Here's a question we need to rethink together: What should be the role of money and markets in our societies?
Evo pitanja o kojem bismo trebali ponovo zajedno razmisliti: Koja bi trebala biti uloga novca i tržišta u našim društvima?
Today, there are very few things that money can't buy. If you're sentenced to a jail term in Santa Barbara, California, you should know that if you don't like the standard accommodations, you can buy a prison cell upgrade. It's true. For how much, do you think? What would you guess? Five hundred dollars? It's not the Ritz-Carlton. It's a jail! Eighty-two dollars a night. Eighty-two dollars a night. If you go to an amusement park and don't want to stand in the long lines for the popular rides, there is now a solution. In many theme parks, you can pay extra to jump to the head of the line. They call them Fast Track or VIP tickets.
Danas postoji vrlo malo stvari koje se ne mogu kupiti novcem. Ako ste osuđeni na zatvorsku kaznu u Santa Barbari, u Kaliforniji, trebali biste znati da ukoliko vam se ne sviđa standardni smještaj, možete nadoplatiti za smještaj u boljoj ćeliji. To je istina. Kolika je nadoplata, što mislite? Pokušajte pogoditi. Pet stotina dolara? To nije Ritz-Carlton hotel To je zatvor! Osamdeset i dva dolara za noć. Osamdeset i dva dolara za noć. Ako odete u zabavni park i ne želite stajati u dugačkim redovima za popularne vožnje, sada postoji rješenje. U mnogim tematskim parkovima možete dodatno platiti da biste skočili na početak reda. To zovu Brza traka ili VIP ulaznice.
And this isn't only happening in amusement parks. In Washington, D.C., long lines, queues sometimes form for important Congressional hearings. Now some people don't like to wait in long queues, maybe overnight, even in the rain. So now, for lobbyists and others who are very keen to attend these hearings but don't like to wait, there are companies, line-standing companies, and you can go to them. You can pay them a certain amount of money, they hire homeless people and others who need a job to stand waiting in the line for as long as it takes, and the lobbyist, just before the hearing begins, can take his or her place at the head of the line and a seat in the front of the room. Paid line standing.
I to se ne događa samo u zabavnim parkovima. U Washintonu D.C. dugački redovi čekanja ponekad nastaju za važne rasprave Kongresa. No, neki ljudi ne vole čekati u dugačkim redovima možda i cijelu noć, čak i na kiši. Zato sada, za lobiste i druge koji žarko žele prisustvovati tim raspravama, ali ne žele čekati, postoje kompanije, kompanije za čekanje u redovima, kojima se možete obratiti. Možete im platiti određeni iznos, oni unajmljuju beskućnike i druge koji trebaju posao da stoje u redu koliko god je potrebno, a lobist, upravo prije početka sjednice, može zauzeti svoje mjesto na početku reda i sjedalo u prvim redovima dvorane. Plaćeno stajanje u redu.
It's happening, the recourse to market mechanisms and market thinking and market solutions, in bigger arenas. Take the way we fight our wars. Did you know that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were more private military contractors on the ground than there were U.S. military troops? Now this isn't because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource war to private companies, but this is what has happened.
Posezanje za tržišnim mehanizmima i tržišnim razmišljanjem i tržišnim rješenjima događa se i u većim razmjerima. Uzmite način na koji vodimo ratove. Jeste li znali da je u Iraku i Afganistanu bilo više privatnih vojnih kompanija nego američkih vojnih trupa? No to nije zato jer smo imali javnu raspravu o tome želimo li vođenje rata povjeriti privatnim kompanijama; no to se dogodilo.
Over the past three decades, we have lived through a quiet revolution. We've drifted almost without realizing it from having a market economy to becoming market societies. The difference is this: A market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool, for organizing productive activity, but a market society is a place where almost everything is up for sale. It's a way of life, in which market thinking and market values begin to dominate every aspect of life: personal relations, family life, health, education, politics, law, civic life.
