Satz (disambiguation)


The Culture of Markets. What makes a market harmful? Pythagorean theorem - der Satz des Pythagoras.

What you’re looking for is not yet in our dictionary? Ask the LEO community.

Get help from other users in our forums. Beliebte Suchbegriffe to provide approach issue consider trotzdem Termin Angebot. Im Web und als APP. Die Vokabel wurde gespeichert, jetzt sortieren? Der Eintrag wurde im Forum gespeichert. LEO uses cookies in order to facilitate the fastest possible website experience with the most functions.

In some cases cookies from third parties are also used. Transliteration aktiv Tastaturlayout Phonetisch. I didn't catch the sentence. It is based on the same principle.

Es beruht auf denselben Grund sätzen. Menge , Kunstsatz , Pumpensatz , Theorem. Ich suchte nach einem englischen Ausdruck für "Eckwert" Richtwert , aber "marginal rate" ko…. Customers who bought this item also bought. Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1. The Myth of Ownership: What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. A Natural History of Markets. The Culture of Markets. Review "A wonderfully lucid tour of the thinking on markets over the years by economists and philosophers, from Adam Smith through Ronald Dworkin.

Satz's contributions will be useful for a wide range of scholars concerned with ethics, moral theory, and economics. Drawing on history and philosophy, economics and sociology, Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale presents a powerful defense of a bracing answer to this question.

According to Debra Satz, we can have markets for everything or we can have a democratic society, but we cannot have both. Satz's argument is subtle, rich, and complex, but in the end, the choice she presents us with is that simple. Satz seamlessly integrates moral reflection with concrete studies of how specific markets actually work.

She provides an outstanding model of how empirically responsible moral inquiry should be conducted. We sell our labor and buy the goods and services we want. Markets can lead to economically efficient outcomes that could not be reached by other means. But markets have their limits. As Debra Satz points out, we reject markets in child labor, organs, votes or human beings, among other things.

Sometimes we reject markets because they are inefficient. But, Satz argues, efficiency is not the only value in play, for markets affect 'who we are, how we relate to each other and what sort of society we can have.

In this masterful work, the culmination of many years of thought, Satz provides a highly original framework to assist our reflections on which markets are beneficial and which, as she puts, it are 'noxious'.

Satz has greatly clarified the issues by making clear the social role that markets play, both in their own performance and in their consequences. She is discriminating in her analysis, pointing out the markets may sometimes contribute to the achievement of broader social values and better interactions while at other times they may reinforce bad consequences.

This is a work that will have to be studied and taken account of by all those concerned by the role of the market as compared with other social mechanisms. Arrow, Nobel Laureate in Economics, Stanford University "A rigorous and pertinent inquiry into the relationship between morality and markets and the need for regulation of specific commodity markets. Fletcher, Journal of Markets and Morality. Oxford Political Philosophy Paperback: Don't have a Kindle?

Try the Kindle edition and experience these great reading features: Share your thoughts with other customers. Write a customer review. Read reviews that mention human organs child labor many people noxious markets history of economics slavery economists efficiency examples framework political equal general value women agree focus perspective philosophers philosophy.

Showing of 15 reviews. Top Reviews Most recent Top Reviews. There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later. Kindle Edition Verified Purchase. Sex slavery, debt bondage, markets for human organs, legalized prostitution -- these are the thorny issues which Debra Satz has placed under her ethical microscope in her meticulously reasoned text, "Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale". Using these case studies and a dive into the history of economics, Satz bridges classical and modern models to create an ethical framework for the future.

What makes a market harmful? This is the essential question she answers with a level of detail fit for a college classroom, but in a writing style approachable for a wider audience. She powerfully argues that we must consider the effects of markets "on the structure of our relationships with one another, on our democracy, and on human motivation," -- considerations lacking in modern economic models -- to safeguard our institutions from decay and protect society's most vulnerable populations.

Without preachiness or condescension, Satz presents a fresh ethical perspective with logical precision and a healthy dose of statistics. One person found this helpful. The idea that not everything should be for sale, or that markets are not a panacea for all human problems, should be commonsense. And yet, it is far too easy in contemporary discourse to find people that argue for the rule and efficiency of markets everywhere, apparently without pausing to consider what it is that markets do and how.

That's where Satz's book excels. The author begins the book with an enlightening discussion of what markets do and don't do , which provides the necessary bases for the second part, on the history of economics many people will be surprised to read some of the things "invisible hand" theorist Adam Smith actually wrote , the scope and place of markets in egalitarian political theory, as well as the notion of "noxious" markets.

The last part of the book explores in depth several examples of noxious markets, including markets in women's' reproductive labor, sexual labor, slavery, and human organs. I actually agree only in part with the author's take on what limits the scope of markets: Satz criticizes any notion of limits imposed by concepts related to the intrinsic value of certain human attributes, seeking instead of casting the discussion in terms of highly unequal power relations between sellers and buyers in noxious markets.

I think both perspectives make sense and can be operationalized.