Book: What Money Can’t Buy

This book is written by Micheal J. Sandel and it is called “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits Of Markets.”

In this book, Sandel discusses the increasing involvement of markets and money into areas normally dominated by non-market norms. He discusses whether it is morally correct that markets are getting involved in questionable places, like death, on-body advertising or adoption. Sandel believes that introducing markets everywhere can sometimes diminish the “good”, incorrectly value it or reduce it of dignity, and the increasing power of money could be detrimental in the future. He also mentions frequently that this era of market triumphalism is increasing the inequality in the world and now that money is becoming able to buy more and more things, the affluent separate themselves from the rest in more walks of life.

The book is split into 5 chapters. The first discusses how markets are invading the norm of queuing. Sandel discusses how in recent times, the wealthiest people are able to jump the queue and gain services quicker than everyone else. This is due to the market getting involved. Sandel brings up examples such as ticket scalping, which is reselling tickets at a higher price, line-standing companies which have employees stand in very long queues, fast-track services and concierge doctors. The section that concerns Sandel the most is the queuing markets in healthcare. Ticket scalping for doctor’s appointments is now legal in many countries and is very common in China especially. Ticket scalping companies offer people in long queues appointment tickets that they are waiting to get. But the companies are selling them at a higher price than the hospital is selling them for. People who are richer naturally buy the overpriced ticket in order to jump the queue. This means that the richer people get their health issues looked at first, while the poor, even if their issues may be more urgent, have to wait longer. The other major example is the rise of concierge doctors, who are predominant in Western countries. Doctors are not paid very well for routine appointments, so they have to carry out many appointments a day to make a living. Doctors under pressure and patients who get rushed appointments are sick of this. The market has come in to solve this problem, by creating concierge doctors. For an annual fee which could be up to £20,000, patients can have same-day or next-day appointments with no waiting time which are not rushed at all. This means that concierge doctors see less patients as they are paid more and patients have longer appointments so they can get all the answers they want. Here the market has made everyone happy and it has solved the problems. People who don’t want to wait or waste any time can pay for the service. Sandel however believes even though the market has created an efficient system, its involvement is actually harmful. Now the doctors who are not concierge have more patients, but what is more worrying is the problem similar to the problem with ticket scalping. The richest get the best health service, regardless of their condition. It might not be that they value the good more than everyone else, but that they are able to afford this expense. Morally, is it right to get a service before everyone else because you are welathier? Overall, Sandel uses his first chapter to discuss how the markets are destroying the morals of queues.

