You know those fundraising appeals that appear at the top of Wikipedia pages? They are randomized so that reliable information can be collected about which ones attract donations.
The Wikimedia team writes:
"Since August, the Fundraising Committee has been running banner & landing page tests. These have evolved from weekly Thursday afternoon tests, which helped us get all of our systems in order and determined which messages would best motivate our donors before the launch of the fundraiser - to almost daily tests introducing new banners and landing pages as we continue to tweak our current campaign.
"Check out the Fundraising Updates page where we discuss what we've learned so far and upcoming tests and challenges."
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Game theory for college teachers at the AEA continuing education program
Preliminary reading list for an introduction to Game Theory at the AEA Continuing Education Program January 2011 taught by Avinash Dixit and David Reiley.
Meant for college teaching at all levels, starting with freshmen and going up to writers of senior theses,
it includes sections taught by Reiley that include mateial that will be familiar to readers of this blog, on VI. MARKET DESIGN AND ALGORITHMS
IV. AUCTIONS AND FIELD EXPERIMENTS
It also includes the first draft of a new book by Michael Suk-Young Chwe,
Folk Game Theory: Strategic Analysis in Austen, Hammerstein, and African American Folktales
Meant for college teaching at all levels, starting with freshmen and going up to writers of senior theses,
it includes sections taught by Reiley that include mateial that will be familiar to readers of this blog, on VI. MARKET DESIGN AND ALGORITHMS
IV. AUCTIONS AND FIELD EXPERIMENTS
It also includes the first draft of a new book by Michael Suk-Young Chwe,
Folk Game Theory: Strategic Analysis in Austen, Hammerstein, and African American Folktales
Friday, January 7, 2011
Slavery in the U.S.
At the conference I'm attending in Finland, there's been a good deal of discussion (with more to come) of repugnant transactions, with an undercurrent of concern that globalization and other kinds of encroachment of markets on traditionally non-market ways of allocating resources will inevitably cause things presently regarded with repugnance to become more customary.
It's good to remember that our repugnance at certain transactions doesn't have to diminish over time (as does happen with many formerly repugnant transactions like same sex marriage). Slavery (and indentured servitude, and other forms of servitude) were once regarded with much less repugnance--certainly much less nearly universal repugnance--than they are today.
The NY Times recently published a Civil War era map of where slaves were in the United States in 1860:
Visualizing Slavery
"South Carolina, which led the rebellion, was one of two states which enslaved a majority of its population, a fact starkly represented on the map."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/10/opinion/20101210_Disunion_SlaveryMap.html
It's good to remember that our repugnance at certain transactions doesn't have to diminish over time (as does happen with many formerly repugnant transactions like same sex marriage). Slavery (and indentured servitude, and other forms of servitude) were once regarded with much less repugnance--certainly much less nearly universal repugnance--than they are today.
The NY Times recently published a Civil War era map of where slaves were in the United States in 1860:
Visualizing Slavery
"South Carolina, which led the rebellion, was one of two states which enslaved a majority of its population, a fact starkly represented on the map."
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/12/10/opinion/20101210_Disunion_SlaveryMap.html
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Markets, broadly defined
I'm in Helsinki, participating in the second workshop of the Markets & Marketization program, that will bring together philosophers and philosophers of science with economists, sociologists, political scientists and others interested in markets very broadly defined.
Workshop II Friday-Saturday, 7-8 January, 2011; Tentative program
Friday 7.1.
10.00 - 11.00 Alvin Roth (Harvard): "What does market design teach us about markets?"
11.10 - 11.30 Comment: Patrik Aspers
11.30 - 11.50 Comment: Emrah Aydinonat
11.50 - 12.30 Discussion
14.00 - 15.00 Ronald Noë: On biological markets (title TBA)
15.00 - 16.00 Risto Heiskala: "Coordination of human interaction: the BTCIEMP scheme"
(’BTCIEMP’ stands for: biology, traditions, cultural categorization, ideology, economy, military power and political power)
16.30 - 17.30 Jens Beckert: On the sociology of markets (title TBA)
Saturday 8.1.
10.00 - 11.00 Debra Satz (Stanford): The Moral Limits of Markets
11.10 - 11.30 Comment: Adrian Walsh
11.30 - 11.50 Comment: John O’Neill
11.50 - 12.30 Discussion
Workshop II Friday-Saturday, 7-8 January, 2011; Tentative program
Friday 7.1.
