Status
Available
Call number
Publication
Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2012), Edition: 1, Hardcover, 256 pages
Description
Sandel argues that we have drifted from having a market economy to being a market society and examines one of the biggest ethical questions of our time: What is the proper role of markets in a democratic society, and how can we protect the moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?
Media reviews
What Money Can’t Buy has an easy charm about it, but it also has structural defects which do not, I think, come from its American focus and do not depend on how many of Sandel’s pet hates you share. It is an exercise in persuasive pamphleteering rather than a systematic exploration.
The irony is that I think Sandel would have written a more powerful book had he not tried to argue the case on free-market economists' own dry, dispassionate terms. It is, as he rightly points out, the language in which most modern political debate is conducted: "Between those who favour
Show More
unfettered markets and those who maintain that market choices are free only when they're made on a level playing field." But it feels as if by engaging on their terms, he's forcing himself to make an argument with one hand tied behind his back. Only in the final chapter does he throw caution to the wind, and make the case in the language of poetry. Show Less
User reviews
LibraryThing member the.ken.petersen
In this book Michael Sandel explores the belief that money can buy everything. He asks us to confront our acceptance, and also our revulsion, at the control that money and business interests have on our way of life.
Sandel takes the reader through a brief history of the insurance business, which
Sandel also investigates the changing policies of the advertising industry. A few years ago advertisements would appear on television, in the press and occasional street posters. Nowadays, even in conservative Britain, adverts pop up in all sorts unlikely places and this book shows where we are likely to be in the future.
My football team already plays at the King Power Stadium, which had been known as the Walkers Stadium, until more money was offered for the naming rights. Apparently, a police car, in the metropolis, apprehends miscreants under the sponsorship of Harrods and many town centres have an over-sized television in their square, ostensibly to show major events but in reality, to put a string of banal advertisements in front of the general public. America, so often mocked from this side of the Atlantic for being more extreme, but in reality, simply ahead of we Brits, has taken advertising to another level: schools, in some states, are given televisions and other equipment with the proviso that all the pupils watch a fifteen minute news programme each day: needless to say, the recording is peppered with adverts, probably for the soft drinks company that has purchased exclusive rights to supply the school tuck shop. Mr Sandel even cites the case of one lady, a single mother, who sold her forehead as an advertising site to provide sustenance for her child. At the age of thirty, she was tattooed with an advertising slogan.
Some of the examples, in this book, I found to be acceptable, some deeply shocking but, Michael Sandel keeps a very tight control upon his own feelings. Reading the book, one does get some idea of his personnel opinions but, even in the most extreme cases, he does not criticise, but simply reports. It would be easy for a work such as this, to slip into the, 'Things are terrible now, unlike the good old days' attitude: Sandel does not. He does his readership the honour of assuming that, given the facts, they are capable of making up their own minds. This is a book that everybody should read. The more people that are aware of the direction of travel, the better can be our control of the type of society that 'Big Business' builds and, let us be honest, it is business, not politicians, that will shape the twenty first century.
Sandel takes the reader through a brief history of the insurance business, which
Show More
began as a system to protect our expensive goods, allowing us to replace our dwelling, should the house burn down; or gain compensation should our ship sink, rather than come in. If you, like me, are ignorant enough to think that this is where the business is today, you are in for a rude surprise: old people are being paid to take out insurance policies, which are taken over by companies who pay the premiums, in the hope that the insured person dies quickly, giving them a decent profit. The banking system has even bought in to this concept and, along with sub prime mortgages, one can buy shares in the death industry.Sandel also investigates the changing policies of the advertising industry. A few years ago advertisements would appear on television, in the press and occasional street posters. Nowadays, even in conservative Britain, adverts pop up in all sorts unlikely places and this book shows where we are likely to be in the future.
My football team already plays at the King Power Stadium, which had been known as the Walkers Stadium, until more money was offered for the naming rights. Apparently, a police car, in the metropolis, apprehends miscreants under the sponsorship of Harrods and many town centres have an over-sized television in their square, ostensibly to show major events but in reality, to put a string of banal advertisements in front of the general public. America, so often mocked from this side of the Atlantic for being more extreme, but in reality, simply ahead of we Brits, has taken advertising to another level: schools, in some states, are given televisions and other equipment with the proviso that all the pupils watch a fifteen minute news programme each day: needless to say, the recording is peppered with adverts, probably for the soft drinks company that has purchased exclusive rights to supply the school tuck shop. Mr Sandel even cites the case of one lady, a single mother, who sold her forehead as an advertising site to provide sustenance for her child. At the age of thirty, she was tattooed with an advertising slogan.