Tijekom zadnja tri desetljeća proživljavali smo tihu revoluciju. Gotovo ne shvaćajući, odlutali smo, i od društva sa tržišnom ekonomijom postali tržišno društvo. Razlika je u ovome: Tržišna ekonomija je alat, dragocjen i učinkovit alat, za organiziranje proizvodne aktivnosti, no tržišno društvo je mjesto gdje je gotovo sve na prodaju. To je način života u kojem tržišno razmišljanje i tržišne vrijednosti počinju dominirati svakim aspektom života: osobnim odnosima, obiteljskim životom, zdravljem, obrazovanjem, politikom, zakonom, građanskim životom.
Now, why worry? Why worry about our becoming market societies? For two reasons, I think. One of them has to do with inequality. The more things money can buy, the more affluence, or the lack of it, matters. If the only thing that money determined was access to yachts or fancy vacations or BMWs, then inequality wouldn't matter very much. But when money comes increasingly to govern access to the essentials of the good life -- decent health care, access to the best education, political voice and influence in campaigns -- when money comes to govern all of those things, inequality matters a great deal. And so the marketization of everything sharpens the sting of inequality and its social and civic consequence. That's one reason to worry.
No, zašto brinuti? Zašto brinuti o tome što postajemo tržišna društva? Ja mislim iz dva razloga. Jedan od njih odnosi se na nejednakost. Što se više stvari može kupiti novcem, to je važnije bogatstvo odnosno njegov manjak. Kada bi jedina stvar o kojoj odlučuje novac bila dostupnost jahti ili luksuznih putovanja ili BMW-ova tada nejednakost ne bi bila jako važna. No, kada novac sve više počinje upravljati dostupom do osnovnih sredstava za dobar život -- primjerena zdravstvena skrb, dostupnost najboljeg obrazovanja, politički glas i utjecaj u kampanjama -- kada novac počinje upravljati svim tim stvarima nejednakost postaje jako važna. I zato, dodjeljivanje tržišne vrijednosti svemu zaoštrava žalac nejednakosti i njene socijalne i građanske posljedice. To je jedan razlog za brigu.
There's a second reason apart from the worry about inequality, and it's this: with some social goods and practices, when market thinking and market values enter, they may change the meaning of those practices and crowd out attitudes and norms worth caring about.
Postoji drugi razlog bez obzira na brigu o nejednakosti, a taj je sljedeći: ima nekih društvenih dobara i usluga kojima bi tržišno razmišljanje i tržišne vrijednosti mogli promijeniti njihovo značenje i istisnuti stavove i mjerila o kojima vrijedi brinuti.
I'd like to take an example of a controversial use of a market mechanism, a cash incentive, and see what you think about it. Many schools struggle with the challenge of motivating kids, especially kids from disadvantaged backgrounds, to study hard, to do well in school, to apply themselves. Some economists have proposed a market solution: Offer cash incentives to kids for getting good grades or high test scores or for reading books. They've tried this, actually. They've done some experiments in some major American cities. In New York, in Chicago, in Washington, D.C., they've tried this, offering 50 dollars for an A, 35 dollars for a B. In Dallas, Texas, they have a program that offers eight-year-olds two dollars for each book they read.
Kao primjer kontraverznog korištenja tržišnog mehanizma, želio bih uzeti novčani poticaj i vidjeti što vi mislite o tome. Mnoge se škole bore s izazovom motiviranja djece, pogotovo siromašnije djece, da marljivo uče, dobro prolaze u školi, da se zalažu. Neki ekonomisti su predložili tržišno rješenje: Ponuditi djeci novčani poticaj za dobre ocjene ili bolje rezultate na testovima ili za čitanje knjiga. To su ustvari i probali. Proveli su neke eksperimente u nekoliko većih američkih gradova. U New Yorku, u Chicagu, u Washingtonu D.C., su to pokušali nudeći 50 dolara za peticu, 35 dolara za četvorku. U Dallasu, u Texasu, imaju program koji osmogodišnjacima nudi dva dolara za svaku pročitanu knjigu.
