 |
|||
|
|
|
 Troy Jollimore on Markets and MoralityPosted on Jul 22, 2010
“With the collapse of communism, markets and the political theories that advocate expanding the market have been enjoying a considerable resurgence,” writes Stanford University professor Debra Satz in her new book, “Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.” “Markets are not only spreading across the globe, but they are also extending to new domains, such as environmental pollution. For many people market institutions are assuming the role of an all-purpose remedy for the defects of the cumbersome government bureaucracies of the Western world, the poverty of the Southern world, and the coercive state control of the planned economies. This remains true despite the recent economic downturn.” Indeed, the market’s stock has perhaps never been higher, and the idea that the voluntary exchange of goods between free individuals might answer every significant economic, social and even ethical question has perhaps never been more widely accepted. But in the midst of all this celebration of the market’s virtues—and let us admit, as Satz is perfectly willing to admit, that a market can indeed be a very efficient and effective means of coordinating complicated activities among a large group of individuals with differing agendas—there are also some reasons for concern. Efficient, after all, does not necessarily imply admirable or just (or even, on occasion, tolerable). Moreover, technological advances have made available types of markets that were not possible before. Fertile women can now rent out their wombs for nine months and become surrogate mothers. And while it is not yet legal in this country for individuals to sell their kidneys and other bodily organs to those who need them, such a day may not be far off. Indeed, given the current shortage of healthy organs, the creation of a market for them might seem not only inevitable but eminently sensible. And there is also, of course, the moral argument for allowing such sales: My kidneys are mine (if not, then whose are they?), and the fact that something is mine gives me certain rights over it, including, ordinarily, the right to sell it to someone else at a price that we both agree on. This argument forms the core of the standard libertarian explanation of why we should have free markets in organs, in surrogate motherhood, in prostitution and, indeed, in pretty much everything.
Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets
By Debra Satz
Oxford University Press, 264 pages
Is it true, though, that the right to something must always include the right to freely exchange it? Take what is perhaps the most compelling apparent counter-example, that of vote-buying. I suppose we could imagine a supremely committed libertarian who would argue, in Robert Nozick’s memorable phrase, that government ought not to prohibit “capitalist acts between consenting adults”—not even when what is for sale is an individual’s right to vote in an election. But it would be difficult, one suspects, to find very many people who would accept this. Nearly all of us understand that the very functioning of a democracy depends on the powerful and wealthy not having the ability simply to buy their way into the country’s political offices—at least not in so blatant a manner. Vote-selling, then, is a fairly easy and noncontroversial case of a market that ought not to be permitted. But where else should the market not go? The most controversial cases discussed by Satz are probably those of surrogate motherhood, which is currently permitted in the U.S., and organ selling, which is not. In contrast to the vote-selling case, allowing a market to operate in either of these contexts might not seem inherently anti-democratic. The popular perception, indeed, is that if restricting markets in such goods is justifiable, it is so because to put such goods on the market is to value them in the wrong way: It degrades or demeans a womb or kidney to offer cash for the use of it. But of course this reason for prohibiting such markets meets strong opposition from the libertarian, who will simply ask: Shouldn’t it be up to the person who owns the good in question whether or not offering it up in exchange for cash is appropriate? If an individual agrees that kidneys are sacred, in a way that makes such exchanges inappropriate, then she need not offer her own kidneys for sale. But what right do we have to impose our own value judgments on others?
