Humanities desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 27

Would this system of organ "sales" be economically feasible?

I am not sure if I am allowed to ask this type of question here. If not, I apologize. I need an expert in economics to test the feasibility of the following premise:

There is a regulated system of legal financial compensations for organ donors in place where the compensation would be provided by a third party (government, charity, or insurance) with public oversight. Bidding and private buying would not be permitted and available organs would be distributed to the next in line on a first-come-first-serve basis. Donors would be screened for physical and psychological problems and they would be guaranteed any follow-up care for any complications. Instead of a lump sum cash payments, in-kind rewards such as down-payment on a house, contribution to retirement fund, and lifetime health insurance would be provided as compensation.

Would the above scenario be economically viable, at least in the United States?

StellarHalo (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economists are very good in explaining retrospectively why some scheme was not economically viable. Here the question is prospective. Usually "economically viable" is interpreted as profitability in the accounting sense. I assume that the institution in charge of the operation would, however, be a nonprofit organization, and that the measure of success is the reduction or elimination of the waiting list. It seems to have worked for kidney transplants in Iran,^[1] to the extent that some are proposing its extension to other organs.^[2] As to the US, the law would need to be changed, but even then there will be considerable cultural pushback, which may cause the program to fail; see Organ donation#Other financial incentives and the following section on Bioethical issues. --Lambiam 10:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the laws are changed and there is no cultural pushback with the rate of donation not dropping as a result, do you think there would be a hard ceiling in terms of possible financial compensations to the donors if only a third party could legally pay the donors rather than having the recipients pay out of their own pockets? StellarHalo (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo -- some potential organ donors are not so much seeking cash for themselves (or for their families after their death) as that they have become very very cynical about the fact that everybody else involved in organ donating and transplanting is making good profits, while only the donor is expected to be selflessly altruistic. Such people would respond more to a good faith gesture that they're not being singled out for receiving no money, while everybody else is handsomely compensated... AnonMoos (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being wholly illegal, (see National Organ Transplant Act of 1984; similar laws apply in most developed nations.), it's a system ripe for abuse. Fortunately, economists do not necessarily care about abuse; if the system distributes scarce resources (organs, in this case) more usefully (have fun defining that!), then there are economists who will be quite happy to throw off to one side any ethical consideration. Compulsory donations, perhaps with an opt-out provision, are far, far more sensible. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have said compulsory ‘’after death‘’ ... DOR (HK) (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. How would the donors be selected? Randomly, like jury duty? Only residents, or could they also select visiting tourists? How many people do you think would "dodge the donation" and move to Canada or elsewhere? --Lambiam 19:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you to consider whether or not a hypothetical scenario would be economically viable for the third party (government, charity, insurance) that gives the financial compensation to the donors instead of the recipients and that particular scenario is a proposal that is meant to prevent abuses. This is not supposed to be a free market system where private purchase is allowed. Also, this is in response to the increasing shortage of organs available for transplant especially kidneys that result in people in need dying every year if they don't go to developing countries for the black market. Most people do not donate their own kidney due to variety of different reasons and there is no way a compulsory donation would be possible in a liberal democracy. The only system with opt-out provision is presumed consent and that only makes organs available after the donor has died rather than immediately. In addition, a very small fraction of these deceased donors die in circumstances where their organs are healthy enough to be claimed for transplant. StellarHalo (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How many parties are involved? Obviously the donors, and you mentioned a "a third party", so there is yet another party. The recipients of the transplants? As far as I can see, they have no economic role in the proposed system. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "economically viable"? That the amount earned exceeds the amount spent in compensating the donors and otherwise operating the system? If it is the third party whose income and expenses this regards, what is their source of income? Tax dollars? Allocate enough tax dollars, and the system will not have a lack of money. --Lambiam 21:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given your question makes little sense, I think you want to know whether this proposal is politically viable rather than economically viable. As a matter of funding, you have stated yourself that one of the payors would surely be government, meaning the money comes from taxation. Depending on who you ask, a system funded by taxes is either non-viable (because, if it were, it wouldn't need taxes to support the social good it provides), or viable (because taxes aren't going away the system won't collapse on its own). All the details of such a system are issues of political feasibility and desirability, and of whether the adjustments to public policy necessary to permit such a system to be legal would be acceptable to society. At no point does economics enter into it except, perhaps, in determining what an acceptable price point for each organ is.

Answering that question, I can tell you unequivocally that such a system would not be politically viable in the United States, especially if it's taxpayer-funded. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Va Kua Pomare of Tahiti

Trying to find who Princess Va Kua Pomare of Tahiti was. Here are two images from Getty Images: https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/princess-va-kua-pomare?mediatype=photography&phrase=princess%20va%20kua%20pomare&sort=mostpopular . I am presuming that she would have lived in the early 1900s and possibly is a misspelling since I am not aware of this name in the Pōmare dynasty of Tahiti. KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be Ari'i-manihinihi Takau Pomare, mentioned at Queen Marau? There is a certain resemblance in the facial features. --Lambiam 19:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of black market getting suppressed by legalization?

