stable but i would say the rest of iraq you can get around. it's certainly better than it was during the war but i wouldn't travel without the security from the iraqi government in my own private security. stomach michael gordon covered the war for "the new york times" and the endgame is his newest book. this is book tv on c-span2.

now from the 2012 miami book fair international, michael talked about his book what money can't buy the morrill in the markets in which he addresses the ethical question is their something wrong with the world in which everything is for sale? this is about 40 minutes. [applause] >> thank you, david, everybody for coming. today i would like to engage all of us in a discussion of the

question of the book. it's an easy question to state -- i'm sorry easy to answer what should be the role of money in markets in our society? today there are fewer things that money can't buy. if you are sentenced to a jail term and california just in case that happens to anyone of you, 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 suppose? how much do you think it costs? $5,000? $90 a night. or if you are a tourist suppose you go to washington, d.c. on the congressional hearing that there may be a very long line if it is a popular hearing.

and you may not like standing in long lines you can now go to a company called line standing dhaka, and pay them a certain amount of money. they will hire someone usually a homeless person or someone that needs to work to hold the place on line for hours and hours overnight if need be. and when the hearing begins, you can take your place in the line and go into the hearing room. the same thing, you can do the same thing by the way, if you would rather sit in an oral argument before the u.s. supreme court. a longstanding dhaka, or suppose you want to contribute to a alleviating a social tragedy in this country. each year thousands of babies born to a drug-addicted mothers there is a charity you can contribute to that tries to use a market mechanism to solve this terrible problem.

they offered any and drug addicted woman $300 to be sterilized. the use of the market incentive. or suppose you have a new drug let's say you are a pharmaceutical company. you have a new drug that you want to market to the public. you can market it directly to consumers. you have seen those ads on television. if you see them on the nightly news or sporting events for prescription drugs you can be forgiven for thinking the greatest of crisis in the world is not malaria or sleeping sickness. you know what i am thinking of the rampant the epidemic of the of erectile dysfunction. these are signs of the times. over the last three decades

almost without realizing it, we have drifted from having a market economy to becoming a market society. the difference is this. a market economy is a tool, a valuable and effective tool for organizing productive activity. but a market society is different it's a place where almost everything is up for sale. where is life in which the market values and market relationships reach into almost every sphere of life consider box which we gather here to celebrate. now take the practice of product placement. it's familiar in movies and in television but not in books umc books with product present.

not until recently a few years ago there was a british novelist fay weldon. have you heard of her? she was commissioned by an italian company to write the book with product placement. she entered into a new deal that set in exchange for a certain payment, she and her novel would mention it at least a dozen times. the title of the lookout for the enough was the connection. she reseeded in number of her mentions mentioning 34 times some critics didn't think much of it and they criticize the plan keenness of the product of prose that resulted in this arrangement for example year's

one sentence from the book, a bulgarian that was in the hand is and to in the bush. they started happily together for a time of passion spent. fortunately product placement in books hasn't really caught on. by suspect with the advent of electronic publishing the experience of reading is going to be brought in closer and closer proximity to commercial and advertising. last year amazon put out two different versions of the kindle. many of you probably have them when is the standard version and the other is identical to the

standard version and its $40 less and the only difference was for the cheaper model you had to be willing to endure the rolling advertising on the home page and the screen saver the you save $40 why worry about this tendency why worry about the reach of the market values and market reasoning in the spheres of life it is sufficiently different by other values. well, one reason to worry is that sometimes marketizing a good changes its character and its meaning. and sometimes making -- putting a price tag on something may crowd out values ways of

understanding of good worth caring about. let's take a controversial example to deal with education. many big school districts across the country are struggling with the problem of low achievement, low academic achievement and motivation especially among the kids that come from families and backgrounds where they were not encouraged from a young age to read and learn. the school districts some of them are experimenting with cash incentives to motivate academic achievement. paying their kids to get a good grade to score well on the standardized exams they tried this in new york city, washington, d.c. and chicago. in dallas they tried offering

second graders to dollars for each book they read it's a promising idea that people are not very happy about it but let's have a discussion here and begin by taking a survey of opinion to the if you were the superintendent of one of these school districts and you were approached with this proposal, how many things it is a good idea worth trying and how many of you would object in principle? let's see first how many of you would object? how many of you would not like this idea? quite a few. and how many think that it's worth trying? all right we have a pretty good division of opinion. let's begin by those that object. who was willing to explain to offer your reason why do you think this would be objectionable in principle? and who will start us off?

yes, stand up and we will get you a microphone. >> go ahead. >> i would object because there is a basic value in learning and a basic excitement about learning new things if you start paying for that you remove that basic excitement because let's say someone reads a book and they like it, then they like it and they will read another book but if you pay a kid to read a look and give them money they are not going to like it as well. >> so the pain made all their motivation to read. and tell us your name.

thank you for that. did you want to add to that? stand up and tell us. >> i disagree with her. i think that you are putting the wrong emphasis on the goal. it isn't necessarily to make money, but to gain knowledge and enjoyment. >> that is the proper goal of teaching and the amount -- tell us your name. >> now we need to hear from someone who thinks that it is worth a try. you have heard the objections. what would you say in defense of this idea? stand up and we will get to the microphone.

