= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pianoforte611 comments on Stupid Questions February 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (198)
Why do we not allow people to sell organs? If it is a medical worry or a problem with people getting ripped off, a national regulatory body (there is already an organization that regulates organ donation), should solve those problems.
People have strong anti-market biases. It has been said that if there was not a market in sandwiches, and one was suggested, people would recoil in horror. "Only the rich will be able to buy sandwiches." "Sandwiches will be filled with rat poison and feces." "It's just wrong! People should feed each other out of kindness, not greed." Even "Many people only sell sandwiches because they need money. It's exploitation."
Taboo tradeoffs. Probably most readers are too young (as am I) to remember when life insurance was considered immoral. How can you put a price on life?
Political incentives. Why should any one voter demand change? Why should any one politician? Or any one judge? Collective action problems are hard.
The concern is exploitation of poor people. (And no, I agree that that reasoning doesn't make much sense).
It is legal to sell kidneys in Iran. As a result, Iran has no waiting lists for kidney transplantation. You can read an interesting study of the situation here. TLDR: it works well, but everything has tradeoffs.
For the same reason tribes living near the edge of starvation have especially strong cannibalism taboos.
Probably because the poor would have a lot of trouble getting organ transplants. Under the current system, you're put on a waiting list until your number is called. If others can bid more money on organs, you're out of luck. I can't imagine insurance companies being overly keen on bidding for organs.
I really don't want to think about issues arising from people selling off their organs to make ends meet (or to settle gambling debts). And let's not forget human trafficking. Instead of just forcing people into prostitution, you could also harvest their organs.
I think there are several thorny problems and issues of consent that complicate this matter. Losing an organ is permanent.
The top-level answer is because people do not own them. As far as I remember, in the US people do NOT have property rights in their organs and tissues (yes, there were court cases).
Digging deeper, allowing people to own their organs and tissues would make life more complicated and expensive for the medical establishment and it doesn't like that.
That makes a lot of sense. The healthcare industry would be down several thousand dollars per kidney transplant if people sold instead of donating.
The ownership thing, ugh, why do we allow people to donate then.
This reminds me of prostitution - it's legal to give away something that it's illegal to sell.
The concern is that we don't want poor people forced to sell parts of themselves to pay off their debts - it's a bit too Merchant of Venice. (I think it'd still be good policy, because I don't see how them not having the choice is any better, but that's the common concern)
In game theory, sometimes "not having a choice" is an advantage.
Imagine that you are a poor person, someone kidnaps your children and asks $100.000 from you.
Scenario A: Okay, this is not realistic. If they know you are poor, you don't have a chance to give them $100.000. So actually they will not kidnap your children.
Scenario B: You can sell your body parts for $100.000. Any they know it.
That's a fully general argument against having any capabilities.
No, it's not, for several reasons:
The utility that people gain from money is not linear (and the utility that people lose when losing $X worth of organs is really not linear). Making it possible to extort $100000 from someone who has a lot of money, then, causes less of a loss in utility to them than making it possible to extort $100000 from someone who would have to sell his organs to get the money.
It is easier, in general, to extort a poor person for $X than a rich person for the same amount, for hopefully obvious reasons. For instance, the poor person can't hire a private detective, bribe the police, or use his connections to track down the kidnapper, and the kidnapping is much less likely to make the national news. And it is much less likely that when you kidnap his kids you piss off some very important people.
It is easy for the kidnapper to figure out that someone has organs. It is harder for the kidnapper to figure out that they have $100000 in a bank account (unless they are rich enough to fall into category 2) or that they can feasibly mortgage their house within a short time.
The market price for organs is not that high compared to how much the person would lose in utility from losing the organs. So a more plausible scenario is that the kidnapper asks for $10000, which is the sale price of the organs, but the person with the organs loses the utility that he would lose from losing $1000000 in cash. If the kidnapper instead extorted someone who had money, they would not lose as much utility.
"The Bangladesh poor selling organs to pay debts" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24128096
Yeah, that. There's no way of getting money that's so ugly that some poor, desperate person somewhere won't try.