Satz’s approach is quite different, and renders the cases of surrogate motherhood and organ sale much closer to the vote-selling case. On her view, what all or nearly all “noxious” markets have in common is that they undermine the ideal of equal standing between persons, or of equal democratic citizenship:
Particularly worrisome, in terms of equality concerns, are exchanges in which one of the parties is in a position to exploit the “underlying extreme vulnerabilities” of the other:
Such vulnerabilities are morally salient in, for instance, the organ case: According to many people, Satz writes, “a kidney sale is objectionable because it is a paradigmatic desperate exchange, an exchange no one would ever make unless faced with no reasonable alternative.” Sales of this kind are objectionable on the individual level, but the objections multiply when one considers the general social context. “It has been keenly noted that international organ markets transfer organs from poor to rich, third world to first world, female to male, and nonwhite to white.” (One might be reminded of Kazuo Ishiguro’s novel “Never Let Me Go”—a comparison explicitly drawn by Satz—which depicts the plight of a subclass of human clones grown solely so that their organs can be harvested for the benefit of the ailing wealthy.) Organ sales also tend to involve another characteristic feature of objectionable markets, weak agency, which in Satz’s usage most often indicates that one of the transacting parties is significantly under-informed. Many potential organ sellers in India, for instance, are quite unaware of the results of a recent study of kidney sellers in that country: Over 86 percent of participants experienced a substantial decline in health following their surgery, and 79 percent said they regretted the decision to sell their kidneys. And even if one knows those facts, imagination can fail us: It is hard to anticipate, perhaps, what it is like to have a kidney surgically removed and to live without it.
1
2
NEXT PAGE >>>
Advertisement TAGS:
|
Black Community Poised to Follow Obama’s Leadership on Gay Rights
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Newsletter 
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Foucauldian, July 24, 2010 at 11:27 am Link to this comment
christian96, July 24 at 8:37 am:
“If I am having problems feeding my children and taking
care of my family who is to say I can’t sell an organ to provide for my family?”
The argument is that you should never be in such a desperate position; and that facilitating such avenues for making the ends meet only perpetuates the condition.
Report thisBy Foucauldian, July 24, 2010 at 11:09 am Link to this comment
Sorry for double-posting. The original comment didn’t register for a stretch and so I thought it got lost in the shuffle.
Report thisBy Foucauldian, July 24, 2010 at 11:08 am Link to this comment
Congrats on nearly flawless argument, Shenon (post dtd. July 24 at 12:52 am).
You say, for example, “It would not have been because of the most active and vigorous that a species survived, but rather because the ones most able to adapt to a changing situation… survived. It is always nature selecting the most adaptable…every time.”
There is one caveat, however, with respect to the above. Unlike what obtains in the animal kingdom, we humans are not limited to mere adopting (or responding) to a changing situation or situations. We’re also in the position to recreate our environment anew. We are the makers of worlds, Shenon, for better or worse, pro-active agents, if you like, and in this singular respect, not unlike the gods. It is in this singular respect that the strict analogy with the animal kingdom breaks down.
I’m also heartened by the fact that you no longer think it necessary to smuggle in the notion of the right (or the obligation) to survive (whether as an individual or as a special) into the discussion of Darwin theory proper. It’s not necessary, I’d say, unless of course one feels there is an ax to grind. I’m glad therefore that you’ve rid yourself of the temptation.
Report thisBy Foucauldian, July 24, 2010 at 10:32 am Link to this comment
One problem, Shenon, with your otherwise flawless argument(post dtd. July 24 at 12:52 am).
You say, “It would not have been because of the most active and vigorous that a species survived, but rather because the ones most able to adapt to a changing situation… survived. It is always nature selecting the most adaptable…every time.”
So far so good except for one caveat: we humans are not just resigned to adopting (and responding) to a changing situation or situations. We’re also capable of creating new situations of our our own making. Indeed, we are the makers of worlds of our own choosing, for better or for worse, pro-active agents not unlike the gods, rather then victims. And it’s in this respect that the strictly analogy between the animal kingdom and humans breaks down.
BTW, I’m also heartened by the fact that you’re no longer smuggling in the notion of “the right or the obligation of the species to survive” into Darwin theory proper. One would do so only if they had a particular ax to grind. Consequently, I’m glad you’ve managed to rid yourself of the temptation.
Report thisBy ThomasG, July 24, 2010 at 10:10 am Link to this comment
glider, July 24 at 12:48 pm,
The choice that the American people have to make is between Social Capital and Private Capital, between Socialized Capitalism based upon social capital or Privatized Capitalism based upon private capital.
It is living in a dream world to believe that Private Capital is going to serve Social Interests, and to believe that the Moral Hazard of the cyclical failure of Privatized Capitalism will ever end, so long as Privatized Capitalism is allowed to remain tethered to social resources to resuscitate it from cyclical death at public expense.