10.00 - 11.00 Alvin Roth (Harvard): "What does market design teach us about markets?"
11.10 - 11.30 Comment: Patrik Aspers
11.30 - 11.50 Comment: Emrah Aydinonat
11.50 - 12.30 Discussion
14.00 - 15.00 Ronald Noë: On biological markets (title TBA)
15.00 - 16.00 Risto Heiskala: "Coordination of human interaction: the BTCIEMP scheme"
(’BTCIEMP’ stands for: biology, traditions, cultural categorization, ideology, economy, military power and political power)
16.30 - 17.30 Jens Beckert: On the sociology of markets (title TBA)
Saturday 8.1.
10.00 - 11.00 Debra Satz (Stanford): The Moral Limits of Markets
11.10 - 11.30 Comment: Adrian Walsh
11.30 - 11.50 Comment: John O’Neill
11.50 - 12.30 Discussion
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Blasphemy law in Pakistan
One of the oldest repugnant transactions, different worship, is as repugnant as ever in Pakistan: Pakistanis Rally in Support of Blasphemy Law
"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A crippling strike by Islamist parties brought Pakistan to a standstill on Friday as thousands of people took to the streets, and forced businesses to close, to head off any change in the country’s blasphemy law, which rights groups say has been used to persecute minorities, especially Christians.
...
"In fiery speeches across all major cities and towns, religious leaders warned the government on Friday against altering the law, which carries a mandatory death sentence for anyone convicted of insulting Islam.
...
"The human rights commission has documented scores of cases in which men have been harassed for being Christian or for being members of the Ahmadi sect, a minority group within Islam, and then accused of blasphemy. The mere fact of being a Christian or an Ahmadi in Pakistan makes a person vulnerable to prosecution, the commission says. Often the mere accusation of blasphemy has led to murders, lynchings and false arrests."
It turns out that the accusation of being against the blasphemy law isn't good for you either: Salman Taseer assassination points to Pakistani extremists' mounting power
"Taseer's apparent killer cited his boss's stance against a controversial anti-blasphemy law in justifying his actions. As the embattled, pro-U.S. PPP sought in recent days to win back defecting allies that also include a small Islamic party, it had already said it would not support a proposal to change the blasphemy statutes. That left Taseer one of the few vocal champions of the move, which hard-line religious organizations had labeled a Western conspiracy.
"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A crippling strike by Islamist parties brought Pakistan to a standstill on Friday as thousands of people took to the streets, and forced businesses to close, to head off any change in the country’s blasphemy law, which rights groups say has been used to persecute minorities, especially Christians.
...
"In fiery speeches across all major cities and towns, religious leaders warned the government on Friday against altering the law, which carries a mandatory death sentence for anyone convicted of insulting Islam.
...
"The human rights commission has documented scores of cases in which men have been harassed for being Christian or for being members of the Ahmadi sect, a minority group within Islam, and then accused of blasphemy. The mere fact of being a Christian or an Ahmadi in Pakistan makes a person vulnerable to prosecution, the commission says. Often the mere accusation of blasphemy has led to murders, lynchings and false arrests."
It turns out that the accusation of being against the blasphemy law isn't good for you either: Salman Taseer assassination points to Pakistani extremists' mounting power
"Taseer's apparent killer cited his boss's stance against a controversial anti-blasphemy law in justifying his actions. As the embattled, pro-U.S. PPP sought in recent days to win back defecting allies that also include a small Islamic party, it had already said it would not support a proposal to change the blasphemy statutes. That left Taseer one of the few vocal champions of the move, which hard-line religious organizations had labeled a Western conspiracy.
The laws have drawn scrutiny since a Christian woman was sentenced to death in November for allegedly criticizing the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Taseer had called for her pardon, leading religious groups to denounce him as an "apostate" and burn effigies of him during a nationwide strike last week in support of the law. One Muslim cleric has offered $6,000 to anyone who kills the woman, who remains in jail."
More on the debate over kidney sales: transcript of interview
In my earlier post, Dubner interviews me about kidney sales, I promised to link to a transcript when it became available, and now it has: there's a link at the bottom of the Freakonomics post You Say Repugnant, I Say … Let’s Do It!
Dubner interviewed me for about an hour and a half, so he and his producer Chris Neary had to do lots of editing to produce the half hour or so podcast. I recall a pair of questions, one of which made it into the show and one of which was left on the cutting room floor (or wherever unused electronic files are left). The question that made it in was about what makes many people view kidney sales as repugnant. The question that didn't make it was, if I were asked to help design a market in which kidneys could be sold, what would be my primary concerns.
