You sell your time, and the person buying it places a specific value on that time - that's what happens when a market 'works'
Economics doesn't deal too well with agents dying, and even less well with agents having to decide when to die. You could 'claim' to place an infinite value on anything, but there are very few things which your actions will indicate that this claim is legitimate. Dying is one of them (and friends and family dying is probably the only other one for most people).
Actually economics does have something special to say about infinitely elastic demand. On paper, the model says the price is infinite. In the real world, it's simply an opportunity to extract wealth from consumers - as long as supply is less than the completely inelastic demand, the price will be astronomical.
Now that's an impasse if I ever saw one
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
You sell your time, and the person buying it places a specific value on that time - that's what happens when a market 'works'
I still do not see the relevance of the fact that the organs have no value to the people who have them. I might happen to acquire say an antique that has no value to me, but is priceless to someone else. So? What terribly "relevant" conclusions follow from this, or how does this make any difference in the case of organs? I can't think of any.
Economics doesn't deal too well with agents dying, and even less well with agents having to decide when to die. You could 'claim' to place an infinite value on anything, but there are very few things which your actions will indicate that this claim is legitimate. Dying is one of them (and friends and family dying is probably the only other one for most people).
Marginally speaking, economics does deal with death. We risk death every day. We could choose to significantly reduce our risk of death by not doing anything and staying locked inside our homes for as long as period as possible. However, we do not do this. We go outside and we risk being hit by a car, randomly shot by a gangster, or have a piano fall on us while we are walking down the street. This means that we make an economic decision to risk death in order to increase our overall utility by engaging in activities which we value higher than death avoidance.
Actually economics does have something special to say about infinitely elastic demand. On paper, the model says the price is infinite. In the real world, it's simply an opportunity to extract wealth from consumers - as long as supply is less than the completely inelastic demand, the price will be astronomical.
Now if a market for organs produced some excess supply of organs, or if it turned out relatice placed some sort of rational value on their dead family member's parts (I don't really see how they would, but maybe it would work out) then you might get a market with very low prices, which would obviously be better for every agent than the current system. Unfortunately, the dynamics of the demand side mean it's impossible to know which results would occur.
It also occurs to me that it would be an excellent business for arbitrage - I buy up all the organs as they become available, because I know I can restrict supply and raise prices. The impracticality of direct donor-recipient contact and negotiation makes this a real possibility.
No, the potential price tends towards infinity. The actual sale price is not necessarily so. The owners of the organs could donate them for free (as they probably would in a lot of cases), or they could sell them for any other price, be it the maximum they could get or as little as 1 cent.
I do not see how arbitrage could come about if people are going to be spending their last dime to get their hands on these organs anyways. How could the person engaging in arbitrage possibly squeeze another dollar out of the recipients? That makes no sense.
Now that's an impasse if I ever saw one
The minute governments start donating people's organs against their wishes, you might have a shot at changing my mind.
Yes, we do take risks. Organ transplants aren't about risks though - they are about a certainty of death, versus a near-certainty of continued life.
I thought the reason the market would be so much better was that people would get the highest price for their organs
Simple - people die, and organ donation contracts need to be made up quickly. An agency with information about people in need of donors could be very efficient at coffin-chasing. This could be highly efficient, and I suspect due to information processing, etc, might turn out to be most efficient with only one service procvider in the market. But it would be even more profitable if this agency were able to control and restrict supply.
Uh... no - it's the exact opposite of what they do - you can choose to donate your organs, or not, but your family isn't allowed to sell them.
Organs are taken from someone who has already died. *throws aOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
I can't believe my eyes, this coming from a member of the RRRR???
Save the Two Cells but reap the body parts?
So much for God fearing.
under the bridge*Originally posted by: nick1985
I am looking for a little critique of my short speech. I am the "stater" of the group, so my job is to present our side and to offer some insight. Also, feel free to discuss the issue, it would be a nice change of pace from the usual P&N flame fest.
