privatize parking spaces - market failure?
What if cities decided to privatize on-street parking spaces? I imagine that this could be a market failure in mixed residential-commercial neighbourhoods. The reasoning is that most cars spend the night at residences and the day at business locations. Maybe it's the case that people who now live in mixed zones manage to park their cars close to home because by the time they get back in the evening, most people who work in this zone have gone home as well (probably a different location). If these spaces were private, it could be difficult to work out the logistics of space-sharing, as commercial drivers wouldn't want to be "locked into the contract" to leaving at, say 6pm, and likewise, residents would want to be free to spend days off at home, and not have to vacate their space. So I imagine that both commercial drivers and residents would want to secure their space, doubling the demand (if they residents and workers are in equal proportions), and raising the price of parking by a lot, certainly more than corresponding the tax break (the town would distribute its revenue from selling/renting the spaces as tax-breaks). Gustavo P.S.: I just had to throw this in: something else cities could do is clear parking lanes to make room for segways (Dean Kamen's vehicles).
Re: privatize parking spaces - market failure?
I can't comment on the market failure, but watching a morning parking-space auction might be fun. -jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Got something to say? Say it better with Yahoo! Video Mail http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Restaurants Again
> From: Alex Tabarrok [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 4:25 PM > Many fine restaurants, however, have > long waiting times > to get a reservation. The French Laundry, for example, is > perhaps the best > restaurant in America and the wait to get in is 2 months or > more! (2 months for > a normal day - much longer if you want to book for Valentines > or something like > that.) This sort of waiting seems much more amenable to a Becker type > explanation involving non-linearities and prestige factors. > My wife just informed me that The French Laundry's reservation policy stipulates that reservations can only be made for the calendar date *EXACTLY* two months ahead of the date you call to make the reservation. No more or less. For example, today they are taking reservations for March 15, 2002, and no other date. Getting a reservation thus requires spending a good portion of a day (or several days) dialing and redialing the reservation line in an attempt to get through, while everybody else is attempting to get through too. (I just called to verify that this was indeed their reservation policy, and the line was busy.) What's the armchair explanation for that? My first suspicion is that it is more important to them to be able to restrict public access to the resturant in order to provide the desired atmosphere for the patrons that do get in. The reservation system is probably circumvented by some pre-approved group of patrons. But that's just a cynical guess. Michael Giesbrecht Internet Engineering Lucasfilm Ltd.
Re: The Economics of Military Stop-Loss Policies
> Armchairs, > > The military's current stop-loss policy prevents certain service members > from leaving the service at the end of their normal enlistment contract. > This policy is affecting specific skills and grades deemed critical for the > war on terrorism. In econimic terms, what are the similarities and > dissimilarities between stop-loss and a conventional draft? > If people don't want to be "stop-lossed", won't this make it harder to to convince them to enlist in the first place -- and won't this problem be worse for exactly those people likely to be placed in specific skills which are scarce? Of course, for those who know in advance they want a long-term military career, this will not be an issue. It will be an issue for those who know at enlistment they want a brief career. The "misallocation" will occur for those who decide after enlisting that they would rather get out -- but that missallocation is there to some degree in a fixed-length contract also. --Robert Book[EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Chicago
Sale of Organs
This topic seems to be near-and-dear to the "heart" of free-market economists everywhere It seems the U.S. might actually allow the sale of human organs for transplant in the near future. This raises some interesting issues. On the one hand, obviously we should expect the quantity of organs supplied to increase if payment is allowed, and this is clearly good for recipients who are willing to pay. The story is at: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&u=/nm/20020214/hl_nm/wannabuyanorgan_1 (I'm appending the text below.) On the other hand, there are some disturbing "agency" issues involved. For example, family members expecting payment for organs might authorize less-aggressive medical treatment than the patient might prefer, at a time when the patient may not be able to speak for him/herself. Essentially, this would be people "stealing" the organs when the "owner" is unable to prevent theft. This is probably already a problem for people with large estates and relatives who like money more than people; alloing organ sales will expand this problem to more people. Also, organs might be removed before people are really dead; after all, if there is profit in declaring people dead, there will be more erring on the side of declaring death in cases where there is room for debate. This is already a problem with organ-donation of the type authorized on driver's licenses; allowing payment will simply expand the class of people with such motivation to include relatives as well as doctors, and will increase the overall incentive to declare people dead. So, despite the fact that I am generally a free-market advocate, I think allowing this particular market raises all sorts of complicated ethical issues which can be boiled down to "property rights" issues -- in other words, who owns a person's organs? That person, or his/her relatives? Who owns a person's life, in the sense of having the right to declare someone dead in questionable cases, and/or authorize treatment in questionable cases? If I write an advance directive that says I want all possible extreme measures to save my life, can someone else over-ride that, let me die, and then sell my organs for profit? --Robert Book[EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Chicago http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&u=/nm/20020214/hl_nm/wannabuyanorgan_1 Doctors, Government May Allow Payment for Organs Thu Feb 14,10:18 AM ET NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The medical community and the federal government are edging closer to allowing payment for body parts needed for transplants, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. Such compensation was outlawed by Congress in 1984, but with 79,000 people awaiting transplants, a committee of the American Medical Association has begun designing a pilot program to test the effects of various motivators, including payments for organ donations from cadavers, the Journal said. The committee, the AMA's influential Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, is already convinced that any moral concerns about payments for organs are outweighed by the needs of patients, the Journal said. The AMA's governing house of delegates is slated to vote on whether to support such a pilot in June, the Journal said. An advisory committee to US Health and Human Services (news - web sites) Secretary Tommy Thompson is also considering whether to recommend that the ban on payments be lifted for organs from cadavers and live donors as a way to alleviate the organ shortage, the Journal said. The American Society of Transplant Surgeons has already endorsed payment for cadaveric organs to the families of the deceased, the Journal said.
