Podcast Summary
Exploring the Controversial Kidney Market: Nobel Prize-winning algorithm improved kidney transplants, but societal taboos prevent a legal organ market, raising ethical questions
Despite Al Roth's Nobel Prize-winning algorithm significantly improving kidney transplants and saving thousands of lives, the most efficient way to address the organ shortage is through a legal organ market. However, moral objections and societal taboos prevent this from being an option. Economist Al Roth, in his upcoming book "Repugnant Transactions in Controversial Markets," explores this concept further, highlighting how economically sound ideas can face opposition from the public. The kidney market, like many others such as surrogacy and assisted end-of-life care, faces controversy due to the idea of placing a monetary value on human organs. This dilemma raises questions about the role of ethics and morality in economic systems.
Consider regulating instead of banning for complex ethical dilemmas: Regulating complex ethical dilemmas can lead to safer and more efficient solutions than bans, as seen in the example of a legal market for kidney donations
When faced with complex ethical dilemmas, economics can provide valuable insights by helping us consider the potential consequences of different actions. Economist Al Roth argues that if banning something doesn't eliminate it completely, it might be more effective to regulate it instead. This idea is based on the observation that prohibitions can lead to criminal markets, which can be harmful and inefficient. Using the example of the illegal market for kidneys, Al suggests that creating a legal market for kidney donations could incentivize more donations and improve safety for both donors and recipients. By carefully considering the trade-offs involved, we can design solutions that address the root causes of the problem while minimizing negative consequences.
Ethical concerns of paying for kidney donations: Critics argue that paying poor people for kidneys could exploit their vulnerability and exacerbate income inequality. Proposed solutions include addressing poverty directly and implementing a tax credit system, but both have ethical complexities.
The ethical concerns surrounding the idea of paying people for kidney donations are complex and multifaceted. Some objections stem from metaphysical or philosophical perspectives, while others touch on the practical implications of such a market, particularly for those in lower income brackets. Critics argue that offering money to poor people for kidney donations could exploit their vulnerability and take away their agency. Others suggest that a market for kidneys would exacerbate income inequality. One proposed solution is to address poverty directly, as this would reduce the repugnance towards monetary transactions for organs. However, this is a complex and challenging solution. Another suggestion is to implement a tax credit system, where only wealthier individuals could donate kidneys and receive a tax break. This idea is controversial, as it could be seen as prioritizing the needs of the wealthy over those of the poor. Ultimately, the ethical dilemmas surrounding the idea of paying for kidneys highlight the complexities of designing solutions to complex problems. It's clear that more work needs to be done to find a way to be more generous to donors and address the ethical concerns surrounding this issue. The conversation is ongoing, and there is no easy answer.
Staying true to one's vision and turning challenges into opportunities: Embrace unconventional approaches, persist through criticism, and transform obstacles into successes
Creativity and resilience can turn seemingly unconventional approaches into viral successes. Jack Corbett's TikTok videos, with their lo-fi graphics and surreal humor, initially left people puzzled. However, his persistence and unique perspective eventually led to millions of views. Similarly, Siri Isaacson, a graduate student presenting her research at a conference, faced criticism and used it as an opportunity to assert her confidence and gather support. Her experience inspired her to study retaliation and revenge, leading to her current research on a Swedish game show. Both Jack and Siri demonstrate the power of staying true to one's vision and using challenges as opportunities for growth.
Studying Retaliation in 'Deal or No Deal' Game Show: Retaliation, or directly responding to a question, lowers the probability of future attacks and increases success rate. Men retaliate more often but women's retaliation has a stronger deterrent effect.
The game show "Deal or No Deal" provides an intriguing context to study retaliation due to its data-rich history and the structured mechanism that allows contestants to choose to retaliate or not. Researchers found that retaliation, or directly returning a question to the person who asked it, is an effective strategy that lowers the probability of getting questions in the next rounds and increases the contestant's success rate. However, the study also revealed a gender difference: men retaliate more frequently (about 20%) than women (about 15%), but the impact of retaliation on future attacks is twice as strong for women. This finding suggests that while women retaliate less often, their retaliation carries a greater deterrent effect. Overall, this research highlights the importance of understanding retaliation dynamics, especially in gender contexts.
Understanding human behavior requires context and individual differences: Research findings should be considered with context and individual differences, as outcomes may not translate directly to real-life situations.
While research can provide valuable insights into human behavior, it's important to consider the context and individual differences when applying the findings. For instance, the debate over retaliation in response to workplace injustices, as discussed in the game show experiment, may not translate directly to real-life situations. Women negotiating for higher pay, as shown in a study, may not experience the same outcomes if they follow the same strategies as men. Similarly, the effectiveness of retaliation depends on the individual's personality and capabilities. Regarding insider trading, the debate persists on whether banning it is the best approach, as it may discourage trading by others and lead to higher transaction costs. These complexities underscore the importance of nuanced thinking and a balanced approach to economic and social issues.
Insider trading contributes to price discovery and market efficiency: Insider trading can bring societal benefits through price discovery and executive compensation
Insider trading, despite being perceived negatively, can bring about societal benefits. Chester Spatt, an economist, argues that insider trading contributes to price discovery, making markets more efficient and leading to better resource allocation. Additionally, insider trading can be seen as a form of compensation for executives, allowing firms to reward their employees for good performance. While the morality of insider trading remains a debated topic, its potential role in price discovery and executive compensation should not be overlooked.
Little-known legal concept allows woman to sue for emotional distress and financial harm due to spouse's affair: A woman can sue for damages when her spouse's affections have been stolen in certain US states under the legal concept of alienation of affection
There's a little-known legal concept called "alienation of affection" that allows people to sue for damages when their spouse's affections have been stolen. This was the surprising revelation in a recent episode of Planet Money. The guest on the show was a woman who was suing both her husband and the woman he had an affair with. She explained that she was seeking compensation for the emotional distress and financial harm caused by the affair. The concept of alienation of affection is not widely known, but it's recognized in some states in the US. It's a reminder that the law can sometimes provide a remedy for emotional pain, even if it may not fully heal a broken heart. This episode was produced by Will Aruban and edited by Jess Jang, engineered by Cina Lefredo and Josh Newell, fact-checked by Ciara Juarez, and executive produced by Alex Goldmark. Special thanks to Liana Symsstrom and Petter Symsstrom. I'm Mary Childs, and I'm Greg Rosalski. This is NPR. Thanks for listening.
