The Body Market | What Money Can't Buy #2

[@BrazilDan1]

That's an interesting video and a debate worth having! A problem with the premise of the kidney market is that we don't just need one kidney and the other one is redundant. In fact, those who donate a kidney will face a possibly lessened quality of life, especially in old age, increasing even the likelihood of needing dialysis. So, actually selling your kidney is not just a moral/social/political issue, but also a health one.

[@panastraxan]

Finally! I came for this comment. It seemed that the second kidney being COMPLETELY redundant was their hypothesis for the sake of argument, but it wasn't mentioned clearly at all. This panel seems way too comfortable justifying pretty much every commodification that a sick brain can think of.

[@waspishhen1]

They have to give Mankiw a nobel prize by now. His work in sticky prices and equilibriums warrants that atleast. Let alone his contributions to field with the best and most prolific economic textbook ever.

[@HannesRadke]

An important point that didn't get attention in this discussion: If there is a market for organ transplants. What about the terminally ill person who _can't afford_ to buy a transplant? There are dozens more just ways to deal with scarcity than markets. In the end it is obviously wrong to let the market be the one and only judge of what is right and wrong. Many things there is a market for are absolutely despicable and reveal the darkest sides of humanity. Also there is no way, in a society where you can fall into homelessness and starvation if you refuse to take part in the labor market, that any selling of ones living-time and dignity is free of coercion. The only economy where this is possible is one with a Basic Income that guarantees survival no matter what. Every transaction on top of that would be truly voluntary.

[@abudioc]

This "ceteris paribus" assumptions have corrupted some of the young fellas. It's time to inject more behavioral based assumptions into early economics textbooks. Else, we will produce robot-like economists.

[@eddierazon3328]

Maybe we don't have right to participate for this kind of debts about sailing kidney because of luck of knowledge we need a lot desistion to make first procedure what's benifit's we get's are they welling pay our risk like maintenance only maybe they don't know or the purpose is for love his family friends or love ones

[@yungtankie4450]

These videos just make me want to jump in and start debating with them

[@TheDucke]

In Spain we have a completely coslidarity based system. No money involved and a country wide list of people in need of a transplant ordered by necessity and we have the highest rate of transplants in the world (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplantation). There a situations where market shouldn't be involved and also it is not the most eficient solution.

[@sylvain967]

Don't leave this kind of debates to economists. Too many sociopathic freaks among them.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Why Sandel is talking with these right wing liberal nutjobs is beyond me. That shit is LEARNED behavior. Most people i see day to day want teamwork. Individualism is a revolt against nature

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Also the dumb girl in the middle that says Liberalism is a neutral ideology is clueless. Liberalism is NOT neutral nor has ever been in the US.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

Whats to stop the bank from coming and repossessing the kidney for default of payment on the loan and the person therefore dies?

[@miyalys]

Regarding dilemmas like these my concern isn't only the dehumanisation/objectification of that singular person, say someone's who's a dwarf, but how that choice can affect those people and perhaps eventually society at large to view and treat dwarfs. In other words one person's individual choice doesn't always just affect themselves. And I think this should also be considered in terms deciding on legislation.

[@magister343]

Why shouldn't an individual be allowed to sell his eyes? I see no problem with that at all.

[@beckysimpson4975]

Another amazing debate!

[@SantaBJ]

There are some extremely poorly founded basic assumptions and significant blindspots in some of the arguments presented. Two major ones: Marketisation is generally a good (I have yet to hear this convincingly argued), and the more general economist's blindspot for power differentials. The latter shatters most of the arguments. You can't get around the problem of power differentials and their effects on the economic "choices" (and the extent to which these were choices at all) without addressing the core of that issue: Power levelling. And in any marketised economy, you will NEVER achieve an equality of power. Power does not balance equally: Everyone wants more of it, those who have it can get more more easily than others, and the effects of pure chance alone dictates that at some point someone must get this advantage which will then snowball. All you can do is work to counterbalance this snowballing advantage through organisation.

[@clavdiolizarraga1075]

Well, it actually depends on how we define "equality of power" doesn't it? But anyways, bringing that up as being generally a good would also count as a poorly founded basic assumption assuming you hold consistent standards.

[@SantaBJ]

What on Earth are you on about? Equality of power is equality of power. Are you referring to the many different types of power? If you are, then you're committing the fallacy of division: Equality of power holds broadly as a good, but that doesn't mean it applies in every case (which is obvious and does not in any way undermine the basic point). The obvious example is that of a policeman vs a crime suspect in the context of an attempted arrest. But outside of that context, say in politics, if you are suggesting that the policeman should have more of a say than the crime suspect then you are simply wrong. (And I'm not talking about votes; voting acts as a form of subservient gatekeeping for political actors, but beyond this function serves little actual predictive power in terms of policy formation, unlike, say, wealth.) Equality of power is an unattainable good. You can't ever get there, because that's just not how power systems work, but if you're not working *towards* it you can never even get close. And the "assumption" that equality of power is good comes from basic human rights. It's implicit in the very first thing stated in the preamble: "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the *equal and inalienable rights* of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

[@joeyvk5293]

Telling a person that they can not sell their body to a consenting adult is essentially telling that person that they do not own themselves.

[@JerzyFeliksKlein]

I had some expectations from this series but it turned out to be solid shit. You get a bunch of kids discussing about how well capitalism can regulate the world not questioning whether the capitalism can actualy regualte the world. US, good luck with that.