Regarding what is behind the repugnance of kidney sales, here's the text of my reply included in the transcript:
"Al Roth: The late Pope John Paul wrote about this and he objects strongly to the sale of kidneys but thinks the donation of kidneys is a very good thing, though if we do it for money is a very bad thing...I think his feeling is that it turns people from ends into means which is a bad thing in itself. So that’s one nature of objection.
Another kind of objection is that it might be OK if I offered to buy your kidney because you’d be a hard guy to exploit, you’re a successful, financially solvent person, but pretty soon we’d start seeing the desperately poor and maybe they would in some sense be acting against their self interest, they would be being exploited or coerced even, by the temptation of the money in ways that if they could use their better judgement they wouldn’t want to be. So that’s sort of a coercion argument.
And then there’s a slippery slope argument that says if we started allowing people to sell their kidneys, it would be primarily poor people who would sell their kidneys, and pretty soon we would start hearing political discussion that said, ‘you know, we don’t really need unemployment benefits, we don’t really need aid to families with dependent children because after all, everyone’s got two kidneys and they can take care of themselves by selling a kidney if they need to’...and that makes us a much less desirable society to live in."
I don't have a transcript to consult about what I said when they asked what I would do if asked to help design a kidney market, but as I recall, my answer went something like this.
The first thing I'd want to think about is what kind of review we would want to use to judge if the market had been a success ten years (or longer) after it had been started. The criteria we'd surely want the market to be evaluated on would include:
How had the donor/vendors fared?: were they healthy and well treated, and respected, and did they encourage new potential donor/vendors to make the same choices they had?
How had patients with kidney disease fared?: were they receiving healthy kidneys, had the waiting list for transplants largely disappeared, were kidneys being allocated in ways that were widely seen as equitable?
To focus thoughts for future debate, we might want to think about a system in which only the federal government could legally pay for a live kidney, and would have a mandate to set the price (and associated benefits like follow-up medical care) high enough so that there would be a waiting list of donor/vendors, who could e.g. be expected to undergo regular health and suitability tests (suitability being a broad term meant to include physical and mental health, deeply informed consent, etc.) for a year before being accepted as donor/vendors, and that the kidneys obtained in this way would be allocated anonymously through some regulated procedure that might resemble the current procedures for allocating deceased-donor organs.
In terms of how I've interpreted the ongoing debate between those in favor of sales and those against, I think that a good deal of the coercion concern can be addressed by an appropriately designed one year waiting period, although I say that without having recently talked to someone who makes that argument with conviction.
I don't see any easy way to bridge the gap between those who think that selling kidneys is a bad thing in and of itself, not to be traded off with possible benefits of other sorts (e.g. to patients and perhaps to donor/vendors), and those who don't see it that way, or who feel that the current dire circumstances of many thousands of those with kidney disease gives legitimate counterweight to this concern.
And the slippery slope concern is the one that personally gives me the most pause. I can see how appropriate legislation would prevent e.g. your bank from asking for a kidney as collateral, but I can't see any way to be sure that making kidneys a potential financial asset wouldn't make us a less sympathetic society (even though a one year waiting period and other qualification tests would limit how much kidney sales could be used as a justification for cutting unemployment insurance in particular).
My work on kidney exchange has largely avoided being enmeshed in this debate, since the "in kind" kidney exchange doesn't seem to arouse repugnance. Thus for example Debra Satz' recent book Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets, Oxford University Press, 2010, finds little to object to about kidney exchange, but largely disapproves of kidney sales. (I expect to meet Professor Satz for the first time this weekend, at a philosophy of economics conference in Helsinki...)
Dubner interviewed me for about an hour and a half, so he and his producer Chris Neary had to do lots of editing to produce the half hour or so podcast. I recall a pair of questions, one of which made it into the show and one of which was left on the cutting room floor (or wherever unused electronic files are left). The question that made it in was about what makes many people view kidney sales as repugnant. The question that didn't make it was, if I were asked to help design a market in which kidneys could be sold, what would be my primary concerns.