So let's see what -- Some people are in favor, some people are opposed to this cash incentive to motivate achievement. Let's see what people here think about it. Imagine that you are the head of a major school system, and someone comes to you with this proposal. And let's say it's a foundation. They will provide the funds. You don't have to take it out of your budget. How many would be in favor and how many would be opposed to giving it a try? Let's see by a show of hands.
Pa da vidimo što -- Neki ljudi podržavaju, neki ljudi su protiv ovog novčanog poticaja za motiviranje uspjeha. Da vidimo što ljudi ovdje misle o tome. Zamislite da ste ravnatelj velikog školskog sustava, i netko vam dođe s tim prijedlogom. I recimo da je to fondacija. Oni će osigurati sredstva. Vi ne morate trošiti svoj budžet. Koliko bi vas bilo za, a koliko protiv da se to proba? Da vidimo dizanjem ruku.
First, how many think it might at least be worth a try to see if it would work? Raise your hand.
Prvo, koliko vas misli da bi bar vrijedilo pokušati da se vidi bi li funkcioniralo? Podignite ruke.
And how many would be opposed? How many would --
A koliko bi vas bilo protiv? Koliko bi --
So the majority here are opposed, but a sizable minority are in favor. Let's have a discussion. Let's start with those of you who object, who would rule it out even before trying. What would be your reason? Who will get our discussion started? Yes?
Dakle, većina ovdje je protiv, ali znatna manjina je za. Hajdemo to prodiskutirati. Počnimo s onima koji su protiv, koji bi to odbacili i prije no što pokušaju. Koji bi bio vaš razlog? Tko će započeti našu diskusiju? Da?
Heike Moses: Hello everyone, I'm Heike, and I think it just kills the intrinsic motivation, so in the respect that children, if they would like to read, you just take this incentive away in just paying them, so it just changes behavior. Michael Sandel: Takes the intrinsic incentive away.
Heike Moses: Dobar dan svima, ja sam Heike, i ja mislim da to ubija intrinzičnu motivaciju u smislu da ta djeca, ako bi voljela čitati, vi im samo oduzimate taj poticaj plaćajući im pa to samo mijenja ponašanje. Michael Sandel: Oduzima intrinzičnu inicijativu.
What is, or should be, the intrinsic motivation?
Što je, ili bi trebala biti, intrinzična motivacija?
HM: Well, the intrinsic motivation should be to learn.
HM: Pa, intrinzična motivacija bi trebala biti učenje.
MS: To learn. HM: To get to know the world. And then, if you stop paying them, what happens then? Then they stop reading?
MS: Učenje. HM: Upoznavanje svijeta. A onda, ako ih prestanete plaćati, što se tada događa? Onda oni prestaju čitati?
MS: Now, let's see if there's someone who favors, who thinks it's worth trying this.
MS: Da vidimo ima li netko tko je za, tko misli da to vrijedi pokušati.
Elizabeth Loftus: I'm Elizabeth Loftus, and you said worth a try, so why not try it and do the experiment and measure things? MS: And measure. And what would you measure? You'd measure how many -- EL: How many books they read and how many books they continued to read after you stopped paying them.
Elizabeth Loftus: Ja sam Elizabeth Loftus, i rekli ste vrijedi pokušati, pa zašto ne pokušati i provesti eksperiment i izmjeriti stvari? MS: I izmjeriti. A što biste vi mjerili? Mjerili biste koliko -- EL: Koliko knjiga su pročitali i koliko knjiga nastavljaju čitati nakon što ste im prestali plaćati.
MS: Oh, after you stopped paying. All right, what about that?
MS: Aha, nakon što ste prestali plaćati. Dobro, što mislite o tome?
HM: To be frank, I just think this is, not to offend anyone, a very American way.