[@MrHp5610]

It could be the case that an altruistic person who would've donated there kidney, still does it for altruistic reasons if they can get compensated, the difference is they now have an additional benefit

[@gigsrouiy8080]

It is being said that organ harvesting is going on today and that it does not ask permission to take organs nor do they pay for them from the recipient. Unless there's some cases where the recipient knows that they by giving up their organ they will die but their families will be compensated oh, then I do believe that the majority organ harvesting cases oh, the organs are just taken without permission and by force, after all this is the way that monopolistic systems operate, by force.

[@scottdrum6420]

The moderator makes the important point at the end -- that markets and choice mean that we don't have to pass collective judgment about something in order to proceed. If a lot of people came to feel that eating animals is immoral, a number of stores might stop selling meat, but there would be some who don't to satisfy the needs of the meat-eaters. If there were only government-controlled stores, then we would have to decide as a whole whether ALL stores should or shouldn't sell meat. This is what is problematic with K-12 education. We don't allow much choice in what kind of school you want to attend. Therefore we must argue contentiously over what ONE kind of school we want to offer.

[@vinnieramone4818]

in an environment of scarcity a different ethical standard applies. in a post apocalyptic world it would be ok to kill someone over a can of beans the problem is we live in a world of artificial scarcity of resources but real scarcity of organs so the pricing is inherently exploitative

[@laubblaeser_]

There are so many good things in this discussion (and so many horrible statements, from my point of view, as well). Thank you for uploading this! P.s.: Mankiw's posture is just lovely. It's like looking in a mirror! :-D

[@brownkv081]

I am almost forty, never had more than two thousand in my account in my life without the goverment just...having a reason to take it. I think I should beable to sell my own organs or blood because I have never been able to afford to drink, or do drugs. My organs are heathly but I will neber beable to afford a fun life. Why cant I sell them and enjoy a moment before I die poor and alone with one less useless organ?

[@rigelsg3087]

The purpose of law is to law down a pattern which serves is a way or guide in order to form a character in the human mind , to build this character other things are involved besides low, this structure hilt of by this patterns is the foundation in which man stands as he receive higher regions of consciousness , this is in a personal realm which serves to act the same on a social realm , now thhesebtobrealms interact which each other in some points

[@alexanderk.5474]

Grow organs in a lab.

[@chiamakabrowneyes]

Oh wow, why didn't we think of that

[@domesday1535]

I like that the analogy to prostitution was made because it helped me organize my thinking a little better. sex is a very powerful emotional boon to society at large. It helps to motivate people to live happy and productive lives which (among other things) provides an economic benefit which is not quantifiable. Most prostitution corrupts the emotional aspects of sex. It damages the value sex provides to us by corrupting its means of aiding us. That said, there is a similar effect with free speach. If KKK members are allowed to express their ideas we run the risk of losing the value that tolerance provides us. However, it also helps to vaccinate us to unwittingly falling into such backwards beliefs as the KKK tends to hold. By being able to see the alternative to what we have we remember its value and this augments tolerant views. This principle can be extrapolated back to prostitution and it makes sense that allowing some emotionally corrupt sex to occur can actually help remind many people of its value as a natural part of a relationship. Perhaps this is why prostitution happens whether it is legal or not. Perhaps it is filling a key niche of helping society by augmenting the value of healthy sex. So why not legalize it and protect from extra negative factors like abuse or undesired pregnancy. There is an illegal kidney market and it does exist. So why don't we allow the sale of kidneys as long as it's done by a certified doctor in a way that protects the life of the donor and actually benefits them financially? Perhaps this will motivate more kidney donations as people who couldn't have altruistically donated their own because of the time off work they would be forced to take. Maybe it will even raise the number of free kidneys available for those who can't buy their own. The only way we can actually know without speculation is by trying it, and re-evaluating the effects after it is put into practice for a few years. There are no doubt unintended consequences. To fix a problem you have to make another. The question is which problem is worse than the other. In instances where the speculative answer is so unclear, the only way to even have an idea is try it and see what happens. So I say let's responsibly give it a limited shot, and then maybe do a little more, and see if we like or don't like the outcome.

[@ProlificThreadworm]

Is it my fuckin kidney or not? I own myself

[@An1m0d]

The basis of this argument is abhorrent. Seriously. Jaysus this is not an economic argument at all!! Healthcare costs must be managed but it doesn’t equal that healthcare must be marketized. Universal access to healthcare can only be the case if all medical treatment is effective regardless of who seeks it and where. Medicinal practice has standards to meet, and price and “choice” are not them and never should be! But who cares how health is actually effectively administered!! Instead let’s have some 5th grade thought experiment about money! Who cares that your money and choice means crap when you’re ill. Really, who lays ill thinking about how much money one saved or how one made the best choice in getting care?! Or, if only I’d paid a better price or gone to that other hospital?! Facile! And worse, it doesn’t address what we ALL should be concerned with: equal effective care. ant

[@HannesRadke]

Sadly there is a lot of naive "Market Fetishism" out there. The idea that markets will solve every problem to the good of everybody. This is obviously childish, but it's out there and leads to desasters like the Kansas economy.

[@clavdiolizarraga1075]

it's funny how the skinny girl required unholy amounts of editing