Some of the examples, in this book, I found to be acceptable, some deeply shocking but, Michael Sandel keeps a very tight control upon his own feelings. Reading the book, one does get some idea of his personnel opinions but, even in the most extreme cases, he does not criticise, but simply reports. It would be easy for a work such as this, to slip into the, 'Things are terrible now, unlike the good old days' attitude: Sandel does not. He does his readership the honour of assuming that, given the facts, they are capable of making up their own minds. This is a book that everybody should read. The more people that are aware of the direction of travel, the better can be our control of the type of society that 'Big Business' builds and, let us be honest, it is business, not politicians, that will shape the twenty first century.
Show Less
LibraryThing member freelancer_frank
This is a book about the general form of some arguments that can guide us to determine the proper nature and scope of commercialism in civic society. The book is quite short and about a quarter of it (on Kindle) is footnotes. Sandel uses repeated examples to illustrate how market forces have
Show More
encroached on different aspects of life and to show how two counter-arguments might point the way for further discourse. His approach is Socratic and Aristotelian: rather than present absolute answers, his aim is to provoke public discourse, and this is entirely in keeping with his views on the integrated nature of public life. The drawback is that the reader may well be left wanting more guidance. Show Less
LibraryThing member Daniel.Estes
As author Michael J. Sandel gives example after example of market value versus moral value, I found myself seeing both sides of his arguments. This dichotomy is maddening, but it is also why I love this book.
I believe the whole point of What Money Can't Buy is framed around the following statement:
On rare occasions the author ventures into "Things were better in my day" territory, but for the most part he makes the compelling case that we're too quick to allow markets to value (and too often, devalue) our lives.
I believe the whole point of What Money Can't Buy is framed around the following statement:
Show More
"If we don't assign value ourselves, the markets will." This begs two questions, (1) With what criteria do we presume to assign value apart from market forces? and (2) Which side is better at it, us or the markets? The answers are not easy and constantly debated.On rare occasions the author ventures into "Things were better in my day" territory, but for the most part he makes the compelling case that we're too quick to allow markets to value (and too often, devalue) our lives.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Sullywriter
There is very little left that money can't buy and the list of things that cannot be bought grows shorter by the day. That is the tragedy. I found myself frequently shaking my head in disgust as I read this book. When everything has a price, there will be nothing of value.
LibraryThing member mldavis2
I am a big fan of Michael Sandel, Harvard professor of political philosophy. This book is a factual survey of the encroachment of advertising in American culture, and examines questions of ethical and moral considerations involved in determining what to leave to free markets and what to regulate or
As in his famous lecture series and book on Justice, Sandel gives few if any answers, takes no sides, and leaves it up to his students and readers to do the critical thinking. Corporations bent on covering the country with invasive advertising will not like some of the examples and comparisons, but the answers are up to each of us to decide what we are willing to tolerate and how far we will allow it to go.
The book is factual and heavily documented. It is the type of book that every thoughtful person should read, not for entertainment but for an historical awareness of from where we came and to where we are going in determining the extent of unregulated free markets.
Show More
dismiss as inappropriate excess.As in his famous lecture series and book on Justice, Sandel gives few if any answers, takes no sides, and leaves it up to his students and readers to do the critical thinking. Corporations bent on covering the country with invasive advertising will not like some of the examples and comparisons, but the answers are up to each of us to decide what we are willing to tolerate and how far we will allow it to go.
The book is factual and heavily documented. It is the type of book that every thoughtful person should read, not for entertainment but for an historical awareness of from where we came and to where we are going in determining the extent of unregulated free markets.
Show Less
LibraryThing member PhilipKinsella
Persuasive that markets distort values, but less clear where the limits should be.
LibraryThing member georgeslacombe
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
Show More
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 a new born baby? Can I bet on someone chance of dying next year? The market logic that everything has a price and can be sold is challenged many times and in many ways. I encourage reading first his previous book "Justice" as it covers many ethical problems that is brought again here. It was not the purpose of the book to get a conclusion in any specific situation but to focus on the ethics and moral similarities to events that may seem completely disconnected. I live near São Paulo that has prohibited large billboard on building sides, and restricted the size of store front panels. That law reduced visual pollution and made the city more pleasant to live, however many people lost their job after after this law. The topic is not easy, and no simple answers are available, bringing this discussion to highest level, instead of keeping it on each case is the best that the author did to this important subject Show Less
LibraryThing member dazzyj
A lucid dissection of much that is wrong with today's market triumphalism.