HM: Iskreno, mislim samo da je to -- ne želim nikoga uvrijediti -- vrlo američki način.
(Laughter) (Applause)
(Smijeh) (Pljesak)
MS: All right. What's emerged from this discussion is the following question: Will the cash incentive drive out or corrupt or crowd out the higher motivation, the intrinsic lesson that we hope to convey, which is to learn to love to learn and to read for their own sakes? And people disagree about what the effect will be, but that seems to be the question, that somehow a market mechanism or a cash incentive teaches the wrong lesson, and if it does, what will become of these children later?
MS: U redu. Ono što je iskrslo iz ove diskusije je sljedeće pitanje: Hoće li novčani poticaj odagnati, ili iskvariti, ili istisnuti višu motivaciju, intrinzičnu lekciju koju se nadamo prenijeti, a to je naučiti voljeti učenje i čitanje zbog njih samih? I ljudi se ne slažu o tome koji će učinak biti, no to je izgleda pitanje, da, na neki način, tržišni mehanizam ili novčani poticaj uči pogrešnu lekciju, a ako to čini, što će biti s tom djecom kasnije?
I should tell you what's happened with these experiments. The cash for good grades has had very mixed results, for the most part has not resulted in higher grades. The two dollars for each book did lead those kids to read more books. It also led them to read shorter books.
Moram vam reći što se dogodilo s tim eksperimentima. Novac za dobre ocjene imao je vrlo miješane rezultate, uglavnom nije rezultirao boljim ocjenama. Dva dolara za svaku knjigu navela su klince da čitaju više knjiga. Navela su ih također da čitaju kraće knjige.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
But the real question is, what will become of these kids later? Will they have learned that reading is a chore, a form of piecework to be done for pay, that's the worry, or may it lead them to read maybe for the wrong reason initially but then lead them to fall in love with reading for its own sake?
No pravo pitanje je, što će s tom djecom biti kasnije? Hoće li oni naučiti da je čitanje zaduženje, oblik rada koji se plaća po komadu, to je problem, ili ih to može navesti da čitaju, možda iz krivih razloga u početku, no potom da se zaljube u čitanje zbog njega samog?
Now, what this, even this brief debate, brings out is something that many economists overlook. Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not touch or taint the goods they exchange. Market exchange, they assume, doesn't change the meaning or value of the goods being exchanged. This may be true enough if we're talking about material goods. If you sell me a flat screen television or give me one as a gift, it will be the same good. It will work the same either way. But the same may not be true if we're talking about nonmaterial goods and social practices such as teaching and learning or engaging together in civic life. In those domains, bringing market mechanisms and cash incentives may undermine or crowd out nonmarket values and attitudes worth caring about. Once we see that markets and commerce, when extended beyond the material domain, can change the character of the goods themselves, can change the meaning of the social practices, as in the example of teaching and learning, we have to ask where markets belong and where they don't, where they may actually undermine values and attitudes worth caring about. But to have this debate, we have to do something we're not very good at, and that is to reason together in public about the value and the meaning of the social practices we prize, from our bodies to family life to personal relations to health to teaching and learning to civic life.
Ovo što ova, čak i ovako kratka, rasprava pokazuje nešto je što su mnogi ekonomisti previdjeli. Ekonomisti često pretpostavljaju da su tržišta inertna, da ne dotiču niti kvare robu koju razmjenjuju. Tržišna razmjena, smatraju oni, ne mijenja značenje ili vrijednost roba koje se razmjenjuju. To doduše može biti istina ako govorimo o materijalnoj robi. Ako mi prodate plazma televizor, ili mi ga poklonite, to će biti ista roba. Radit će jednako u oba slučaja. Ali, isto možda nije istina ako govorimo o nematerijalnoj robi i društvenim praksama kao što su podučavanje i učenje ili zajedničko sudjelovanje u građanskom životu. U tim područjima, uvođenje tržišnih mehanizama i novčanih poticaja moglo bi potkopati ili istisnuti nematerijalne vrijednosti i stavove koje vrijedi njegovati. Jednom kada uvidimo da tržište i trgovina, kada se prošire izvan materijalne domene, mogu mijenjati karakter samih roba, mogu mijenjati značenje društvenih praksi, kao u primjeru o podučavanju i učenju, moramo upitati gdje tržišta pripadaju, a gdje ne pripadaju, gdje zapravo mogu potkopati vrijednosti i stavove koje vrijedi njegovati. No za takvu raspravu trebali bismo učiniti nešto u čemu nismo jako dobri, a to je da prosuđujemo zajedno u javnosti o vrijednostima i značenju društvenih praksi koje cijenimo, od naših tijela do obiteljskog života do osobnih odnosa do zdravlja do podučavanja i učenja do građanskog života.