Report thisBy firefly, July 24, 2010 at 10:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The biggest moral question is the arms market. The countries producing and selling the greatest volume of weapons are also the ones that more frequently attack other nations. I recently read that Britain no longer has the financial means to ‘defend’ itself, whilst it continues a war of ‘defence’ in Afganistan. Afganistan, of course, has never had the financial means to defend itself, and therefore has been under attack from those empires across the globe that produce the markets biggest and most powerful weapons for ‘defence’.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 24, 2010 at 9:32 am Link to this comment
That would be pretty communistic considering that the school system presently serves as the system’s chief class filter and ideological cop.
I don’t know about “merit”. It seems to me a sane, reasonable society would make as much learning available to its people as they were willing and able to take in. If there were some extra expense, the beneficiaries could pay for it as a percentage of their improved income. But we don’t live in that kind of world.
Report thisBy ThomasG, July 24, 2010 at 8:50 am Link to this comment
Do you suppose that individual interests in markets for Social Capital and Socialized Capitalism and interests in community may be different than Private Capital and Privatized Capitalism, the selfish interests of individuals?
I am looking forward to a Competition for Survival between——Social Capital and Socialized Capitalism and Private Capital and Privatized Capitalism——I seriously doubt that Private Capital and Privatized Capitalism will be able to successfully compete for sufficient market share to keep itself alive without being tethered to an umbilcal cord of Corporate Welfare to stave off its cyclical death and resurrection at public expense.
Report thisBy glider, July 24, 2010 at 7:48 am Link to this comment
This is an interesting thought provoking book/article. However, the arguments are complex and therefore subject to complex counter-arguments, and the line between objectionable and acceptable markets is inherently vague. These same arguments could be applied to one’s monetary status forcing the purchase of a used clunker vehicle over a reliable new vehicle. I even think you could use it to argue against the institution of marriage. So how useful is this concept? That the rich will have better opportunities and less desperate circumstance than the poor is pretty much the definition of rich and poor (having resources).
I think a better solution is to focus on equal opportunity in education and and establishing a merit based advancement system. So for instance in the USA this would mean putting into place a truly merit based national education system so that high quality educations are less for sale, and are equally available to the poor. Additionally, larger estate taxes would be indicated so to reduce non performance oriented wealth accumulation.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 24, 2010 at 5:12 am Link to this comment
Good points, Shenonymous. You have corrected the usual ignorant and unthinking rants about Darwin and “Darwinism” before they really began. And you have posed a question to both True Believers and haters of markets: they are a human construction, not an immutable gift of the gods. We can replace them or change them. But those who want something else need to think about what they are going to replace them with.
People want lots of stuff, and more stuff, and better stuff, and they want to get the better of one another. Communism and the gift economy, which are based on having just enough stuff and getting along, do not suit these purposes. After several thousand years of slavery, people are eager to enslave themselves. Competitively! God help anything and anyone who stands in their way!
In partially socialized liberal capitalism, however, we’re going to allow people to sell some parts of themselves and not others. It’s a very curious solution, is it not? I am eager to hear more about it.
Report thisBy christian96, July 24, 2010 at 3:37 am Link to this comment
I started reading this article for a few paragraphs
Report thisuntil it didn’t make sense. Are they debating whether or not someone should be allowed to sale
their vote? It’s done each election with the candidates chosen looking like a Hollyweird star
and talking phrases such as “What we need in this
country is a change!” Isn’t lying to people the
same as buying their vote? Then, the phrase was
used, “parties are to be equals in a particular
sense, as citizens in a democracy.” Is this person
one of the ivy league types with their head stuck
in an ivory tower? Equal citizens in a democracy?
Not going to happpen EVER. The low IQ person out
of touch with politics is in no way equal to the
savy knowledgeable high IQ citizen. As for selling
my liver that is up to me and the person buying it.