Re: Photographers
Sorry for posting on a stale topic, but I can't resist .. I actually *DID* discuss this with a photographer once (who said armchair economics isn't a contact sport? ;-) > > for the negatives - but the photographers always react with horror to > > this suggestion and refuse. > > Alex > > Ask them how much is the least they would accept in payment for the negative, > before you have the picture taken. > > Go and ask several photographers. If they say "I don't sell negatives," > offer $10,000. He will probably say OK. Then tell him you will be asking > other photographers, and so, what is the least he would accept? I asked. At $5,000 PER NEGATIVE he said he "might consider" it. > You could also mention that if you can't get the negative, you will scan the > photo into your computer. The quality won't be as good as with a negative, > and folks might think it is the fault of the photographer. He said that scanning the image was a violation of his copyright, and if he found out any of his customers did this, he would "definitely" sue them. I asked how much he would charge for the right to scan the picture -- after all, I pointed out, the scanned image is a different product than the print. He said he would "consider" giving permission for a "very low resolution" scan, for no additional charge, but would not consider allowing high resolution scans at all. As far as having people think the low quality associated with a scan was the fault of the photographer ... well, if people were dumb enough to reveal he was the photographer, they'd get sued for copyright infringement! I asked him if he would consider a photo contract which, in advance, included selling the copyright to the customer, and he was extremely horrified I had even thought of such an idea. It was as if he considered it immoral to sell the copyright. Note that this fellow mostly does weddings, and he said that photographers often "help each other out" when more than one individual photographer is needed at a wedding. The "helpers" are paid a fixed fee, and it SEEMED to me that the copyright on all photos went to the guy who got the contract. --Robert
Re: Sale of Organs
It seems to me that most criticisms of organ sales are based on the postmortem sale of organs. Robert is right that this creates some perverse incentives. A way to remedy this problem is to allow only the seller of the organ to be compensated prior to death. That is, "Here's $1000, we get your organs when you die." The fee paid could be based on risk and health factors. JC _ John-Charles Bradbury, Ph.D. Department of Economics The University of the South 735 University Ave. Sewanee, TN 37383 -1000 Phone: (931) 598-1721 Fax: (931) 598-1145 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Robert A. Book" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 3:02 PM Subject: Sale of Organs > This topic seems to be near-and-dear to the "heart" of free-market > economists everywhere > > It seems the U.S. might actually allow the sale of human organs for > transplant in the near future. This raises some interesting issues. > On the one hand, obviously we should expect the quantity of organs > supplied to increase if payment is allowed, and this is clearly good > for recipients who are willing to pay. The story is at: > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&u=/nm/20020214/hl_nm/wan nabuyanorgan_1 > > (I'm appending the text below.) > > On the other hand, there are some disturbing "agency" issues involved. > For example, family members expecting payment for organs might > authorize less-aggressive medical treatment than the patient might > prefer, at a time when the patient may not be able to speak for > him/herself. Essentially, this would be people "stealing" the organs > when the "owner" is unable to prevent theft. This is probably already > a problem for people with large estates and relatives who like money > more than people; alloing organ sales will expand this problem to more > people. > > Also, organs might be removed before people are really dead; after > all, if there is profit in declaring people dead, there will be more > erring on the side of declaring death in cases where there is room for > debate. This is already a problem with organ-donation of the type > authorized on driver's licenses; allowing payment will simply expand > the class of people with such motivation to include relatives as well > as doctors, and will increase the overall incentive to declare people > dead. > > So, despite the fact that I am generally a free-market advocate, I > think allowing this particular market raises all sorts of complicated > ethical issues which can be boiled down to "property rights" issues -- > in other words, who owns a person's organs? That person, or his/her > relatives? Who owns a person's life, in the sense of having the right > to declare someone dead in questionable cases, and/or authorize > treatment in questionable cases? If I write an advance directive that > says I want all possible extreme measures to save my life, can someone > else over-ride that, let me die, and then sell my organs for profit? > > > > --Robert Book[EMAIL PROTECTED] > University of Chicago > > > > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&u=/nm/20020214/hl_nm/wan