Now these are controversial questions, and so we tend to shrink from them. In fact, during the past three decades, when market reasoning and market thinking have gathered force and gained prestige, our public discourse during this time has become hollowed out, empty of larger moral meaning. For fear of disagreement, we shrink from these questions. But once we see that markets change the character of goods, we have to debate among ourselves these bigger questions about how to value goods.
To su kontraverzna pitanja, pa ih nastojimo izbjegavati. U stvari, tijekom zadnja tri desetljeća kada je tržišno zaključivanje i tržišno razmišljanje dobilo zamah i steklo ugled, naš javni diskurs je za to vrijeme postao isprazan, lišen dubljeg moralnog značenja. Zbog straha od nesuglasica, mi izbjegavamo takva pitanja. No jednom kada uvidimo da tržišta mijenjaju karakter roba, moramo među sobom raspraviti ta šira pitanja o tome kako vrednovati robu.
One of the most corrosive effects of putting a price on everything is on commonality, the sense that we are all in it together. Against the background of rising inequality, marketizing every aspect of life leads to a condition where those who are affluent and those who are of modest means increasingly live separate lives. We live and work and shop and play in different places. Our children go to different schools.
Jedan od najkorozivnijih učinaka dodjeljivanja cijene svemu je na zajedništvo, osjećaj da smo u tome svi zajedno. U prilikama rastuće nejednakosti marketizacija svakog aspekta života vodi situaciji u kojoj oni bogati i oni s skromnijim sredstvima sve više žive odvojene živote. Mi živimo i radimo i kupujemo i igramo se na različitim mjestima. Naša djeca idu u različite škole.
This isn't good for democracy, nor is it a satisfying way to live, even for those of us who can afford to buy our way to the head of the line. Here's why. Democracy does not require perfect equality, but what it does require is that citizens share in a common life. What matters is that people of different social backgrounds and different walks of life encounter one another, bump up against one another in the ordinary course of life, because this is what teaches us to negotiate and to abide our differences. And this is how we come to care for the common good.
To nije dobro za demokraciju niti je to zadovoljavajući način života čak i za one od nas koji si mogu priuštiti da kupe prvo mjesto u redu. Evo zašto. Demokracija ne zahtijeva savršenu jednakost, ali ono što zahtijeva je da građani dijele zajednički život. Ono što je važno je da ljudi iz različitih društvenih slojeva i različitih profesija susreću jedni druge, nailaze jedno na drugo tijekom svakodnevnog života jer nas to uči da prevladamo i toleriramo naše razlike. I tako ćemo početi skrbiti za zajedničko dobro.
And so, in the end, the question of markets is not mainly an economic question. It's really a question of how we want to live together. Do we want a society where everything is up for sale, or are there certain moral and civic goods that markets do not honor and money cannot buy?
I, na kraju, pitanje tržišta uglavnom nije ekonomsko pitanje. To je ustvari pitanje kako želimo živjeti zajedno. Želimo li društvo u kojem je sve na prodaju ili postoje određene moralne i građanske robe koje tržište ne poštuje i novac ne može kupiti?
Thank you very much.
Puno vam hvala.
(Applause)
(Pljesak)