There exists a mild market in organs. I can donate a kidney in exchange for a loved one getting a kidney. I also can donate my body to science, in exchange the institution - at least in Germany - pays for some kind of burial.
Immediate edit: Actually, since there exists a black market in organs we could make some estimates about prices and conditions on a legalised market in organs.
I suggest that allowing people to sell something where the market price of the item is much less than the price that most people would name if they were asked how much they would accept to sell it but were not in immediate need of money, is generally a bad idea.
This includes organs, prostitution, and signing away your house for a glass of water if you're dying of thirst in the desert and someone offers to give you water in exchange for your house.
I am confused about your suggestion. If the "market price" is much less than the price that most people would name, where does the market price come from?
Also, forbidding "signing away your house for a glass of water if you're dying of thirst in the desert" leads to you dying of thirst in the desert. That doesn't look like a desirable outcome.
I didn't say the price that most people would name, I said the price that most people would name if they weren't in immediate need of money. The market price can certainly be different from that.
It only leads to you dying of thirst in the desert if the existence of this prohibition doesn't change the behavior of the seller. As long as the legal maximum price is high enough that the seller can make a profit, the seller will change his behavior and sell the water for that price instead.
So, let's consider janitorial work. The market price (of an hour of labor) is considerably lower than " the price that most people would name if they weren't in immediate need of money", isn't it?
Why do we care about price perceptions by people who are not in immediate need of money, anyway?
You are making no sense. The existence of this prohibition DOES change the behavior of the seller -- he no longer spends his time standing in the middle of the desert with a glass of water.
Consider a realistic example. Some states have anti-gouging laws which basically prohibit raising the prices in the immediate aftermath of natural disasters. Let's say I run a lumberyard and state A (without anti-gouging laws) just had a hurricane. I would rent a box truck, stuff it full of lumber and plywood, and drive it over to state A to sell the contents for double the usual price. But if state B (with anti-gouging laws) just had a hurricane, I would sit in my yard and do nothing -- why would I? Net effect: residents of state A can start fixing up their houses much faster.
There are several ways in which the behavior of the seller changes. Some may benefit the buyer (as in your anti-gouging example) but some may not (such as if the guy with the glass of water would have had one anyway). Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the benefit you describe happens only at the market price; it may be that people in the area are willing to pay 50 times the normal price for lumber, but 20 times is sufficient to incentivize you to truck in a load of lumber.
Sigh. Why do you think central planning failed?
I think this discussion would be both more pleasant and more productive (at least for people who are not you) with a higher engagement-to-sneering ratio.
That's not sneering, that's shortcutting. If you wish, I'll unroll.
One of the primary functions of the markets is price discovery. It is really important for the economy that the markets discover prices which then form the basis for future resource allocation.
The classic conceit of the central planner is that he doesn't need to learn the market prices -- he knows better and can allocate resources without all these unfair, chaotic, and messy markets.
In this subthread Jiro feels he doesn't need market prices -- he thinks it would be better if he set fixed prices (or floors or ceilings) based on his perceptions of fairness (see organs) or on what he thinks will be sufficient incentives (see lumber). That looks to me to much like the central planner conceit.
The problem, of course, is that central planning has been shown, empirically, to work badly in real life. The issue then becomes why does Jiro think that his scheme will do much better. Thus the question: why does Jiro thinks central planning has failed and why does he believe that his price manipulation will avoid that fate?
Agreed, Jiro is making this error. They postulates a situation where people pay (they say "willing to pay," but clearly is not talking about consumer surplus) 50, but 20 is enough. What Jiro and readers should wonder is why people are paying so much more than necessary to get what they want, and how Jiro knows this but the people in the actual situation do not.
Let me, correspondingly, unpack the motivation behind my comment a little.
There is a continuum running all the way from "completely free unregulated markets" to "totalitarian central state determines what will be made and what it will cost". It looks to me as if Jiro was proposing some regulation and you responded by saying that totalitarian central planning has a bad track record. That doesn't seem altogether reasonable.
