussion of the philosophical implications of the lessons to be learned had been more extensive. The book was fairly short and over too soon.
NOTE: Bought the Kindle version, even though it was overpriced, after hearing Sandel lecture at Goucher. E-book prices are getting obscene!
NOTE: Unfortunately some readers seem to be taking Sandel's message too narrowly and are hearing it merely as almost a cliche liberal argument about how much better off are the rich versus the poor and ain't that awful. That may even be true, but it doesn't do the book justice, which is a special shame, because that will probably turn off a lot of more libertarian readers who would benefit from and enjoy it and will also prevent some good dialogue among good-hearted people of different political stripes.(less)

like · see review

title link	preview: What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets
avg rating	preview: What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets Goodreads rating: 3.81 (1303 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13669171-what-money-can-t-buy?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1337097443l/13669171.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13669171-what-money-can-t-buy?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets by Michael J. Sandel[/url]

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

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (12)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Michael J. Sandel

Books by Michael J. Sandel

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About What Money Can't ...

Quotes from What Money Can't Buy: ...