Markets and morals презентация

dynamics? Should there be any regulation? Should markets be free or fair? Or can free markets be fair at the same time?

Do laws that interfere with the free market violate individual freedom?

Are there/should there be goods that money can’t buy?

to have a central planning over the markets. State or government control over the markets eventually leads to freedoms being diminished – not only in economic life but also in political life. Controlled economy/command economy paves the way for tyranny.
Let the markets find its own balance/justice.
Small size government in the economy

Welfare argument for the markets: it is preferable to regulate markets because regulation creates fair conditions for citizens to enter the “market competition”.
Equality of opportunity
Justice – fair distribution of goods and services.
Big size government in the economy

are left alone to run itself, it will eventually lead to a balancing point; the adjustments and fluctuations on the curve will demonstrate the markets’ search for justice.
It is not only the markets but society itself should be based on market dynamics. After all, society is nothing but an aggregate of market interactions – individuals owe no duties to the community, except their contributions to its economic progress by buying and selling.
Private property is the essence of freedom/individuality/difference.
Free markets lead to pluralism of ideas, ideologies, opinions, worldviews, peoples, cultures, etc.

and freedom are co-constitutive rather than conflictual.
Higher standards of living for all can only be provided if government takes certain actions in the economy.
These actions could be: free education, free healthcare, affordable public transportation, strong pension system, strong social security and insurance, strong welfare policies to support the poor as opposed to (neo)liberal idea of charity.
More stable economy, less prone to crises.

ordinary times, should its norm be applied in extraordinary times as well?

Should markets be left alone even in times of emergencies?

Can government actions be justified for such alarming situations?

– drivers can charge their customers as high as they want. Better than no taxis available in times of emergencies.
It is not (morally) wrong to take advantage of the people in need of certain goods and services in times of emergencies.
State/government intervention is an interference to freedom of exchange between sellers and buyers.
Free markets can promote the general welfare of society as a whole.
Free markets respect individual freedom.

by law? Deemed illegal? Why?
How “free” markets actually are in reality?
Certain goods are bought not out of freedom or preferences but out of necessities in hard times. Picking up a taxi to run away from a terrorist attack is not a preference or freedom of choice; it is an action out of a vital necessity: to save one’s life.
VIRTUE argument:
Is greed a civic virtue or a personal vice? In times of emergencies, civic action would be a form of solidarity instead of self-interest.
“A society in which people exploit their neighbors for financial gain in times of crisis is not a good society. Excessive greed is therefore a vice that a good society should discourage if it can.”
Laws may not erase greed, but they can restrain greedy people.

discriminated or historically segregated, and enslaved in the working environment.
Women
Black American citizens
Minorities
People with disabilities
Is affirmative action morally good? Duty, utility, virtue?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUhReMT5uqA