When I was in college a few decades ago I sold a pint
of blood every month to get 25 bucks. Perfectly
legal. Of course “blood” is different than a “liver” but who is going to play God and tell me
whether or not I can sell my organs. People give
them away now. Why not sell them and make a few
bucks? Reality is that some people are loaded with
money and other people struggle to survive. If I
am having problems feeding my children and taking
care of my family who is to say I can’t sell an organ to provide for my family? People who write
these articles need to get out of their ivory tower
and walk among the rest of us.
By Money is funny, July 24, 2010 at 12:46 am Link to this comment
America is not making any sense.
Morality exists here only as it relates to prostitution and drugs (minus pharmaceuticals and pornography).
This countries economy was pretty much built around consuming drugs (tobacco, alcohol) and exploiting vulnerable people (slavery).
A humans value will never be accurately measured by currency as we all know, but it continues to happen over and over like a dumb bastard slapping your mom in a very dangerous and stupid way that has become unfortunately accepted now by supposed Academics.
Report thisBy Shenonymous, July 23, 2010 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment
Natural selection does not benefit the strongest or the smartest.
Darwin’s process selects the organism most able to adapt to
changing circumstances. In other words, the organism better
suited to the environment that increases the probability for
generating offspring survives. Natural selection modifies, revises,
an original random variation of genetic traits in a species so the
genes that are auspicious for survival prevails and those that are not
simply vanish into thin air. Evolution relentlessly tries to escape a
problem. It does not look forward for a better solution. Hindsight is
the driving force. Organisms that change to avoid a bad situation are
favored to continue, to replicate. A friend of mine said once that if that
were not the case, elephants would rule the world because of their
strength. He further said with as much sagacity, because “we humans
think that because we are so clever that we rule the world, but in reality
we are merely corpses in the mouths of bacterium.” This is the way of
all animals by the way. And to quote Darwin, “that what checks the
natural tendency of each species to increase in number is most
obscure… We know not exactly what the checks are in even one single
instance. The amount of food for each species of course gives the
extreme limit to which each can increase; but very frequently it is not
the obtaining food, but the serving as prey to other animals, which
determines the average numbers of a species.”
Darwinism says that natural selection acts exclusively by the
preservation of profitable modifications. Each new form will be most
likely in a sufficiently stocked country to take the place of, and finally to
exterminate, even its own less improved parent without a thought, or
other less-favored forms with which it comes into competition.
Consequently, extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go
hand in hand
Once more: It would not have been because of the most active and
vigorous that a species survived, but rather because the ones most able
to adapt to a changing situation… survived. It is always nature selecting
the most adaptable…every time.
Knighted a couple of decades after he died, Sir Charles D argued
against Spencer’s assertion that the strongest, physically fittest, or even
most intelligent of a species wins the evolution game (Social Darwinism
that is not consistent with Darwin’s conclusions). While I don’t always
agree with Gould, I do agree that evolution is a game of chance and the
appearance of humans in the world is too. What we do with ourselves
might also be in the end a lottery as well if we don’t use the
consciousness however we came to have it to figure out how to save
the species.
Taking a cue from Darwin, and applying the elements of his adaptation
Report thistheory to contemporary markets, a primeval device invented by the
human mind, then, what would surviving economic systems look like?
“Our ignorance of the laws of variation is profound.”
By Blackspeare, July 23, 2010 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment
Caveat emptor says it all!!!
Report thisBy Petro, July 23, 2010 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment
@christian96:
“THE CONSTITUTION
“They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for
Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was
written by a lot of intelligent men, worked for over
200 years, and we’re not using it anymore.”
OK, that made me LOL.
Look, this is essentially a “hearts and minds” problem as regards the attitudes towards “property.” I find that property is an illusion, and in a perfect world wouldn’t even be considered as a sane concept. However - this not being a perfect (nor even clearly sane) world - then a good Constitution would consign “property” as a privilege with serious social responsibilities. You know, like high tax rates, if you want to be vulgar about it (and I do, under the current paradigm.)
Education - PUBLIC education, and that should be a redundancy - would stress our mutual responsibilities to each other (my blog’s “motto” is “We all take care of each other, whether badly or well”), and cultivate an anti-personal-property morality.