Further, when you say "central planning failed" you're working with a rather small sample and one with a bunch of confounding factors. Consider the USSR, for example. It had central planning, its people were rather poor, and in the end it collapsed. But, also: those people were always much poorer per capita than, say, those of the USA or Western Europe; the USSR spent decades locked in economic and (indirect) military conflict with a much better-resourced opponent; it had not only central planning but outright totalitarianism with some rather crazed leaders. Maybe the primary reason why the USSR wasn't a roaring economic success was that central planning is inferior to free markets, but I don't think we have enough evidence to make that claim with a lot of confidence.
"In immediate need of money" and "in need of money in their life, eventually and predictably", aren't the same thing. If you offered most people $200 for an hour of janitorial labor, they would take your offer. Assuming that the market price is close to minimum wage, that's a factor of 28. If you offered most people 28 times the market price for their organ, or 28 times the market price for prostituting themselves, they would not take it unless they were starving at the moment.
Citation needed. There's going to be a problem with that, since there are no market prices for organs at the moment.
Actually, there are some exceptions. Women, for example, can effectively sell their eggs. And it seems there is a market where sellers don't look to be "starving at the moment".
Citation still needed. The high-end prostitute prices are sky-high, say $5,000 / session. Times 28 is $140,000 -- what were you saying about most people?
If this is true, then what I said would not apply to the selling of eggs.
I agree that those particular prostitutes would meet the requirement--they make so much money that most people would be willing to prostitute themselves for some multiple of that amount which is not too high (compared to similar multiples for janitors). So I won't have a problem with letting them operate.
But that would not extend to prostitutes in general. (I might decide that most prostitution is bad but allow it for practical reasons, but that's different.)
This is not Wikipedia. If you really believe that average people would not behave this way, say so. If not, asking for a citation is just filibustering.
You are making naked assertions and I'm asking for data, evidence that supports your claims.
It is only appropriate to ask for data for an assertion if you think the assertion has a significant chance of being false.
You know, I'm not one to throw the word "privilege" around, but I'll make an exception here. This is a profoundly privileged perspective. You're taking the stigma attached to prostitution and using that to decree, without personal experience or any hard data that you've deigned to produce, that it couldn't possibly be a rational decision for anyone at any reasonable price.
These people aren't stupid. A few of them might be desperate -- though fewer, I imagine, than you're giving them credit for -- but I'd expect that to give them a keen appreciation of their options. Are you really prepared to say that they don't know their own needs?
(By the way, I lived near the Nevada state line when I was in high school, and locker-room word of mouth at the time placed an hour at one of the so-called "bunny ranches" across the border at about $200. Accounting for inflation, let's call it $300 now. 28 times that is $8400 -- enough to tempt me as I am, and definitely enough that it would tempt me if I wasn't already working a high-paying job. No starvation needed.)
In addition: sugar babies/daddies are very popular, looks like.
If by "stigmatize selling X" you mean "refusing to sell X except for a price that is very high compared to what it gets on the market", then of course--you're just restating what I'm saying.
If you mean something else, please clarify.
I already agreed that there are high priced prostitutes who are making rational decisions, although I would not apply this to typical prostitutes.
1) Do the prostitutes actually get $200 take home pay, not just $200 receipts (some of which has to go to overhead and paying the pimp)?
2) The question about most people is really about most people somewhat like them. In particular, is your gender the same as the prostitutes'?
3) Even if the answers to the first two questions don't make it moot, are you a typical person in this regard?
You really think it's appropriate to object to somebody calling out your unsupported claims as unsupported when they are A) obviously disagreeing with you, to the point where there's absolutely no need to explicitly state it, and B) providing evidence in support of their own claims, with both reasonable arguments and supporting links? In that case, what would it take to convince you?
(Emphasis mine) Should I take it that this is then something you can't actually be convinced of by anything short of incontrovertible proof to the contrary?