The second chapter is about incentives. There are many problems with life, such as children born to drug-addicted mothers, bad education, obesity and people breaking the rules. The first case of abandoned children is currently being “solved” by the market in certain countries. Sandel talks about a business in America called Project Prevention. This offers drug addicted women a financial reward for going through birth control. The market here has successfully solved the occurrence of babies born to drug addicted mothers. However, Sandel believes that there could be big moral problems with it. The first is coercion. While nobody forces her to take the money, the mother could be too tempted to the 300 dollar reward(if they are poor). The other problem is bribery. Many believe that both the buyer and seller here value the good in the wrong way, and that the ability to procreate should not be up for sale. Sandel states that they believe this ability should not be a tool for monetary gain. After all, it is the women’s choice, but there is a big question here of whether money belongs in such a field. The next scenarios are education and health. Some kids are given financial incentives to read books and get good grades and teachers are paid when their students have good grades. Some patients are given financial incentives to take medicine and to stay healthy(not smoke, eat healthy). The big problems with these incentives are fairness and bribery. For fairness, it is believed that these monetary incentives absolve many of their responsibility for their grades and health. Also, it could put people who can’t control these factors at a disadvantage, as they won’t be paid. For bribery, many think that these incentives crowd out the right attitude to our physical well being. It may even undermine the correct attitude. The bribe may also become a habit for many in different areas. They could not do what’s best for them in the future because they expect rewards for every good action. Also, many people who complied to get the money were back to their old ways after the incentives ended, which means that valuable money was wasted. In general, financial incentives can undermine the action of good. Instead of thinking it is for your benefit, some think of it as a chore to get money, hence potentially being detrimental, says Sandel. The market norm can override the non-market norm, creating bad habits and mindsets. Then, the chapter discusses the mix-up of fines(monetary incentives to not do something) and fees. Fines usually display that one should not do something, and it is a punishment for bad behaviour. However recently, the more wealthy are breaking the rules and then paying the fine, thinking that all is okay. A rich person would litter or park their car in the wrong space, and then pay the fine, thinking it is a fee. The action is a bad thing and should not be just payed off so easily. If one parks in a disabled space and then easily pays the fee, they are not considering morally the needs of physically disabled people. Their attitude towards the fine of treating as a fee can be damaging to those around them, Sandel believes. Sandel claims that to distinguish fines from fees, fines should be much harsher and should vary according to income. In Finland, a rich person was fined $217,000 for speeding. This hits him where it hurts and prevents him from imperiling public safety, clearly being a fine. In China, Sandel talks about how China didn’t allow rich people to bypass the one-child system. Many affluent people thought the fine for having two children was a fee, but then China became much harsher, with bigger fines, public denouncements(for celebrities), banning the gaining of government contracts(for businessmen) and banning them from appearing on TV(for TV hosts). This clearly distinguished between a fine and a fee. Sandel goes on to say that a way to avoid fines altogether is to introduce markets, where people can buy and sell the right to have extra kids, to speed on roads, to pollute the atmosphere above the legal limits and to hunt certain species. The buyer essentially pays the fine/fee upfront and then carries out the action. These markets however are morally objectionable, even if they efficiently allocate the good. Buying and selling the rights to events that some believe should be free or some believe should be banned(with fines imposed on rule-breakers) can have detrimental effects. It could further separate the rich from the poor, just like fines, and it could completely erode non-market norms. Overall, Sandel here poses the questions: Are monetary incentives detrimental in the long-term? Do they corrupt non-market norms and attitudes? Should we trade in rights to break the rules? Do they really work in motivating people or do they make the problem worse?

Chapter three is called “How Markets Crowd Out Morals”. Sandel begins by covering what money can and can’t buy and how that is changing, and how that is ruining morals. Sandel states that things like friends or honours can’t be bought, even if you hire a friend, pay for followers on social media or buy a trophy for an honour/award(Oscar,Grammy etc). However, Sandel then says that there are already certain things that money shouldn’t be able to buy but it can, like human body parts. Maybe a person is coerced by the financial reward for selling their kidney as they are poor and need the money. While there usually was a clear difference between what money can or can’t buy, the markets have been blurring the line. Different companies offer written apologies or wedding toasts for a set fee. These practices are close to friendship. By buying a good speech online or paying for a service that apologizes for you, you are buying tokens of friendship. And by buying these tokens, you could be strengthening the friendship, therefore arguably buying a part of friendship. Many argue that these tokens shouldn’t be up for sale as it is morally wrong and that markets should stay out of friendship. Buying and selling them could diminish the morals of them and their value. Another way that markets crowd out morals could be in the gift-giving business, says Sandel. Gifts are becoming more about money than the thought of the gift-giving itself. Gift cards and cash for gifts are becoming more popular than ever. However money as a gift, while being very efficient in economic eyes(allowing the recipient to buy what he wants) and while it diminishes the dead weight losses, shows a lack of thoughtfulness and could be morally wrong in some eyes. Many think gift giving is an area where money and markets in gift-cards should not be involved. Sandel poses the question: What are the moral limits of markets? There is serious discussion of a market for selling babies currently, and similar to the kidney example, there are two objections against markets for Sandel. One is fairness(unfair to poorer people) and one is corruption(buying and selling babies, kidneys and other things can undermine their true value). Offering financial rewards for voting for a certain act, selling your blood are more examples that Sandel covers. In these fields he asks about whether the market’s buyers and sellers are really acting voluntarily and if markets and money morally and rightfully belong in these fields.