There will always be malingerers defying this through their own personal stunted development (greed), so it shouldn’t be some mandate-from-above (the main failing of historical, and currently operating, “socialist” states), and I think they should have the “space” to evolve. Trying to be this way in a social milieu that rejects acquisitive behaviour is tyrannical enough, IMO, and it would only take a couple of generations to put the kibosh to the whole property/capitalist thing.
Of course, it has to be bottom-up, never top-down, so writing shit like this is only another humble straw on the camel’s back.
Amblin’ off to the tippin’ point…
Report thisBy Peter Knopfler, July 23, 2010 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment
Seems like a book to get! However sad reflection on Humanity, when your worth more dead than alive-organ sales. Some gambling addicts lose a kidney to a card game, Organs of death row prisoners, Children,women abuse goes up in a failing economy! We as a group have yet to live with principles. The mirror is broken.
Report thisBy christian96, July 23, 2010 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment
THE CONSTITUTION
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for
Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was
written by a lot of intelligent men, worked for over
200 years, and we’re not using it anymore.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
The real reason we can’t post the Ten Commandments
in courthouses and government buildings is the following: If we posted “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and
“Thou Shalt Not Lie” in buildings full of lawyers,
judges and politicians it would create a hostile work
environment.
Report thisTOLD YOU I HAD ALL THE ANSWERS!
By diamond, July 23, 2010 at 12:34 pm Link to this comment
In other words Satz is re-inventing the wheel for those stupid enough to have been taken in by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher’s privatizing activities and their combined ideological insanity from the eighties on. Keep your eye on Britain: I read somewhere that David Cameron is going to cut the public service by 40% - and that’s only the beginning! Sky News elected him but working families will pay, as usual, for the Tories’ free market mania. There’s never been a working class revolution in Britain, but the opera’s not over ‘till the fat lady sings.
Report thisBy james, July 23, 2010 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
the best customers are addicts. They have no choice whether to buy or not buy, they have to. This is what corporations want, everyone to be addicted to useless junk. Never mind if society falls apart. Great plan
Report thisBy Sly, July 23, 2010 at 9:26 am Link to this comment
“Nearly all of us understand that the very functioning of a democracy depends on
the powerful and wealthy not having the ability simply to buy their way into the
country’s political offices”
I got news for you, this game is over already, and the USA, by this criteria, is a
Report thisnon-functioning democracy.
By grandpaw, July 23, 2010 at 8:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Socialized Capitalism:
People correctly say we have capitalism in the United States. But having capitalism is something like having religion. It can cover a multitude of saints and sinners. What kind of capitalism do we have?
We started out with largely unregulated capitalism. However, we found that largely unregulated capitalism didn’t work because it begot such evils as child labor, unsafe working conditions, exploitation of the poor through long working hours and poverty level wages, unsafe food and drugs, exploitation of natural resources and the environment, deception of consumers, dishonest and fraudulent business practices, etc. It became clear that in order for capitalism to work in a fair and balanced way, it had to be socialized, that is, made fit to live among the people without exploiting them. That is why there have been laws and regulations to rein in raw, unregulated capitalism.
It is still capitalism, but it bears little resemblance to the predatory capitalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These various laws and regulations may be said to have the purpose of socializing predatory capitalism so as to make it fit for the general population in the same sense that we socialize children and animals so that they can fit comfortably into society without hurting society.
The genius of capitalism is that it gives people freedom to do as they want, so that their instincts for improving their own personal lot can result in improving the lot of society as a whole. In effect, it puts man’s greed to work for the benefit of all. But greed is not inherently concerned with the rights of others, so, left untended, greed will find a way to exploit rather than benefit. It is like a campfire that initially warms people but, left untended, reaches out to devour the forest, or like a wild horse that can be of great service to man but only if it is socialized, that is, only if reins are put on it to control it.
So, laws and regulations are put in place are to rein in man’s greed, to socialize capitalism so that it can benefit society without exploiting it. Socialize in a sense similar to the way owners socialize dogs, prisons attempt to socialize criminals, and juvenile detention facilities attempt to socialize delinquents so that society can benefit from their presence without being victimized. Domesticate, civilize and tame might also be used to describe the process.