>> depending on the person's background, perhaps this is a motivational tool to make them understand maybe i can benefit from reading and when they do read they get turned on to reading and they get some kind of a monetary value. >> and what is your name? >> melanie. >> so, you say the goal is to get them turned down to reading. but maybe it can kickstart a good habit. whereas others worry that the money will actually crowd out the good have it. you don't think that will necessarily happen. it might actually start the habit. are there others that think this policy is worth a try? yes, the man with the cap, go ahead. stand up and we will get you a microphone. stand up and tell us your name.

>> the question would be what you pick your career based on how much money you make the lead automatically cancel out so many carriers that don't pay much but they are very rewarding. >> do you think people should or should not choose their career based on the money? >> not everybody to base it on monetary value. if they want to be a poet or whatever it is it shouldn't be determined by the monetary value all the time. >> and do you think that paying kids for good grades may get them in the habit of choosing their career base? >> i think that's the way it works. >> what is your name? >> david robertson petraeus >> they think that is the way that works. isn't that the way it works.

>> should they encourage kids by paying them or taking them to the movie and the kids are to do it at the same with children in the schools where they don't see their parents read, books are not part of their culture same idea. >> so he would favor this? >> if it gets kids to read, sure. >> if it works. >> keep the microphone. i have a follow-up question. you get the analogy of parents to get kids rewards for studying, learning, getting good grades. did you ever pay your children for getting good grades? >> never. but i didn't have to. i'm from a different family come

in different households but in a household where this is not encouraged and the school is doing the encouraging to the parents have it where the kids are not exposed and this is the responsibility of the schools to educate parents are not helping it along spec they may include $50. yes. >> i was a schoolteacher many years ago and i think that this suggestion shows a lack of willingness and expectation. i think what you are talking about when parents don't pay

their children has to the expectations i was expected to read and learn and i found but depending on where the schools are in the neighborhoods that don't have the same expectations of the kids they don't have to think about paying them the dog ate my homework was that a sufficient excuse in my class. i think when you impose standards children answer to those standards. >> what a great level did you teach? >> fourth and fifth. >> what's take care of the fourth grade classes at high expectations some kids still don't get what you like to have

an additional resources of the money on the side of? >> i don't think i want to encourage them, no. >> why? >> i would use tutoring and extra hours of school dhaka would cost energy. not money to the teachers. i don't need incentives for your kids performing better i mean for trying harder. >> this raises an interesting question. there are some school districts that are using cash incentives for teachers based on whether the kids showing in pronounced and riss tests.

they are not being taught how to think. they are being taught how to take a test. >> what do you mean about disrespectful to the teacher? spec to say to get your kids to perform better we will give you a little extra. >> no, no. my god. [laughter] >> no, i actually think that in the days when we had expectations of learning we were taught to think and the test existed to see how well we thought. >> right here.

>> i think the end justifies the small amount of money. >> in the end what is the end exactly? it is to get them to read more books. to educate and get the american level of education not to other countries to educate them. >> fair is someone sitting next to you that disagrees triet [laughter] >> you destroy their love of learning into the value of reading a book. >> let's step back. i know there are others the would like to get into this. let's step back from this the

people of raised this on the two sides. do you want to know what became of these experiments actually day of mixed results so far. they do not have the test scores in new york city. some people are relieved to hear that. but in dallas, the $2 to get the second graders to read more books. and also to help them read shorter books. [laughter] but the larger question -- the larger question and this has come out in some of the comments what would become of some of these kids later when no one is paying them to read?

what worries many people, those that object seem to be that offering cash to a young person to read a book may actually get them to read that book but may teach them the wrong lesson out reading that the goal was to cultivate the love of learning. but then we hear a counter argument. yes, the goal is to cultivate the love of learning, but maybe if kids haven't been exposed to reading and learning in the the july of it that the money or the lower form of motivation a kickstart the habit and then the haven't might take and they will carry on reading for the love of it. that is the counter argument. and it's difficult to know in any given case, any given unit of a cash incentive with the effect will be.