nabuyanorgan_1 > > > > Doctors, Government May Allow Payment > for Organs > Thu Feb 14,10:18 AM ET > > NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The medical community and the federal > government are edging closer to allowing payment for body parts needed > for transplants, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday. > > Such compensation was outlawed by Congress in 1984, but with 79,000 > people awaiting transplants, a committee of the American Medical > Association has begun designing a pilot program to test the effects of > various motivators, including payments for organ donations from > cadavers, the Journal said. > > The committee, the AMA's influential Council on Ethical and Judicial > Affairs, is already convinced that any moral concerns about payments > for organs are outweighed by the needs of patients, the Journal said. > > The AMA's governing house of delegates is slated to vote on whether to > support such a pilot in June, the Journal said. > > An advisory committee to US Health and Human Services (news - web > sites) Secretary Tommy Thompson is also considering whether to > recommend that the ban on payments be lifted for organs from cadavers > and live donors as a way to alleviate the organ shortage, the Journal > said. > > The American Society of Transplant Surgeons has already endorsed > payment for cadaveric organs to the families of the deceased, the > Journal said. >
Re: Sale of Organs
> Also, organs might be removed before people are > really dead You mean like that scene in Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life"? ;-) Personally I would be less concerned about the nearly dead in U.S. hospitals than I would be about third world street urchins. An enterprising organization could certainly profit from importing their organs, I suppose. Leaving the truly poor out of this, it seems like a net benefit. If I were essentially terminally ill I would probably choose to sell my organs for the benefit of my loved ones (and cut my lingering death) rather than pursue expensive medical treatments that just pull resources away from those who can actually be helped. Or do you think I'm way off base? -jsh --- "Robert A. Book" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This topic seems to be near-and-dear to the "heart" > of free-market > economists everywhere > > It seems the U.S. might actually allow the sale of > human organs for > transplant in the near future. This raises some > interesting issues. > On the one hand, obviously we should expect the > quantity of organs > supplied to increase if payment is allowed, and this > is clearly good > for recipients who are willing to pay. The story is > at: > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&u=/nm/20020214/hl_nm/wannabuyanorgan_1 > > > (I'm appending the text below.) > > On the other hand, there are some disturbing > "agency" issues involved. > For example, family members expecting payment for > organs might > authorize less-aggressive medical treatment than the > patient might > prefer, at a time when the patient may not be able > to speak for > him/herself. Essentially, this would be people > "stealing" the organs > when the "owner" is unable to prevent theft. This > is probably already > a problem for people with large estates and > relatives who like money > more than people; alloing organ sales will expand > this problem to more > people. > ; after > all, if there is profit in declaring people dead, > there will be more > erring on the side of declaring death in cases where > there is room for > debate. This is already a problem with > organ-donation of the type > authorized on driver's licenses; allowing payment > will simply expand > the class of people with such motivation to include > relatives as well > as doctors, and will increase the overall incentive > to declare people > dead. > > So, despite the fact that I am generally a > free-market advocate, I > think allowing this particular market raises all > sorts of complicated > ethical issues which can be boiled down to "property > rights" issues -- > in other words, who owns a person's organs? That > person, or his/her > relatives? Who owns a person's life, in the sense > of having the right > to declare someone dead in questionable cases, > and/or authorize > treatment in questionable cases? If I write an > advance directive that > says I want all possible extreme measures to save my > life, can someone > else over-ride that, let me die, and then sell my > organs for profit? > > > > --Robert Book[EMAIL PROTECTED] > University of Chicago > > > > > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&u=/nm/20020214/hl_nm/wannabuyanorgan_1 > > > > Doctors, Government May Allow Payment > for Organs > Thu Feb 14,10:18 AM ET > > NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The medical community > and the federal > government are edging closer to allowing payment for > body parts needed > for transplants, the Wall Street Journal reported on > Thursday. > > Such compensation was outlawed by Congress in 1984, > but with 79,000 > people awaiting transplants, a committee of the > American Medical > Association has begun designing a pilot program to > test the effects of > various