Because of this socialization of capitalism, we now have child labor laws, wage and hour laws, industrial safety laws, food and drug laws, business regulation laws, securities regulation laws, environmental protection laws, usury laws, deceptive advertising laws, consumer protection laws, etc.
Capitalism has proved its worth. It has catapulted the US into first place in world economies. But only by socializing it have we been able to make its benefits available to the common man. Keeping capitalism socialized is, however, a never-ending process. Greed cannot be eliminated, only controlled and channeled. So greed will continue to look for ways to exploit, and we must continue to look for ways to regulate. The examples of this are legend: Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Imclone, Adelphia, Halliburton, IndyMac, Citibank, Wachovia, WaMu, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, GMC to name some of the more publicized cases which have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and have cost thousands of employees their jobs and their life savings.
It should be no surprise that neither unfettered capitalism nor too fettered socialism has worked very well, and that what works is a middle course. It has ever been thus.
Report thisBy berniem, July 23, 2010 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
In our capitalistic wonderland everything is for sale and all ownership should be private. The model of social Darwinism implies that the survival of the fittest will prevail,ie. thems what gots, gets more and thems that not, well, too bad! Pity that this pathetic planet can only provide a finite amount of resources which for some strange, unimaginable reason are also demanded by an ever increasing number of useless people who expect the well heeled to share gratis or at a ridiculously low rate of return! Now, as the all knowing hand of the free market would have us believe, if demand exceeds supply,only the highest bidder need apply and if increasing supply necessitates unprofitable activity, such will not occur, but this is OK because the free market makes everything right in the end anyway even if it requires the “extinction” in one form or another of various subspecies of flora and fauna(humans included). Ayn Rand aside, the doers, or what have you, of this world are sadly mistaken if they can label anyone who doesn’t “measure up” as “moochers” to be written off and kept outside of the fortified, gated communities and continue to play their reality series version of Monopoly without consequence. Such delusions have been proferred before in the guise of other economic systems with the inevitable results.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 23, 2010 at 7:08 am Link to this comment
Oh, I don’t know. I can envision tribes of more or less equal hunter-gatherers meeting periodically to trade. It would start as an exchange of gifts to promote peace and good will (at least until the next war).
The problem with markets is that they require a property system, and a property system apparently requires a state once it goes beyond mere physical possession. The state embodies violence and inequality which permeate its existence and its actions.
But ever the trickster of paradox, liberalism wants to have and yet to be free of markets. So we see that some market behaviors, like selling or renting parts of one’s body, are to be placed off limits while others—renting mind and body alike to an employer—are encouraged, even though both kinds of trade take place between parties of unequal power. It’s not very logical.
But the alternative would be anarchy and communism, and the bourgeoisie can’t have them and keep their stuff, can they? Hence these ever more baroque theories.
Report thisBy Peetawonkus, July 23, 2010 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
The “Market”, per se, has never been about equal standing. As a matter of fact, historically speaking (that is, since trade began to exist), the Market has been about doing everything possible to prevent anything like equal standing from occurring. Imagining equal standing in the Market is like walking into a casino with your spurs a’jinglin’ and thinking you and the House are on an equal footing.
Report thisBy Anarcissie, July 23, 2010 at 5:55 am Link to this comment
The argument about equal standing could apply equally well to the job market and to consumer culture.
The question is, though, what you’re going to replace markets with.
Report thisBy workers, July 23, 2010 at 5:34 am Link to this comment
“Indeed, given the current shortage of healthy organs, the creation of a market for them might seem not only inevitable but eminently sensible.” What a bunch of liberal equivocating. Let’s start by auctioning Troy’s brain. I know I wouldn’t pay a cent for it. Liberal sell outs.
Report thisBy ofersince72, July 23, 2010 at 3:04 am Link to this comment
Markets and Morality…
That is an oxymoron ....so I am not going to read this.
Report thisPage 5 of 5 pages « First < 3 4 5