a friend of mine that pays his younger children of dollar for each thank you note the right. i have received some of these. [laughter] and i can tell by reading them that they were written under a certain pressure. my wife and i look at this practice. now it could be by being paid to write thank you notes it will be the expression of gratitude and when someone stops paying them they will carry on writing them. it could work out the other way. the dollar is taking notes to be written by money and one lesson they learned when the money

stops on the thank you notes they may never learn the virtue of gratitude and the education will have been corrupt that is the wording. what do these examples and scenarios and debates tell us about how we should think about the use of money and market mechanisms? i think what they teach is that sometimes money and markets can change the attitudes and the norms that define the meaning of certain goods in this case teaching and learning. in switzerland some years ago they were trying to decide where to locate a nuclear waste site. they identified nobody wants one in their backyard. they identify a small town in

the mountains that's likely to be the safest place of the nuclear storage but under the law they had to get the approval of a local community and so before the decision was made, a survey was done to the residents of this small town in the thrift would you vote to approve this despite the risks 51% said yes and then they asked the second question, a sweetened the deal. they said the parliament chooses your time for the nuclear waste and offers to pay in hot competition for the risk each resident of the town an annual sum of money at the the cut to $8,000 a year then would you accept it and then how many do you think said yes? 90, 80?

other guesses it went down from 51% to 25%. the number fell in half. why should this be? why should this be from the standpoint of the standard economic reasoning if you offer people money to do something, the number of people willing to do that should increase. why did it fall in half? what was happening to you think? host >> [inaudible] >> the risk. so if they are being paid money their thinking to themselves this must be riskier than i thought. they are paying the money to do this. well, that is one possible hypothesis that they tested for that, and it turns out that the estimate of the risk was about

the same before and after the offer of money which would suggest something else must have been going on. anybody have another hypothesis? right there. >> let's see if there is a better offer. >> if they're willing to go to 8,000 maybe they will go to ten how do you change your mind those that have changed from support to opposition when the money was offered? the answer they gave? we didn't want to be brought. so it seems the offer of money changed the character of the

activity. before 51% were willing to accept this risk out of the specific responsibility for the sake of the common good of the country needed the energy, the nuclear waste had to go somewhere. if this was the safest place they were willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of the common good. but now when mauney enters the picture, it becomes not a question of civic virtue, but it becomes a business deal, a transaction, and they were not willing to sell out the safety of themselves and their families for $8,000 a year. so the monetary offer rather than increasing support changed the character of the relationship from a civic question where they responded out of the defense of the common good to a financial area of relationship.

in israel there were some centers that the problem encountered by day care centers around the world and parents coming late to pick up their kids to have to stay with their children until the appearance came. so with the help of some economists, they instituted a fine for notifying parents and what do you think happened? there were more. why should this be? according to the standard economic reasoning, charging for something should decrease rather than increase the willingness to consume that. something similar to what was going on in the town before when parents came late they felt guilty they were composing some

of the teachers and now there is a monetary fine they treated it as a fee-for-service like hiring a babysitter and you don't feel guilty when you pay money to a babysitter to perform a service of looking after the attitudes change, the monetary payment changed the relationship between the parents and the day care center and a crowd about the obligation to show up on time. with these examples illustrate is that a central assumption of standard economic reasoning may be flawed. economists often assume that markets are in third and they do not touch the goods the exchange. ..

by nonmarket values and attitudes for carrying it out. family life, community life, health, education, the environment, national security, civic life. in these domains, cash incentives, monetary arrangements, financial deals may crowd out values and attitudes that are central to what makes those goods the goods

they are. if this is true, what are the occasions for the way we should make about these questions? one application is we can't decide where markets are, where they serve the public. and where they don't belong that reasoning together, without having a public debate about the likely effects of marketers sort of social practices and to debate about how those goods should be valued, whether it's teaching and learning for environmental protection were civic life. this is a debate we have not had in this country over the past few decades. we've been governed by a kind of

market face it just assumes that are considered the primary instrument for achieving the public good. we haven't really questioned that. we shied away from these to be and the effect has been markets have reached into more and more spheres of life, including even the way we fight our wars and our country. in iraq and afghanistan, there were more paid military contractors on the ground in u.s. military troops. this isn't because we had a public debate about whether we wanted to outsource word to private companies. with the tip and realize that this is what we come to do. this is how we come to finer words.

so what is suggesting is a great american aid in public ways is a morally engaged to be about where markets serve the public good and where they belong. this debate matters not only because we needed to decide whether to use markets for teaching and learning or for national defense. it matters because during this period, one of the most precious civic good that's been eroded acting, crowded out the marketization of every is commonality, community in those societies together. take a small example from sports. when i was a kid, i've always been a baseball fan. i grew up in minnesota and as

the minnesota twins fan. when i would go to a twins game, they are always box seats and bleacher seats, but what do you think was the difference between the most boxy and the cheapest seat in the bleachers? this would've been in in the mid-60s. it was 354 and boxy and 1 dollar for the bleachers. when he went to baseball game, this is a place for ceos and everyone had to wait in the same long lines for the restrooms. everyone at the same soggy hotdogs come in turn same stale and when it rained, everyone got wet. but it not that way anymore when you put a baseball game or football game are pretty much

