What Money can’t buy---the moral limits of markets by Michael J. Sandel
(published by Farrar, staraus and Giroux/ New York）
P28-32 Market Reasoning & Markets Versus Queues
一直一直很想写出来这种压抑的感受，今天看了桑德尔这本书终于，相对理清楚了思路。
欢迎讨论。
前面章节的一堆铺垫之后，在这里，桑德尔终于开始呼应“市场的天生道德缺陷”（the moral limits of markets，本书副标题）。他展现了一场精彩的辩论，框架分明，逻辑清晰（这个磨人的老妖精）。
欲扬先抑，桑德尔先假设“代排队买票”和贩卖黄牛票的市场是应当存在的，还一本正经地给了三条理由（真会玩）：
从自由论者的角度来说，为什么不能立法禁止“排队买票”和贩卖黄牛票的行为，和为什么不能明令禁止卖淫、人体器官买卖是一个道理；
从社会效益最大化的角度来说，既然买卖自愿发生，就说明买卖使卖方和买方都处于比交易发生前更好的状态；
而且愿意出价乃至出最高价的人说明他想要票的意愿最高，所以票最后归他而不是其他人能够使得有限的票所满足的社会总需求最高。
经济学老师正经脸会说，达到了社会帕累托最优：）
我们以为桑德尔会说我要用强大的逻辑征服世界了额。
然后他说，我之前说的都是垃圾。
问题关键是，支付一样商品的意愿（无论是具象的商品还是作者探讨的代排队买票这种服务）不仅是由消费者对商品的珍视程度决定，而且，或者更多的是，消费者的支付能力。
就像那些坐在棒球比赛现场贵宾区的观众往往是最迟到场，最早退场的观众，他们愿意支付最高的票价，并不是因为他们对棒球比赛有最高的热情，二是因为他们拥有最厚实的口袋。故而，对商品的支付意愿绝非衡量对商品珍视程度的完美指标。
现在就渐渐进入正题啦。
—有钱能做很多很多事，但what money cannot do造成的影响是本书的重点。
我现在想到的是微观角度，对一个个独立的个体来说，过度物质化带来了一些看似可以忽视，也一直被习惯性忽视，但对人的影响是一辈子的东西。
什么东西呢。
我很久很久之前就逐渐感受到的，Materialism造成的现代人的精神危机。
像我父母这一代75年左右出生的中年人，和很多我同龄人的父母，一直给我们灌输的理念就是：那些“视金钱如粪土的人”能这么说，是因为他们早就过上了衣食无忧的生活。在越来越多非市场领域也开始被金钱占领的金元年代，这当然是很成熟的观念，很精辟的教诲。
我敬佩他们，单凭自己的奋斗为自己和家人营造了稳定而舒适的生活。我很多同学的父母也是如此，一边忙碌地将工作、人脉、和家庭的各种琐屑屑处理得井井有条，一边和朋友吃饭，拿生活中的自己承受过的各种压力自嘲微笑着露出眼角的笑纹。他们都有着或深或浅的眼袋，不同程度的睡眠障碍，因为他们的神经是超支的。这就是这一代人共同的特征—承受了不该承受精神压力。
这也是问题所在，他们对物质的强调这么多年下来已经定型，无法再灵活变通，原来的精神世界并非最要紧的事，一旦闲下来便造成了精神世界的空虚和失控。
曾获得普利策奖的美国记者Anna Quindlen在1998年出版的一篇报道Homeless里是这样描述的,在物质化的浪潮下，越来越多的人无家可归，但是宁可坐在公交站台惨白的灯光下，睡在公园的长凳上也不愿意去庇护所，因为庇护所更加不能提供给他们归属感；有房子的人也不断迁徙，记忆变得中断纠缠，代际鸿沟越来越大，家失去了安定和宁静，心灵栖息地也渐渐丧失。
同时，物质化的浪潮还造成了现代社会的迁徙—人向物质富集的地区流动，理所当然，大势所趋。但从装修搬家带来的生理压力，再到纠缠一生反反复复的心理负担。下一代人或许，更甚。因为他们安定的时光更少，他们甚至连那种记忆都没有。连迁徙民族的后代美利坚都感到不安，毋论将乡土观念作为精神世界的安定剂这样持续了三千年的中国人。
至于该怎么办，我不知道。
我是个不怕独处的人，有很多爱好，一个人也不会空虚，但是对和家乡的疏离也没有办法。
这是写的一点英文版本。没有写全。
Sandel has spent so much to foreshadow, before glimpsing the moral limits of markets, the subtile, finally kicks off here. He displayed a marvellous debate with shockingly clear framework and logic (OMG Such an old elf).
To creat an ironic effect, Sandel presumed that the case of markets over line standing and ticket scalping is totally justificable and he makes the joke so far as to draw on two reasons.(There he is again!:)
One is about respecting individual freedom; the other is about maximizing welfare, or social unity.
The first is alibertarian argument. It maintains that people should be free to buy and sell whatever they please, as long as they don’t violate anyone’s rights. Libertarians oppose laws against ticket scalping for the same reason they oppose laws against prostitution, or the sale of human organs: they believe such laws violate individual liberty, by interfering with the choices made by consenting adults.
(consenting adults!I learned the word by heart:a person who is considered to be old enough to make their own decisions about who they have sex with.:)
The secondargument for markets over queues, is utilitarian. It says that market exchanges benefit buyers and sellers alike, thereby improving ourcollective well-being, or social unity. The fact that my line standers and I strike a deal proves that we are both better off as a result.
(The economy teacher would say: have reachedPareto efficiency)
And we think Sandel would say I have conquered the world with my powerful logic and he actually said, I was talking rubbish just now.
The reason is that the willingness to pay for a good does not show who value it most highly. This is because market prices reflect the ability as well as the willingness to pay so that they are imperfectindicators ofwho most values a particular good.
e.g. The people sitting in the expensive seats at the ballpark often show up late and leave early. Ithasmore to do with the depth of their pockets rather that their passion for the game.
This proves that with money you are supreme in almost all walks of lives, but the book deals with what money cannot do, when the growing reach of money into spheres of life once governed by nonmarket norms.