Regarding what is behind the repugnance of kidney sales, here's the text of my reply included in the transcript:
"Al Roth: The late Pope John Paul wrote about this and he objects strongly to the sale of kidneys but thinks the donation of kidneys is a very good thing, though if we do it for money is a very bad thing...I think his feeling is that it turns people from ends into means which is a bad thing in itself. So that’s one nature of objection.
Another kind of objection is that it might be OK if I offered to buy your kidney because you’d be a hard guy to exploit, you’re a successful, financially solvent person, but pretty soon we’d start seeing the desperately poor and maybe they would in some sense be acting against their self interest, they would be being exploited or coerced even, by the temptation of the money in ways that if they could use their better judgement they wouldn’t want to be. So that’s sort of a coercion argument.
And then there’s a slippery slope argument that says if we started allowing people to sell their kidneys, it would be primarily poor people who would sell their kidneys, and pretty soon we would start hearing political discussion that said, ‘you know, we don’t really need unemployment benefits, we don’t really need aid to families with dependent children because after all, everyone’s got two kidneys and they can take care of themselves by selling a kidney if they need to’...and that makes us a much less desirable society to live in."
I don't have a transcript to consult about what I said when they asked what I would do if asked to help design a kidney market, but as I recall, my answer went something like this.
The first thing I'd want to think about is what kind of review we would want to use to judge if the market had been a success ten years (or longer) after it had been started. The criteria we'd surely want the market to be evaluated on would include:
How had the donor/vendors fared?: were they healthy and well treated, and respected, and did they encourage new potential donor/vendors to make the same choices they had?
How had patients with kidney disease fared?: were they receiving healthy kidneys, had the waiting list for transplants largely disappeared, were kidneys being allocated in ways that were widely seen as equitable?
To focus thoughts for future debate, we might want to think about a system in which only the federal government could legally pay for a live kidney, and would have a mandate to set the price (and associated benefits like follow-up medical care) high enough so that there would be a waiting list of donor/vendors, who could e.g. be expected to undergo regular health and suitability tests (suitability being a broad term meant to include physical and mental health, deeply informed consent, etc.) for a year before being accepted as donor/vendors, and that the kidneys obtained in this way would be allocated anonymously through some regulated procedure that might resemble the current procedures for allocating deceased-donor organs.
In terms of how I've interpreted the ongoing debate between those in favor of sales and those against, I think that a good deal of the coercion concern can be addressed by an appropriately designed one year waiting period, although I say that without having recently talked to someone who makes that argument with conviction.
I don't see any easy way to bridge the gap between those who think that selling kidneys is a bad thing in and of itself, not to be traded off with possible benefits of other sorts (e.g. to patients and perhaps to donor/vendors), and those who don't see it that way, or who feel that the current dire circumstances of many thousands of those with kidney disease gives legitimate counterweight to this concern.
And the slippery slope concern is the one that personally gives me the most pause. I can see how appropriate legislation would prevent e.g. your bank from asking for a kidney as collateral, but I can't see any way to be sure that making kidneys a potential financial asset wouldn't make us a less sympathetic society (even though a one year waiting period and other qualification tests would limit how much kidney sales could be used as a justification for cutting unemployment insurance in particular).
My work on kidney exchange has largely avoided being enmeshed in this debate, since the "in kind" kidney exchange doesn't seem to arouse repugnance. Thus for example Debra Satz' recent book Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets, Oxford University Press, 2010, finds little to object to about kidney exchange, but largely disapproves of kidney sales. (I expect to meet Professor Satz for the first time this weekend, at a philosophy of economics conference in Helsinki...)
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Polygamy in the Negev
Haaretz highlights some ads that have been appearing in the Negev:
Over 30 and single? Try polygamy
"Local Bedouin newspaper sparks calls on single Bedouin women who are over 30 to consider polygamous marriages, saying 'it's the Sharia solution'"
A related story concerns underage marriages ("Barely sixteen and married"), and includes this observation
"The girls themselves, explains ElKranawi, are willingly marrying at such a young age: "Girls only 15 years old dream of getting married, because they understand it to be the way to independence. After all, if you are 20 or older, you may be married as a second wife. Even if a woman has obtained an education, she will not be independent. Her parents will continue to make decisions for her."
Over 30 and single? Try polygamy
"Local Bedouin newspaper sparks calls on single Bedouin women who are over 30 to consider polygamous marriages, saying 'it's the Sharia solution'"
A related story concerns underage marriages ("Barely sixteen and married"), and includes this observation
"The girls themselves, explains ElKranawi, are willingly marrying at such a young age: "Girls only 15 years old dream of getting married, because they understand it to be the way to independence. After all, if you are 20 or older, you may be married as a second wife. Even if a woman has obtained an education, she will not be independent. Her parents will continue to make decisions for her."