Data set of one, but I find Lumifer's arguments far more convincing than yours. This is largely based on the fact that they are actually backed up by something more than the assumption that everybody begins with your personal model of how people make decisions.
A disagreement about priors is not nontrivially "can't be convinced by anything short of incontrovertible proof".
I'm in favor of legal prostitution and am not denying your claim generally, but the idea most people (or frankly any more than let's say doubleish the current real world rate of people) being willing to prostitute themselves for six figures does not agree with my intuition at all.
Do you have a source in mind or do we just have different intuitions?
Look beyond your own social circle.
Look e.g. at the numbers for the so-called sugar daddies/sugar babies sites. (here or here, etc.)
Oh I did, the figures for any social circle in which I am has a rate of 0% .
I may be misinterpreting, but wouldn't that fall within the "current real world rate" of prostitution I mentioned?
But I guess as to the question asked, of a data source for the prostitution rate change at six figure rates, that might be a hard (albeit perhaps quite fun for researchers) study to run, so I'll just take that add a no.
Again, total tangent. I agree with your base claim.
If we grant for the sake of argument that these are the facts, it's still not clear to me that banning the sale is a good thing.
Suppose we have three people, Alice (who lives a comfortable upper-middle class life), Bob (currently starving), and Carol (rich and in need of a kidney). Alice doesn't particularly care about money, but if there is a lack of kidneys she is willing to give one to feel that she is doing good in the world. Bob cares very much about money---if he can't sell the kidney he will starve to death.
In this hypothetical there are enough donors to fill demand even with a $0 price ceiling, so Carol doesn't care either way. But by banning the sale, the benefit of the transaction now goes to Alice (who gets some extra warm fuzzies) rather than Bob, even though Bob is in much more dire need.
"Make a profit" is not the limiting factor. "Make enough of a profit to make it worth scouring the desert for thirsty people" is. If I'll get $3 for a glass of tap water, I'll sell it to someone who knocks on my door. If I'll get $100,000 for it, I'm going to rent a chopper and fly around the Sahara.
I stand corrected, but that doesn't really change what I'm trying to say.
Too many analogies, what specific harms do you think would result from people being able to sell their organs and some regulated price? If there is informed consent, then the monetary benefit should exceed the health cost.
I think that if the regulated price was either a ceiling that is low enough, or a floor which is high enough (or both, as in the case for wages), then harms would not result at all. A law which said "all organ selling must be either a free donation, or accompanied by a payment of at least $2 million" would probably be okay.
But that is a very noncentral description of organ selling. The majority of advocates of organ selling don't want such limits on it.
Either regulate the price of organs, or not allow people who are desperate (could be defined by income or wealth) to sell their organs.
We already do that. We regulate the price at $0.
Actually, there are two ways to limit it. If the price is very low, such as $0, desperation would not affect people's willingness to sell their organs because the price is so low that it can't relieve desperation. If the price is very high, desperation is not making people sell the organs for a lowballed price. It's prices in the middle that are the problem.
(We also do this with normal labor. You can give away your labor for $0, and you can work for an amount that is at least the minimum wage, but nothing inbetween.)
Ahem.
The minimum wage only affects a particular subset of labor relations.
It feels like you are playing the "Gotcha!" game with the goal of winning rather than communicating your objection to organ selling. I can't see why else you would argue that organ donation is regulated sale with a price $0.
In that case I am not likely to respond further. It seems obvious to me what the benefits are of a high price with thorough testing, informed consent and exclusion criteria : it would solve the organ shortage and allow for faster advances in research. As to what the harms are I am still unclear.
It's not a gotcha. I'm not just saying "well, technically, $0 is a number, so that fits what you literally said". Limiting the price to $0 really is regulation of the price; setting the price to $0 is meant to alleviate some of the problems that could result from allowing a higher price, because it changes the incentives.
What do you think would happen if we duplicated the minimum wage structure in this arena? 'You can give away your kidney, or sell it for at least X dollars' where x is some amount deemed to reduce exploitation of the desperate? I like this idea.
Edit: saw comment below.