Sandel’s fourth chapter in this book is about the role of markets in life and death. Some people have life insurance and the insurance company in many countries can sell this insurance to private parties. Sandel brings up an example of how a man died but his $300,000 didn’t go to his family, it went to his employer, Walmart, which bought the policy and named itself the beneficiary. Now there is a huge gambling industry in life and death with insurance. Many investors buy insurances and gamble on whether the person will die in the set time. The buying of insurance of low-level workers is known as “Janitor’s Insurance”. Now companies can bet on the deaths of their workers and they sweep up huge financial benefits if they die. Many believe this is morally wrong. People shouldn’t profit from death and companies shouldn’t be able to take out life insurance on their workers. However, some think that there is no need for consent. The buyer and seller are the only people who should know. This is another moral question Sandel states. Is it morally right to bet on death? Is gaining consent morally necessary? The viatical industry is similar to this. People who don’t have long left can sell their life insurance and the investor will take over the annual premiums. This is also gambling. The investor needs the policy holder to die soon, so that they can sweep up a lot of profit. Sandel also proposes the same moral questions to the reader here. However, there is another market in death which is more objectionable. This is the market of death pools. The consumer pays an entry fee, and then they guess which celebrities will die this calendar year. They get money at the end of the year based on how good their predictions were. This gambling on death can be seen as horrific and morally incorrect, but it isn’t illegal. The market is just playing its role. The US government later thought that it was a good idea to create a similar website, but people have to predict terrorist attacks. The argument was that since people were betting with their money, they would put a lot of effort in and the predictions could be a valuable intelligence tool. DARPA, an intelligence agency, said that markets are very good at predictions and their opinions are more beneficial than experts, who will get paid regardless of whether they are right or wrong. However, the website was shut down after huge distaste for the idea. Many politicians thought it was morally wrong to bet and trade on such horrible events. Overall, Sandel asks the reader whether it is right to gamble your money on tragic events, and if markets have crossed the moral line here.

The final chapter on this book is called “Naming Rights”. Sandel starts by talking about the drastic effect in sports that markets have had. Players are paid a lot more, tickets are more expensive and stadiums have changed altogether. The first big change is in the names. Sandel brings up how most sports teams now have sold the naming rights to their stadiums. Contrary to the fans wishes, the clubs have been seduced by massive financial rewards to rename their stadium eg the Chicago White Sox baseball team used to call the stadium the Comiskey Stadium(named after an early owner), but they are now playing in a stadium called the US Cellular Field(mobile phone company). These naming deals can be worth hundreds of millions of pounds over a twenty year period. Also, Sandel mentions autographs from players are now being sold, so that sometimes not anyone can get them. An increasing number of people or players sell autographs for a lot of money, and in the future some predict the richest will be the ones who get their hands on the autographs more often than not. However the biggest change markets have brought upon the stadiums to Sandel is the introduction of sky-boxes. The gap of the costs for a sky-box ticket and a normal ticket has increased drastically with the involvement of markets over the years. The majority of professional teams have sky-boxes. While this is economically beneficial for all(teams make money and the rich are more comfortable), it shows a growing disconnect between the wealthy and the poor. Now due to markets, Sandel believes the rich and poor are meeting each other in less and less walks of life, contrary to most fans’ wishes. People of all classes used to sit together and cheer for their team, but now the inequality has grown due to market involvement. Sandel asks if this is morally right. Many think that sports should be a place of equality and inclusion, but now markets could be said to be eroding that non-market norm. Advertising is the final part of this chapter. Companies have paid teams to make their commentators say certain things when certain events happen, like on a home run, the commentator has to mention the company’s name in a pun. This is repeated throughout the game. A lot of people believe this takes out the excitement and authenticity of the game. When markets get involved in commentary and sometimes even cover parts of the sports field with advertisements, people morally object. It is not only sports that Sandel mentions. In beaches(sand sculptures of company logos), schools(ads on school equipment), prisons, books(subtle mentions of companies), police(ads on police cars), healthcare(ads on equipment), commercialism has begun to make its mark. Sandel shows how companies are paying for advertisements on more and more things that many see as sacred. Morally, some find that the advertisement can undermine some things like healthcare and can diminish the authority of police cars when adverts are painted all over them. Some people even sell parts of their body, like their foreheads, to companies. The company gives a set amount of money for a tattoo to be placed. The poorest who are desperate for money could be coerced by the large reward. While this is all okay and beneficial from an economic standpoint, some believe that this excessive commercialism crosses the moral line between right and wrong, and that some public spaces are sacred and should not be up for sale. Sandel sides with this argument too.

Overall, this book discusses how markets and money are getting involved in places they questionably do or don’t belong. Economically, markets crowding out non-market norms can be easy to understand, but Sandel believes that this will have a detrimental effect in the future and morals should stand firm against markets.