Monday, January 3, 2011
Unraveling of loan maturities: inefficiency in borrowing and lending
The Maturity Rat Race by Markus K. Brunnermeier and Martin Oehmke
Abstract: "We develop a model of endogenous maturity structure for financial institutions that borrow from multiple creditors. We show that a maturity rat race can occur: an individual creditor can have an incentive to shorten the maturity of his own loan to the institution, allowing him to adjust his financing terms or pull out before other creditors can. This, in turn, causes all other lenders to shorten their maturity as well, leading to excessively short-term financing. This rat race occurs when interim information is mostly about the probability of default rather than the recovery in default, and is most pronounced during volatile periods and crises. Overall, firms are exposed to unnecessary rollover risk."
The paper goes on to note:
"The maturity rat race is inefficient. It leads to excessive rollover risk and causes inefficient liquidation of the long-term investment project after negative interim information. Moreover, because creditors anticipate the costly liquidations that occur when rolling over short-term debt is not possible, some positive NPV projects do not get started in the first place. This inefficiency stands in contrast to some of the leading existing theories of maturity mismatch.
Abstract: "We develop a model of endogenous maturity structure for financial institutions that borrow from multiple creditors. We show that a maturity rat race can occur: an individual creditor can have an incentive to shorten the maturity of his own loan to the institution, allowing him to adjust his financing terms or pull out before other creditors can. This, in turn, causes all other lenders to shorten their maturity as well, leading to excessively short-term financing. This rat race occurs when interim information is mostly about the probability of default rather than the recovery in default, and is most pronounced during volatile periods and crises. Overall, firms are exposed to unnecessary rollover risk."
The paper goes on to note:
"The maturity rat race is inefficient. It leads to excessive rollover risk and causes inefficient liquidation of the long-term investment project after negative interim information. Moreover, because creditors anticipate the costly liquidations that occur when rolling over short-term debt is not possible, some positive NPV projects do not get started in the first place. This inefficiency stands in contrast to some of the leading existing theories of maturity mismatch.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Baroque kidney donation story from Mississippi
Sister's kidney donation condition of Miss. parole
"JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — For 16 years, sisters Jamie and Gladys Scott have shared a life behind bars for their part in an $11 armed robbery. To share freedom, they must also share a kidney.
"Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour suspended the sisters' life sentences on Wednesday, but 36-year-old Gladys Scott's release is contingent on her giving a kidney to Jamie, her 38-year-old sister, who requires daily dialysis.
"The sisters were convicted in 1994 of leading two men into an ambush in central Mississippi the year before. Three teenagers hit each man in the head with a shotgun and took their wallets — making off with only $11, court records said.
"Jamie and Gladys Scott were each convicted of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced to two life sentences."
And here's the unsurprising reaction to linking parole to kidney donation: Mississippi Gov "unethical" over jail release: surgeon
"Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour acted unethically when he suspended a woman's life sentence on condition she donate a kidney to her sister, a prominent transplant surgeon said on Thursday.
...
"A condition of Gladys Scott's release is that she donate a kidney to her sister in an operation that should be performed urgently, Barbour said in a statement on Wednesday. She had agreed to be a donor for her sister, who requires dialysis.
...
"Michael Shapiro, chief of organ transplantation at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, criticized the decision to impose a condition for the release.
"While Governor Barbour probably meant nothing nefarious by this decision, what he did was unethical and possibly illegal. He is unaware of the procedures of transplantation that include making sure donors are not coerced," Shapiro said.
"There were also medical reasons why such a condition was inappropriate, not least that Barbour may not know whether Jamie Scott is suitable or healthy enough for a transplant, said Shapiro, chair of the ethics committee of the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing.
"Shapiro also questioned whether Barbour ordered Scott released because her treatment was a financial burden on the state.
"If either party could be turned down for medical concerns, the transplant team would feel pressured to continue with the transplant or send them back to prison. It is a position they should not be put in," he said."
HT: Mike Ostrovsky
"JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — For 16 years, sisters Jamie and Gladys Scott have shared a life behind bars for their part in an $11 armed robbery. To share freedom, they must also share a kidney.
"Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour suspended the sisters' life sentences on Wednesday, but 36-year-old Gladys Scott's release is contingent on her giving a kidney to Jamie, her 38-year-old sister, who requires daily dialysis.
"The sisters were convicted in 1994 of leading two men into an ambush in central Mississippi the year before. Three teenagers hit each man in the head with a shotgun and took their wallets — making off with only $11, court records said.
"Jamie and Gladys Scott were each convicted of two counts of armed robbery and sentenced to two life sentences."
And here's the unsurprising reaction to linking parole to kidney donation: Mississippi Gov "unethical" over jail release: surgeon
"Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour acted unethically when he suspended a woman's life sentence on condition she donate a kidney to her sister, a prominent transplant surgeon said on Thursday.
...
"A condition of Gladys Scott's release is that she donate a kidney to her sister in an operation that should be performed urgently, Barbour said in a statement on Wednesday. She had agreed to be a donor for her sister, who requires dialysis.
...
"Michael Shapiro, chief of organ transplantation at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, criticized the decision to impose a condition for the release.
"While Governor Barbour probably meant nothing nefarious by this decision, what he did was unethical and possibly illegal. He is unaware of the procedures of transplantation that include making sure donors are not coerced," Shapiro said.
"There were also medical reasons why such a condition was inappropriate, not least that Barbour may not know whether Jamie Scott is suitable or healthy enough for a transplant, said Shapiro, chair of the ethics committee of the nonprofit United Network for Organ Sharing.
"Shapiro also questioned whether Barbour ordered Scott released because her treatment was a financial burden on the state.
"If either party could be turned down for medical concerns, the transplant team would feel pressured to continue with the transplant or send them back to prison. It is a position they should not be put in," he said."
HT: Mike Ostrovsky
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Peter Cramton's Market Design blog
Welcome to fellow market designer and now fellow blogger Peter Cramton, who has just initiated his Market Design blog.
Experiments by psychologists and economists (on happiness)
From The Economist: an article on happiness leads indirectly to a very important conclusion about experiments (see below):The U-bend of life: Why, beyond middle age, people get happier as they get older
"Happiness doesn’t just make people happy—it also makes them healthier. John Weinman, professor of psychiatry at King’s College London, monitored the stress levels of a group of volunteers and then inflicted small wounds on them. The wounds of the least stressed healed twice as fast as those of the most stressed. At Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Sheldon Cohen infected people with cold and flu viruses. He found that happier types were less likely to catch the virus, and showed fewer symptoms of illness when they did. So although old people tend to be less healthy than younger ones, their cheerfulness may help counteract their crumbliness.
"Happier people are more productive, too. Mr Oswald and two colleagues, Eugenio Proto and Daniel Sgroi, cheered up a bunch of volunteers by showing them a funny film, then set them mental tests and compared their performance to groups that had seen a neutral film, or no film at all. The ones who had seen the funny film performed 12% better. This leads to two conclusions. First, if you are going to volunteer for a study, choose the economists’ experiment rather than the psychologists’ or psychiatrists’. Second, the cheerfulness of the old should help counteract their loss of productivity through declining cognitive skills—a point worth remembering as the world works out how to deal with an ageing workforce.
"Happiness doesn’t just make people happy—it also makes them healthier. John Weinman, professor of psychiatry at King’s College London, monitored the stress levels of a group of volunteers and then inflicted small wounds on them. The wounds of the least stressed healed twice as fast as those of the most stressed. At Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Sheldon Cohen infected people with cold and flu viruses. He found that happier types were less likely to catch the virus, and showed fewer symptoms of illness when they did. So although old people tend to be less healthy than younger ones, their cheerfulness may help counteract their crumbliness.
"Happier people are more productive, too. Mr Oswald and two colleagues, Eugenio Proto and Daniel Sgroi, cheered up a bunch of volunteers by showing them a funny film, then set them mental tests and compared their performance to groups that had seen a neutral film, or no film at all. The ones who had seen the funny film performed 12% better. This leads to two conclusions. First, if you are going to volunteer for a study, choose the economists’ experiment rather than the psychologists’ or psychiatrists’. Second, the cheerfulness of the old should help counteract their loss of productivity through declining cognitive skills—a point worth remembering as the world works out how to deal with an ageing workforce.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Top 2010 stories about repugnant transactions (and all time top repugnant transactions)
Repugnant transactions are those that some people don't want other people to engage in. They have had a big effect on which transactions we see, and which we don't. They change over time, sometimes quickly when they start to change, but they persist for a long time. How about these?