LibraryThing member Frederic_Schneider
A great book with good arguments that prices shouldn't be put on everything. He lists a number of interesting domains where buying and selling seems to be a dubious way of transaction. Though many readers may find that Sandel shouldn't have included some items, and other readers may find that he
The only thing I found a bit unbalanced was the wholesale critique of economists as apologists of radical laissez-faire capitalism. I am myself an economist, and I can say that the (extreme) views of Gary Becker and colleagues, though influential, are not the only ideology in town, but unfortunately their protagonists are very vocal in the public discourse. Many economists work in the fields of social choice and welfare economics will nod their heads while reading Sandel's arguments, so it would be wrong to damn all economists for promoting commercialism and corporatocracy. But I agree that two things are too rarely articulated: that economics is never purely descriptive because it is largely based on (implicit) utilitarian assumptions; and that market allocations are the result of both willingness to pay AND ability to pay. I think economics can only benefit, also in terms of public image, from highlighting these points more.
The end of the book was a little anticlimactic. It is a pity that Sandel does not dig deeper: till the last few pages, all he does is present a long list of intrusions of commerce in our private lives. But often, these are attempts to solve a deeper problem. If ticket scalpers invade the allocation system for doctor appointments, then there is a shortage of health services. If schools sell out their educational material to corporate advertising, then there is a shortage of education funding. Sandel is right that everybody should have a right to live a decent life, which includes basic health and education. But then, solutions must be found that there is inclusive access to these social goods. Sandel is also right that letting profiteers in the ways he describes in his book is not conducive to the provision of these goods, but he does not mention any solution. There are multiple possibilities to prevent the complete sellout of society while at the same time providing people with a basic right of decency, but Sandel leaves the reader somewhat depressed as he fails to touch on them.
Show More
left out some important items, it is extremely worthwhile to think about all of his examples.The only thing I found a bit unbalanced was the wholesale critique of economists as apologists of radical laissez-faire capitalism. I am myself an economist, and I can say that the (extreme) views of Gary Becker and colleagues, though influential, are not the only ideology in town, but unfortunately their protagonists are very vocal in the public discourse. Many economists work in the fields of social choice and welfare economics will nod their heads while reading Sandel's arguments, so it would be wrong to damn all economists for promoting commercialism and corporatocracy. But I agree that two things are too rarely articulated: that economics is never purely descriptive because it is largely based on (implicit) utilitarian assumptions; and that market allocations are the result of both willingness to pay AND ability to pay. I think economics can only benefit, also in terms of public image, from highlighting these points more.
The end of the book was a little anticlimactic. It is a pity that Sandel does not dig deeper: till the last few pages, all he does is present a long list of intrusions of commerce in our private lives. But often, these are attempts to solve a deeper problem. If ticket scalpers invade the allocation system for doctor appointments, then there is a shortage of health services. If schools sell out their educational material to corporate advertising, then there is a shortage of education funding. Sandel is right that everybody should have a right to live a decent life, which includes basic health and education. But then, solutions must be found that there is inclusive access to these social goods. Sandel is also right that letting profiteers in the ways he describes in his book is not conducive to the provision of these goods, but he does not mention any solution. There are multiple possibilities to prevent the complete sellout of society while at the same time providing people with a basic right of decency, but Sandel leaves the reader somewhat depressed as he fails to touch on them.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bfister
A critique of the notion that markets should guide our social and individual decisions because putting a price on everything invites inequality and corruption. He gives many specific examples where making things commodities makes them less functional. It's basically a dispassionate moral argument
"The more things money can buy, the fewer the occasions when people from different walks of life encounter one another . . . At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives. . . . 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. And so, in the end, the question of markets is really a question about how we want to live together." (p. 202-203)
Show More
that we should, as a society, begin to negotiate more clearly and openly what should not be governed by the assumptions of market fundamentalism which erode communality. "The more things money can buy, the fewer the occasions when people from different walks of life encounter one another . . . At a time of rising inequality, the marketization of everything means that people of affluence and people of modest means lead increasingly separate lives. . . . 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. And so, in the end, the question of markets is really a question about how we want to live together." (p. 202-203)
Show Less
LibraryThing member AJBraithwaite
This is one of those important books which makes you think really hard about the way our world is heading. I think the most horrifying image in it was the one where eggs were being used to advertise forthcoming TV shows. Not on the egg carton, but on the eggs themselves. Well, that and the horrible
It's great to see someone try to re-introduce a bit of morality into the hard-nosed world of economics.