Could you provide me with notable and specific examples that would support the notion that the creation of a new legal and authorized market for a good or service has suppressed the prominence and activities of the its black market? StellarHalo (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after the end of Prohibition in the United States, sales of black market booze certainly declined, and criminal organizations focused on other nefarious pursuits. 2606:A000:1126:28D:8C34:E67B:DCB2:8E78 (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will also depend on taxation of the legal goods, and on how widespread the goods are legally purchasable within a jurisdiction where it is (theoretically) allowed. The Los Angeles Times article "California now has the biggest legal marijuana market in the world. Its black market is even bigger", from less than a year ago, reports that "high taxes and a refusal by most cities to allow licensed shops makes it cheaper and easier for people to buy from illicit dealers (...) An estimated $8.7 billion is expected to be spent in the illegal cannabis market in 2019 — more than double the amount of legal sales", this all despite the Adult Use of Marijuana Act which was passed in 2016. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In countries where coffee was made illegal (or excessively taxed) this created a black market, which eventually disappeared as the sale of coffee was normalized. --Lambiam 22:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another counter example: [3]. Black market for cigarettes, to avoid taxes. RudolfRed (talk) 02:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The takeaway lesson for lawmakers appears to be: if you want to legalize some good but do not want the black market to disappear, make sure to impose a heavy excise tax or other impediments to legalized access. --Lambiam 10:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion. I understand some U S states have turned the clock back while Ireland has voted for it and it may already be law. 87.74.53.154 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That abortion has been made legal doesn't for itself prove that a black market has disappeared. A black market arises when demand exceeds significantly the offer. Whether the offer is illegal or not is relatively uninportant and legalizing alone doesn't make an inadequate offer adequate. It is true that legalizing can make the black market cheaper but the notion that legalization alone does let a black market disappear is probably not generally supportable even if you can find the one or the other suitable example. 2003:F5:6F0C:9500:C8E3:3AE1:4EBD:BBCB (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for President of The United States

I read on your info page that a candidate for the president of the United States had to be a natural born citizen of the US.

How was Ted Cruz (not his real first name) able to run for President? He was born in Calgary, Alberta Canada. How does that work/ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Wondering88 (talk o contribs) 22:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Natural born citizen" means that he was a citizen of the U.S. at the moment of his birth; that doesn't always mean being born on U.S. territory... AnonMoos (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Cruz had US citizenship because his mother was a US citizen. See Ted Cruz#Citizenship, and follow the link to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016#Eligibility if you like. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read natural-born-citizen clause#Ted Cruz, which discusses the question extensively. Put briefly, while the law is unsettled, the consensus of constitutional scholars seems to be that Cruz would be a natural born citizen for the purposes of presidential eligibility. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 June 29#Senator Duckworth as VP. 87.74.53.154 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Riesman, Laura Bohannan

In Riesman’s foreword to Return to Laughter, why did he suggest she was a coward?Rich (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state the exact quote? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this passage: "Professional men and perhaps especially professional women in our society have a dream of omnicompetence in which they are never ruffled, angry, irrational, stupid, and tactless, let alone cowardly. Mrs. Bohannan discovers in herself all these failings—with the additional failing, quite alien to the tribe she studied, of wanting to be a superior person and without failings."? If so, your question contains a mischaracterization – and the passage itself provides the answer. --Lambiam 10:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that answers my question, but I hadn’t remembered any of that.Rich (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, actually it doesn’t entirely answer it because I couldn’t find in reading the book quite where Bohannon had shown any cowardice, so I had been been wondering if Riesman had other information not in the book, or if he was just crazy. I had remembered the foreword as mentioning cowardice, but none of the stuff about tactlessness and stupidity and so on. Also, given what you quoted, just what is the mischaracterization you say I made?Rich (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, i’m beginning to think the true reason riesman said all that stuff is that he saw all those failings in himself and thought they were in her.Rich (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book is consistently written from a first-person perspective, in which the protagonist candidly describes her mistakes and emotions, and how they interfere with her anthropological research efforts. There are several passages in which the protagonist states she is afraid to do something, such as eating porridge offered to her (for fear of dysentery), thereby insulting her hosts. Riesman did not "suggest" that Bohannan was a coward, but observes that in this novel she herself describes a host of failings with respect to an ideal of professional total competence, among which are moments of cowardly behaviour such as refusing food offerings – which does not at all imply that Riesman thought she was a coward, especially since the book is a fictionalized account anyway, although "based on a true story", namely Bohannan's field work living many years among the Tiv tribe of central Nigeria. It is also clear from the way Riesman describes this in the larger context, that he appreciates and admires this frank honesty. --Lambiam 06:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just got hold of a copy of the book. It’s been about 25 years since I read it. Indeed, the foreword in my book is exactly as you said, although even more harsh than I remembered(I had wondered if the edition I had read back then had been abridged or that Riesman had been persuaded to tone down his remarks). It’s true that much of the forword is favorable to Bohannon, but the “indictment” you quote above is ridiculously harsh for what Bohannon does in the book. (To interject something concerning what had originally been my main question, I don’t see how a professional anthropologist would see refusing food that might cause dysentery as anything but professional, rather than cowardly. So I again wonder if Riesman had seen information not in the book, possibly in an early draft, or if Riesman was projecting his own problems onto her.) While Riesman did not “suggest” that Bohannon was a coward, he did “suggest” (straight from your quote) that she was cowardly. A difference, but not much of one, hardly the mischaracterization you accuse me of, and not an intentional one, being a 25 year memory, and scarcely harmful, since both of them are have died. I mean it’s not much of a difference since people whose actions are called cowardly are frequently called cowards.Rich (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]