Top 5 in 2010
Top 5 of all time
Top 5 in 2010
- Same sex marriage
- Don’t ask, don’t tell in military..
- In-vitro fertilization (Nobel prize in 2010)
- Other reproduction related transactions: surrogacy, eggs
- Body parts for transplantation—compensation for donors (Kidneys, bone marrow, deceased donation…)
- Assisted suicide
- Marijuana (in CA…and lots of crime in Mexico) or Finance(? E.g. securitized mortgages…)
Top 5 of all time
- Sex (outside of marriage, same sex marriage, pornography prostitution…)
- Servitude: Slavery and serfdom and indentured servitude, women’s (lack of) rights (wasn’t so repugnant, now very much so)
- Worship (Inquisition, expulsions, heresy, religious wars)
- Interest on loans (was repugnant, no longer so much)
- Alcohol and mind-altering and addictive drugs (makes the list because of all the associated crime)
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Dubner interviews me about kidney sales and such
Repugnance radio* turns out to have two parts, and the second part is a Freakonomics blog post with a link to a podcast (which you can also download free at itunes), in which my voice is heard. Organ transplants are the main subject, from various angles.
Remind me to figure out how to have mood music come on when I speak, as I do in the podcast... (I might choose different mood music...)
If there's a transcript on the web at some point, I'll link to that for those of you who don't have a half hour to listen.
*The Levitt quote about economists in my earlier post about the NPR broadcast also made it into the podcast...
Remind me to figure out how to have mood music come on when I speak, as I do in the podcast... (I might choose different mood music...)
If there's a transcript on the web at some point, I'll link to that for those of you who don't have a half hour to listen.
*The Levitt quote about economists in my earlier post about the NPR broadcast also made it into the podcast...
Repugnance radio
Freakonomics Radio on NPR's Marketplace had a short segment called It's repugnant, but hey, it's efficient!, in which they speak about organ sales, among other things.
In it, Steve Levitt says
"One of the easiest ways to differentiate an economist from almost anyone else in society is to test them with repugnant ideas. Because economists, either by birth or by training, have their mind open, or skewed in just such a way that instead of thinking about whether something is right or wrong, they think about it in terms of whether it's efficient, whether it makes sense. And many of the things that are most repugnant are the things which are indeed quite efficient, but for other reasons -- subtle reasons, sometimes, reasons that are hard for people to understand -- are completely and utterly unacceptable."
In the comments, they get the following crack:
"There is one organ that nobody will ever need: The brain of an economist."
In it, Steve Levitt says
"One of the easiest ways to differentiate an economist from almost anyone else in society is to test them with repugnant ideas. Because economists, either by birth or by training, have their mind open, or skewed in just such a way that instead of thinking about whether something is right or wrong, they think about it in terms of whether it's efficient, whether it makes sense. And many of the things that are most repugnant are the things which are indeed quite efficient, but for other reasons -- subtle reasons, sometimes, reasons that are hard for people to understand -- are completely and utterly unacceptable."
In the comments, they get the following crack:
"There is one organ that nobody will ever need: The brain of an economist."
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
First live kidney donor dies at 79 (56 years after donating to his twin)
Ronald Lee Herrick became the first live kidney donor when, as a college freshman, he donated a kidney to his twin.
Here's the Globe obit: World's first organ donor dies at 79
"On Dec. 23, 1954, Dr. Joseph Murray removed a kidney from Ronald and implanted it in Richard. Years later, Murray shared a Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work. For the Herrick twins, the results were more immediate and personal. Ronald gave Richard about eight more years of life.
"The older and more serious of the twins, Ronald Herrick didn't talk about his key role in opening a new venue in medicine unless someone asked, and even then he had to be drawn out if the conversation lasted more than a few sentences. Unassuming and modest, he taught math for decades in high school, junior high, and college. On the side, he kept his hand in farming because he grew up on a family farm and loved the physical work of agriculture.
"Mr. Herrick, who suffered from heart ailments that prompted him to retire from teaching and farming in 1997, died Monday in the Augusta Rehabilitation Center in Augusta, Maine, where he was recuperating from heart surgery in October. He was 79 and lived in Belgrade, Maine."
Here's another account: First successful organ donor dies
"Ronald Lee Herrick, who became a medical pioneer in 1954 when he donated a kidney to his twin brother in what is considered the world’s first successful organ transplant, has died at the age of 79.