any sports stadium or arena in the country. now in the last several decades, we've seen the advent of skyboxes. where the affluent and privilege can watch games in their comforts are removed from the fans in the stands below. and so it's no longer the case that everyone stands in the same line for the restroom and when it rains, not everyone gets wet. this wouldn't matter very much if you only have been in a stolen football stadiums. the something similar would be happening throughout our society. against a background of rising inequality, as more and more aspects of life are governed by market, there are fewer and

fewer occasions when men and women from different walks of life encounter one another. we live and work and shop and play in different places. our children are two different schools. you might call it the skype rocks the vacation of life. it's not good for democracy and it's not a satisfying way to the come even most of us who may be privileged enough to watch at least some games from the skyboxes. why? democracy doesn't require perfect equality, but it does require the people from different walks of life and social backgrounds encounter one another, both against one

another in the course of life because this is how we learn to accommodate and divider differences and this is how we come to care for the common good. and so the question of market in the end is not mainly an economic question. it is really a question about how we want to live together. do we want a society, where everything is up for sale or are there certain moral and civic good that markets do not honor and money cannot buy. thank you very much. [applause]

>> well, this is the cover of john goodman's newest book called priceless amateur in the health care crisis. but tv is on location of freedom fest in las vegas and dr. john goodman joins us now to talk about priceless. let's talk to but the recent supreme court decision on the health care bill. what is your view? >> guest: i was starting to see the decision and we could start over and have a rational health care reform. now we have do with the law as it is and i think even the supporters of the law are going to want to make major changes is in the next year and a half. >> host: what do you want to see? what d.c. is rational health care? >> guest: what we have enabled the kerala is a requirement that you and i buy an insurance plan at twice the rate of growth of our income and you don't have to

be an accountant to know if you're paying for something that's increasing twice the rate of growth they will crowd out everything else you're consuming and eventually have nothing to me, nothing to wear, no place to live, but lots of health care. >> host: your group, the national center is one of the founders of the health savings accounts, correct? what are they? >> guest: health savings account people on a control in less than to manage their health care and most employers find when they go to high deductible plan and put premium savings of the workers that they cut the overall cost of a plane as much as 30% and employees are happier because they spend the money the way they want to. >> guest: hsa is, how many people use them? >> guest: 24 million people are managing their own money and health savings account or

something similar. >> host: what does the law say about hsa? >> guest: the laws restricted. you have to have an across-the-board deductible and a few.you can't have one. i don't like that. wash and be flexible enough to work flexible, most people wouldn't have a health savings account. >> host: you mentioned with regard to health care legislations that the supporters , the current health care bill will want to make changes. what are some of the changes you perceive in making quick >> guest: you have to give the opportunity for a plan that has dire deductible. you can control costs and the other way, they have to adjust to the plan they're going to die. the apothecary legislation has very strange subsidies. the employees of this hotel around $10, $50 an hour have to have a family plan that costs $15,000. that's half their wages. the new law gives no help to the

employees are at the hotel to buy that plan. on the other hand if the hotel abolishes the insurance plan and since employees to an exchange, they're going to get 10, $15,000 in the federal government. you're going to see businesses over the country start to restructure and workers lose their jobs. at some point people say there's got to be a better way than this. >> host: you are speaking of freedom fest. what's the topic of your talking with the message you want to get out? >> guest: i'm going to explain the title of vote. on one hand or health care is rising. on the other hand, the health care system has several prices. none of us ever see the real price for anything in health care. no doctor, no impatient, no employee, no employer. you don't see real price is an everyone faces perverse incentives to make costs higher, quality lower, access more difficult.

if you want to solve our health care problems, we've got to restore power, prices work. >> host: have you requested at the doctor pricelist clicks >> guest: you can't find one. the only place you see the prices is our insurance companies aren't. so if you want to a clinic or cvs pharmacy it's all posted. a normal doctor's office doesn't know what the cost of anything is. >> host: had to make to a pricelist or vanilla things are costing and how does that fit the consumer? >> guest: we have to empower the patient and control dollars. then you get an immediate response on the supplies i and doctors compete on price and quality you see that in cosmetic surgery, lasik surgery. and when you have that, all of a sudden you find the real price of care going down over time instead of going up.

>> host: so is there a government role -- how do you see the government in health care? do you see the government? >> guest: the government solves most of our problems. we have to take away a private health insurance. take all that money, give each of us the same amount of money to purchase health insurance, a $2500 for an adult, $8000 for a family. that's your tax subsidy. you spend additional money after taxes and treat everybody the same. >> host: what do you mean? >> guest: right now we don't. right now you get in a subsidy to employer provides you with a plan, you get no tax relief. purchasing insurance on your own. under obamacare, inequities are even worse. step on the treat everyone the same. when you buy insurance, no matter who you are, get the same amount of help from