Why Economics Needs a Moral Dimension

INET President Rob Johnson talks with Michael Sandel about the limits of a life driven by self-interest, gambling and Wall Street, and why the consumer model of economics has failed to explain the human experience.

[@ConorFenlon]

I don't generally watch videos about economics, but this was absolutely sublime. So eloquently spoken and well thought out. Great video!

[@leealexander3507]

Americans are well trained consumers. Advertisers create demand. How much of what you buy or desire do you actually need?

[@je6403]

Thanks Mr. Johnson for that insight into your own moral dimension! Quite refreshing to hear that kind of openness.

[@emreon3160]

Absolutely Genius. Thank you for providing an incredibly high quality interview on youtube.

[@bills.7175]

Well done! This is a viewpoint that needs more expression in our world.

[@gargapurv]

I'm glad I understand economics and have little bit conscience left in my soul to understand this conversation.

[@thatgirlayhanah]

I find deep conversations about economics to be quite interesting and even amusing as someone with a clinical therapy background. What fascinates me is how different psychology and economics views and analyzes human behavior-even down to the word choices and verbiage used to describe ideas. Yet, there is clearly an important intersection of economics and psychology that is largely overlooked by many.

[@Misuci]

I'd like to see the next segment of this conversation...

[@IIllytch321nonadinfinitum]

It's so refreshing to know that there are others who see the world as I do. I get that people don't want to be coerced or manipulated into doing things for society as it's implicit in that situation that the person being changed for the betterment of society is not doing better for society already (and also begs the question, "What even is 'good' for society?"). People don't like that feeling (cognitive dissonance). "Good" and "bad" societies/economies may not exist objectively and require subjective, human interpretation to ascertain to some degree, but this doesn't mean that there aren't such concepts whether or not there will ever be a universal consensus as to what they are. Surely an economy based on gains made by killing people at random is worse than one based on gains made by ensuring such a situation doesn't occur. Even if this isn't objectively true doesn't mean there isn't a consensus on the matter (assuming education, awareness, neurological issues, or psychopathy aren't issues, in which case I'd weigh their opinions much less). As for the changes in society for the better and how people don't like to feel like they are part of the problem, I wonder if a new ubiquity of information and education would allow those people who would otherwise do harm to society (mainly those who are uneducated or unaware, as neurology and psychopathy are a different beast altogether) to change from within--on their own--so there would be far less need for external systems of governing pro-social behavior. Of course, this would not cure the world of greed, self-interest, or outright anti-social behavior, but perhaps it would be a part of shifting human civilization toward a more unified whole. We are existing in an age in which information can travel the world with little effort with the technology that's in place, but what of the access to such information and one's ability to process it? For example, when people keep to their safe bubbles of groupthink and never hear anything but what Fox News tells them, does information even mean anything anymore? It then seems to only mean "the opposite of what I think, and therefore, is bad". Would information interchange and critical thinking have to start at a younger and younger age? But then is this a form of brainwashing? No, surely not, because any education at a young age would be brainwashing (which is what already happens, thus, we're already OK with brainwashing, so who cares). I don't see it as brainwashing, but as providing the necessary skills and information that allows one to, when thrust into consciousness and the world as a more mature observer and actor in the world, to be more aware of what is actually happening within and outside of oneself. This might seem like a crass simplification, but it's the best way I can describe it. In this way, perhaps the aforementioned means by which we'd come to a more just world would arrive without needing to rely on incentives as much. I don't know. Peace.

[@Misuci]

This is good " to change from within--on their own--so there would be far less need for external systems of governing pro-social behavior." Man, this is good too.. "Would information interchange and critical thinking have to start at a younger and younger age? But then is this a form of brainwashing? No, surely not, because any education at a young age would be brainwashing (which is what already happens, thus, we're already OK with brainwashing, so who cares). I don't see it as brainwashing, but as providing the necessary skills and information that allows one to, when thrust into consciousness and the world as a more mature observer and actor in the world, to be more aware of what is actually happening within and outside of oneself. This might seem like a crass simplification, but it's the best way I can describe it."

[@IIllytch321nonadinfinitum]

*@@Misuci * Thanks for your kind words. I wish you the best, fellow traveler. Peace.