motivators, including payments for organ > donations from > cadavers, the Journal said. > > The committee, the AMA's influential Council on > Ethical and Judicial > Affairs, is already convinced that any moral > concerns about payments > for organs are outweighed by the needs of patients, > the Journal said. > > The AMA's governing house of delegates is slated to > vote on whether to > support such a pilot in June, the Journal said. > > An advisory committee to US Health and Human > Services (news - web > sites) Secretary Tommy Thompson is also considering > whether to > recommend that the ban on payments be lifted for > organs from cadavers > and live donors as a way to alleviate the organ > shortage, the Journal > said. > > The American Society of Transplant Surgeons has > already endorsed > payment for cadaveric organs to the families of the > deceased, the > Journal said. __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com
Eating Bugs
Does anybody suppose that there might be an economic reason why we don't eat bugs? Or is it just a case of there being no accounting for taste? Curiously yours, jsh __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com
Re: Eating Bugs
>Does anybody suppose that there might be an economic >reason why we don't eat bugs? Or is it just a case of >there being no accounting for taste? > >Curiously yours, >jsh Dear Armchair Epicurean Entymologists: Seeing the Canadians and Russians smoke the Americans in Olympic pairs figure-skating has got me thinking: maybe John Hull is onto something! The U.S. may be the world's only superpower, but in the bug-eat department, we lag sadly behind much of the rest of the world. If the cause is cultural, perhaps the cure is economic. I propose that Americans will start eating bugs when CBS's "Survivor" starts to include people from bug-eating countries in the mix. If you'd like to begin training, you might look into these books: Man Eating Bugs, by Peter Menzel, Faith D'Aluisio http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1580080227/qid=1013819760/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_7_5/002-6511335-9014426 Eat-A-Bug Cookbook, by David George Gordon http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898159776/ref=pd_sim_books/002-6511335-9014426 Creepy Crawly Cuisine : The Gourmet Guide to Edible Insects by Julieta Ramos-Elorduy, Peter Menzel (Photographer) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089281747X/ref=pd_sim_books/002-6511335-9014426 Report your results to Armchair...and to your HMO. Bon Appétit, Carl Close
Re: Eating Bugs
To be more precise, many non-vegetarians eat a few bugs (worms in tequila in the US, chocolate ants are popular some parts of Latin America, etc). Let's take chocolate covered ants. They can be bought in wafers for $2 a wafer, some web sites list them for ten cents an ant. So it can't be that they are out of price range for people. My hunch is that prestige is associated with eating some kinds of animals (an evolutionary byproduct of successful hunting in ancient Africa?) and that poor cultures frequently eat bugs cause they plentiful, while livestock is expensive. Fabio > Does anybody suppose that there might be an economic > reason why we don't eat bugs? Or is it just a case of > there being no accounting for taste? > > Curiously yours, > jsh
Re: Sale of Organs
JC has a good idea about the contract with the donor prior to death- this is similar to the idea of compensating victims of car crashes or other fatal torts prior to death in David Friedman's Law's Order. One problem that comes to mind here- it may be hard to draw such a contract because of certain circumstances that may have to be there for the organs to be salvaged and these odds might be very difficult to calculate (it's one thing to predict when someone will die, but another to predict what organs will be viable for donation when they do). Another plus with these contracts would be that the donor could specify his definition of death. I understand that people in the medical field have varying definitions of death. And I guess there are laws in certain states that require certain things before someone is pronounced dead. When the law changes from declaring death from when the heart stops for so long to when all brain activity ceases or some other definition, the varying lengths of time have significant effects of the salvageability of various organs. With a contract with an organ company, you could specify your definition- this could help insure that the organs are salvageable. And also provide some legal recourse for family if they are wronged by someone declaring death too early. Jason
Re: privatize parking spaces - market failure?
--- "Gustavo Lacerda (mediaone)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if cities decided to privatize on-street parking spaces? > > I imagine that this could be a market failure in mixed > residential-commercial neighbourhoods. The reasoning is that most cars > spend the night at residences and the day at business locations. The market solution would be electronic parking meters that flexibly charge just enough to avoid congestion at any time of day or night. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games http://sports.yahoo.com