The issue of whether or not organs should be able to be sold or not is a touchy one, despite this, we believe that there in fact should be a market for organs. (Our group passes out 25 notecards, 6 have X's on them) In front of you, you have a note card. Let?s pretend that all of you are awaiting an organ donation. Will the people who have an X on their note card please raise their hands. Congratulations, you received the organ that you were waiting on. Now, raise your hand if your card is blank. Unfortunately, you were not as lucky, you did not receive the organ that you were waiting on. The percentage that we used here was about the same nationwide, only roughly 23% of people who wait on an organ ever receive one. The fact is simple, if a market for organs were created there would be a rise in the number of organs available for people, and this will surely save lives. And I challenge anyone to say otherwise.
According to Dr. Donald Ardell, ?Even those who oppose a market in this area acknowledge that the shortage would be eliminated if financial incentives were offered for organs.? Also, given the title of this debate, most assume that a market for body parts does not currently exist. This is false, there already IS a free market for donors, except the only person who is not making any money is the donor! Does this make sense? And consider this, the government tries to protect us with so many different ?nanny? laws. Suicide is illegal. If killing ourselves is illegal, then why won?t the government allow us to purchase organs that will save our lives? Isn?t the government indirectly letting us die by banning the sale of organs? If I cant kill myself, I cant smoke under 18, I cant drink under 21, I have to wear a seatbelt, and countless hundreds of other laws are in place to ?protect us?, then why are we not allowed to save ourselves by purchasing organs? Let?s pretend that you have a child who, if they do not receive their organ shortly, will die. If you had the opportunity to purchase the organ to save your child, would you? Now my partner Eric will elaborate on our position (end).
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Unless you privatize the ENTIRE system, they will still be rolling in money from it.
In fact, unless you start by removing restrictions to medical school entry, they will still be rolling in money. It's called a monopoly
I wouldn't rather the money go anywhere, because it's not a 'real' market, it's a coercive one; the organs have no value to the dead person, and infinite value to the sick person, so what's the 'market price'? It's not based on value, it's based on the largest price that leaves no one able to pay that price without an organ (but 'able' not 'willing' is the relevent term, because the value of 'not dying' is generally very high to the dying person).
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
The difference is the consequence of the transaction; there aren't very many goods which equate to 'live', with the closest available substitute being 'die'.
There are plenty of goods like that, namely water.
Yes, we do take risks. Organ transplants aren't about risks though - they are about a certainty of death, versus a near-certainty of continued life.
True, but I was merely addressing your statement that economics doesn't deal with death. In absolute terms this statement is false.
I thought the reason the market would be so much better was that people would get the highest price for their organs
I might be a bit 'chicken little' here, but these are the major questions and issues around a free market for a good which cannot really be traded rationally.
No, they could potentially though, making it pareto-efficient. In other words if someone's utility is maximized by selling the organ for the highest price they can fetch, then that is pareto-efficient. If they are restricted in doing so, then we are in a pareto-ineffcient situation. Economics says this is a no-no i.e. we shouldn't do this.
Simple - people die, and organ donation contracts need to be made up quickly. An agency with information about people in need of donors could be very efficient at coffin-chasing. This could be highly efficient, and I suspect due to information processing, etc, might turn out to be most efficient with only one service procvider in the market. But it would be even more profitable if this agency were able to control and restrict supply.
So what? Let them coffin chase. At least they won't allow any organs to go to waste. Why in the world would they restrict supply? Let's see here. We have X people who are willing to spend everything they have for Y organs. If you restrict supply you will have one less person buying your product for every dime they have. I do not think there is a single businessman out there who would turn down the chance to have someone give them everything they have. Hence, even if you believe the absurd supply restriction doctrine, in this case it does not apply given your theory that the price of each unit would tend towards infinity.
Uh... no - it's the exact opposite of what they do - you can choose to donate your organs, or not, but your family isn't allowed to sell them.
Then the government is not laying claim to your property but it is telling you what you can or cannot do with it. Just as the government itself is a completely illigitimate entity in all other matters, it has no right in telling a family what it can or cannot do with a family member's organs. In order to have any chance of claiming that the government has a right do to this, you must first establish its legitmacy in the first place. Many philosophers over a period of thousands of years have attempted to do this, and all have failed. If you would like to try though, be my guest.
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
I can't believe my eyes, this coming from a member of the RRRR???
Save the Two Cells but reap the body parts?
So much for God fearing.
Facebook
Twitter