[@lemonarry]

An economist here. Left the field because I was disgusted. What it needs is a human dimension. Economics shouldn't be mathematics removed from the real world and real life.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

There is no reason to leave Econ. You just need to learn better types of economics like Marxist econ and institutional Econ

[@Misuci]

@@PoliticalEconomy101 I think Marx did some good, but we have to use only the good parts of his work, and continue to develop much more moral based dimensions of social life...Marx mistake is no plane for new financial system....or Death for example not even enter to Marx's view as an economic factor that must be controlled, and it is a good think. ...as Marx the name is being abused.... from both sides.... Now we people getting more powerful, God like creatures, and we need a better understanding of that power..... So, i think we have to start to study Churches, and organised religions even more than MARX.... Marx is well documented, but churches are dark places, with true power... applied for long time... Personality cult... is a kind of religion, a pervert one... Cheers from Hungary...... Check out our charismatic leader....... We don't need new a lot of neo marxist, neo Newtonist, new Eistenists, we need new science, new scientist within social science... and that is religion... so we need scientist approach observing religion... that would be revolutionary ... I guess even Marx would have loved it...that will bring to us a higher level of social justice...

[@philipb2134]

@Spartan Economics is a social science, as we both know - tautologically, Economics has a human dimension. Frankly, it baffles me how you might suggest that a field which includes the likes of e.g. Gunnar Myrdahl, Hernando de Soto, Amartya Sen... lack a "human dimension." Nash had a beautiful mind, and was quite human indeed. Let me give a shout out for Mancur Olson, very human In an age, a time, when his fellows were desperate to fit as many equations as possible into a paper for peer review and publication , He sought to understand and elucidate the human dimensions, over what were a widespread urge to skew their research goals to yield math enough to be taken seriously by other scientists. I ascribe this tendency to a cringe by economists fearful of their domain not being taken seriously as a proper science. Let's refer to that as "PNAS envy"

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

Good interview, thanks

[@kumonetta]

Thank you for the new direction

[@terrythompson7535]

It should be pretty clear the role of morality in an economy. Look, good men and women who WORK are what gives a currency its value. They should not be taught to believe that they must wait until the afterlife to receive a reward. In addition, when you reward bad behavior you get more of it. The decline of morality in general is what is killing us right now.

[@LookDeeper]

Subsidising the banks and the current abusers of this economic system is a bad investment no matter which way you look at it.

[@thesimulacre]

Heck ya! Love is an ever flowing fountain!

[@magnumopus8202]

What a brilliant discussion 😏

[@OB17358]

Everything needs a moral base to work from.

[@johnbaker6461]

This was Adam Smith's view. It's too bad his book on moral sentiments never achieved the same status as his book on the wealth of nations.

[@philipb2134]

@@johnbaker6461 Adam Smith was genuinely concerned with the well being of workers. Those who claim to have read his work and apply his insight - but just read politically-guided abstracts -instead seem never to get to that part.

[@michelnormandin8068]

Monsieur Johnson vous êtes mon héro du jour.

[@enfomy]

Interesting conversation. I’m going to simplify my response to save time. I think a “bribe” can be viewed as a tool, and therefore it is used right in the hands of a good person. If ethics is known or assumed, paying for unethical actions would obviously be wrong, and the problem isn’t wholly about the bribing part. I think the market is restricted by laws because people can and many times do have harmful preferences, or are ignorant of harmful preferences. One should use a combination of geology, ecology, psychology, and the like to determine beneficial preferences. An ethically good state of being seems to be when the planet is climatically stable, creatures are thriving in their ecosystems, and most rational beings are happy or are not being oppressed by another’s vice. That last part is difficult and perhaps too dynamic to express in simple terms because of the many ways humans can interact. Practically everything has to be looked at on a case to case basis, though one would use the same principles throughout, ie trying to achieve an ethically good state of being.

[@Misuci]

I Like your comment ". I think a “bribe” can be viewed as a tool, and therefore it is used right in the hands of a good person."... An austrian economist FRANZ HÖRMANN wrote : "The so-called normative sciences (the "sciences of presumption", especially economics and law) are NOT sciences but an instrument with which the population is fooled by the will of a minority as a "scientific natural law". Economics and law are applications of human communication. Thus, the communication sciences (with the auxiliary sciences psychology and technology) are superior to economics and law. Free sciences and arts can therefore not be limited by economics and law (which have no scientific basis). "

[@enfomy]

@@Misuci Thanks for the cordial words. I think it would be difficult to argue that economics and law aren't contained within the soft sciences in social psychology, sociology, anthropology, or the like; or within philosophy in ethics. Data can be collected on both ideas. One can study how rules change behavior, and one can study the movement of material. But you are right that they are not scientific natural laws. The ideas seem to be attempts at fixing the aspects of human nature that are harmful. So we use law and economics in some form to prevent self-destruction through selfishness, psychopathy, intolerance, and like vices. If we had better innate programming and altruistic inclinations, we probably wouldn't need laws and economics because we would be self-stabilizing. It also seems to me that these moderating ideas need reform every 100 years or so, likely due to the rapid changing of intelligence as it changes its environment and learns more.