Show More
segregation and commercialisation of sporting events which seem to have removed any vestige of the true meaning of the word 'sport' from that world.It's great to see someone try to re-introduce a bit of morality into the hard-nosed world of economics.
Show Less
LibraryThing member altonmann
This book is a mere catalog of commercialism in our society.
Since our society and culture in the United States is commercialism,
the book is merely additional noise. Merely a pile of undigested research by an academic.
If academia requires publish or perish, this belongs in the perish category. The
There is no point of view expressed here. The author's quiet even handed calm approach is perhaps intended as "objectivity". Actually it's either gutless or mindless neutrality. Utterly tepid response to the reductionist, toxic line of thought propogated by the Chicago school free market religion. Yes. it's religion NOT science. Life is not reducible to a mere set of economic formulas.
Commerciality is a sewer. Apparently, this guy thinks there might be something wrong with this fact, but he doesn't dare rush to judgement.
Don't waste your time with this mild mannered pablum. There are far more worthy books deserving of your attention.
The book to read on this topic is No Logo written by Naomi Klein, who is not an academic, does reporting not mere academic research and is a Canadian who sees through the sham and toxity of contemporary life in
the free market world clearly.
As for the disastrous consequences of the fundamentalist "free market" creed, read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine - it's an eye opener.
Since our society and culture in the United States is commercialism,
the book is merely additional noise. Merely a pile of undigested research by an academic.
If academia requires publish or perish, this belongs in the perish category. The
Show More
blurb by George Will (the cipher with a bow tie) should have warned me off.There is no point of view expressed here. The author's quiet even handed calm approach is perhaps intended as "objectivity". Actually it's either gutless or mindless neutrality. Utterly tepid response to the reductionist, toxic line of thought propogated by the Chicago school free market religion. Yes. it's religion NOT science. Life is not reducible to a mere set of economic formulas.
Commerciality is a sewer. Apparently, this guy thinks there might be something wrong with this fact, but he doesn't dare rush to judgement.
Don't waste your time with this mild mannered pablum. There are far more worthy books deserving of your attention.
The book to read on this topic is No Logo written by Naomi Klein, who is not an academic, does reporting not mere academic research and is a Canadian who sees through the sham and toxity of contemporary life in
the free market world clearly.
As for the disastrous consequences of the fundamentalist "free market" creed, read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine - it's an eye opener.
Show Less
LibraryThing member alanhaley
I have the same issue with this book that many other reviewers had: it presents many examples of how money and commercialization can impact things from sports to education, yet is painfully slim on what we're actually supposed to do about it. This book is good for sparking thought and discussion
Show More
but doesn't do much more than that. Show Less
LibraryThing member ASKelmore
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
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.
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
Show More
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.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Paul_S
I don't care about baseball and maybe that's the crucial link that this book requires to make any sense. The author repeatedly and I mean on almost every page assumes people share his personal judgments on value of things. He finally admits that in the end of the book and goes back on his
Show More
condemnations and advocates a less extreme position of taking into account effects of existence of markets on human behaviour. This is a fairly well accepted if not tackled problem. Show Less
LibraryThing member Kavinay
A surprisingly accessible and engaging read--which is quite a feat when you consider a work combining economics and philosophy. Sandel depicts the problem as more than just commodification that favours the rich. The subtler effect of inserting economic optimization into relationships between people
Show More
and communities, what Sandel calls corruption, distorts the ability to even frame moral agency. For example, a supply and demand approach of virtue (i.e. don't exhaust your compassion) fundamentally changes the understanding of the good as a practice rather than a resource. The marketizing presupposes the very concept of "ought" to be transactional, thereby paving the way for any one of Sandel's eye-opening case studies from bribing childhood reading to short selling the life spans of strangers. Show Less
Awards
Financial Times and Schroders Business Book of the Year (Longlist — 2012)
Language
Pages
256
ISBN
9780374203030