[@uncharted1990]

Economics need a transformation of dimension not an all-happy moral façade.

[@SamKGrove]

I think most of us can agree that mainstream economics...whatever that is...is greatly flawed. What is mainstream economics? Going by government fiscal policy, and the high priest of mainstream economics, Paul Krugman, I conclude that the hallmark of mainstream economics is aggregation, or the macro view. Political government and those that seek to enrich themselves via political influence should be known for what they really are, mercantilists. We can boil down our choices to two choices: political control or freedom. Mainstream economics embraces, indeed relies on political control, but then so do socialists of various stripes, and, I suspect, the people behind New Economic Thinking, and there's nothing new about that.

[@themessiahsgovernmentofint2169]

Luckily I have been working all my life to save the system from collapsing and to save humanity from infesting itself. I have devised the formula. There really is no alternative because the ideas are required.

[@ektarovladamovic7649]

i love the deepness of his voice. haha

[@polvotierno]

Economics already has morality built in.... It is called Maximizing Net Social Benefits. That should be the guiding principle of economics.

[@Misuci]

That is a myth, and financial systems is mythematics... "Yanis Varoufakis and Joseph Stiglitz | April 2015 ... Critical Realism & Mathematics versus Mythematics in Economics | Steve Keen · Cambridge ..."

[@dinsel9691]

This was a very good interview however this sort of talk with economic jargon will fly past 95% of people..

[@carolynsmith9172]

Look, all, America needs Universal Healthcare. Why? *Mental Illness and Addiction are Public Health Issues not Criminal Justice Issues. --Americans would save $2T over 10 years, according to the Koch Bros. Report. --Medical care would reduce crime. --A healthier population would increase productivity and allow citizens to be active into their 80's. --America's Healthcare Delivery must undergo a "Sea Change." The focus needs to be on "outcome." Model: Kaiser Permanente can be a starting point.

[@jefersonlemos4135]

part of what he says indeed appears on the serie "Westworld" on the character "man in the black"

[@debralegorreta1375]

To say that the love is a scarce resource is to analogize it with industrial inputs. This analogy is wrong because the marginal cost of love is zero. The additional cost of producing an addition quantum of love is nothing because all that is needed is a change in attitude. It may cost me a lot to change the attitude of others, but it cost me nothing to change my own attitudes. I merely will it. Nothing could be less costly. Just as the marginal cost of software is negligible, so is the cost of love. Sounds weird today to be talking about love in a discussion about political economy; and that's because money as supplanted the need for love; however, before money, in the favor economy of yore, love was an intrinsic component of collective organizing.

[@jibbi4one]

capitalism is privatizing gains & socializing the losses.

[@philipb2134]

@ Bruce Behrhorst No, that is the behavior pattern consistent with one iteration of capitalism - of which there are many. In some capitalist economic systems (notably in northern Europe), much of the gains will become captured by the State or by social contract for more equitable distribution among the citizenry. Capitalism comes in many flavors. If the one you experience is too bitter, you have the right to seek to change it peacefully..

[@SamKGrove]

That's the left's caricature of capitalism. An accurate term is corporate fascism. All we need to do is stop socializing the losses THEN we'll have capitalism. The problem of political power is that everyone wants to use it for their own benefit. That's one of the corrupting effects of political power. It should come as no surprise that business people do not embrace competition, preferring instead to benefit from influencing the making of policy. But then, every effing political group seeks to do the same. Everybody wants to rule the world.

[@jibbi4one]

@@philipb2134 You mean DEMOCRATIC Socialism comes in different flavors. Where VOTERS given a fair Proportional Vote system and direct democracy Plebiscite will vote their best interest in a MIXED economy. Something the Anglo-American N. Am. world has not learned yet.

[@jibbi4one]

@@SamKGrove Me thinks 'Sam' wants everyone to F-O-O-L the world.

[@jibbi4one]

@peterboy sonicat Love

[@StrategicWealthLLC]

One of the most “all feelings, not fact” conversations I have ever heard.

[@gostavoadolfos2023]

Talking about echo chambres, à média slave interviews his editorial master!

[@leealexander3507]

For me it would take me in a negative direction. I need to gain weight, not lose it.

[@Nickikiddi]

He almost sounds like Bernie Sanders idk, interesting stuff but it was very distracting

[@Misuci]

If you paid a bit more attention to these two gentleman, you know that you will not get a TO DO LIST... You get a think about list... and that is distracting, that is true.. But I love it..

[@havenbastion]

That's fundamentally inaccurate. Ethics needs an economic dimension.

[@woogyboogybigger]

Wtf is new economic thinking and why is KZbin pushing it?