"The native of Rutland, Mass., died in Augusta, Maine, on Monday, while recovering from heart surgery. A retired math teacher in Northborough before moving to Maine, he was quiet about his role in the groundbreaking operation at the former Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston. His gift created a new field of medicine, as this Globe story says.
"I didn't think too much about it," Herrick said during an interview when the 50th anniversary of the operation was celebrated in 2004. "We had all kinds of meetings beforehand. I agreed, and there was no real problem."
"When the identical twins were 23 years old, Ronald’s brother Richard was dying of chronic kidney inflammation.
"Organ transplants had been attempted before, but they had failed. Kidney specialists at the Brigham believed taking a kidney from an identical twin would avoid the recently recognized problem of rejection, in which the recipient's immune system attacks the transplanted organ as foreign.
"The doctors -- including Dr. Joseph E. Murray, who later won the Nobel Prize in medicine -- were right. The operation was a success and Richard, a Coast Guard veteran who had been failing while on an early form of dialysis, recovered, married his recovery room nurse, and became the father of two children. He died of a heart attack eight years later.
"Here was a person who was near death and was able to return to normal life," Dr. Michael J. Zinner, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the successor to Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, said in 2004. "This ushered in a new era, when surgery would no longer simply be used to treat acute illnesses like appendicitis or a traffic accident (injury) but now could be used to treat a chronic illness and make patients better."
HT: Steve Leider
Here's the Globe obit: World's first organ donor dies at 79
"On Dec. 23, 1954, Dr. Joseph Murray removed a kidney from Ronald and implanted it in Richard. Years later, Murray shared a Nobel Prize for his groundbreaking work. For the Herrick twins, the results were more immediate and personal. Ronald gave Richard about eight more years of life.
"The older and more serious of the twins, Ronald Herrick didn't talk about his key role in opening a new venue in medicine unless someone asked, and even then he had to be drawn out if the conversation lasted more than a few sentences. Unassuming and modest, he taught math for decades in high school, junior high, and college. On the side, he kept his hand in farming because he grew up on a family farm and loved the physical work of agriculture.
"Mr. Herrick, who suffered from heart ailments that prompted him to retire from teaching and farming in 1997, died Monday in the Augusta Rehabilitation Center in Augusta, Maine, where he was recuperating from heart surgery in October. He was 79 and lived in Belgrade, Maine."
Here's another account: First successful organ donor dies
"Ronald Lee Herrick, who became a medical pioneer in 1954 when he donated a kidney to his twin brother in what is considered the world’s first successful organ transplant, has died at the age of 79.
"The native of Rutland, Mass., died in Augusta, Maine, on Monday, while recovering from heart surgery. A retired math teacher in Northborough before moving to Maine, he was quiet about his role in the groundbreaking operation at the former Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston. His gift created a new field of medicine, as this Globe story says.
"I didn't think too much about it," Herrick said during an interview when the 50th anniversary of the operation was celebrated in 2004. "We had all kinds of meetings beforehand. I agreed, and there was no real problem."
"When the identical twins were 23 years old, Ronald’s brother Richard was dying of chronic kidney inflammation.
"Organ transplants had been attempted before, but they had failed. Kidney specialists at the Brigham believed taking a kidney from an identical twin would avoid the recently recognized problem of rejection, in which the recipient's immune system attacks the transplanted organ as foreign.
"The doctors -- including Dr. Joseph E. Murray, who later won the Nobel Prize in medicine -- were right. The operation was a success and Richard, a Coast Guard veteran who had been failing while on an early form of dialysis, recovered, married his recovery room nurse, and became the father of two children. He died of a heart attack eight years later.
"Here was a person who was near death and was able to return to normal life," Dr. Michael J. Zinner, chief of surgery at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the successor to Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, said in 2004. "This ushered in a new era, when surgery would no longer simply be used to treat acute illnesses like appendicitis or a traffic accident (injury) but now could be used to treat a chronic illness and make patients better."
HT: Steve Leider
Elton John and husband have a son by a surrogate mom
Lots of formerly repugnant transactions get mentioned in this brief, happy story: Elton John, Husband Welcome New Son
"Elton John must have been really nice this past year. The legendary singer and songwriter and his husband welcomed a new child into their lives on Christmas Day.
"The "Benny and the Jets" singer and filmmaker David Furnish are the parents to a 7-pound, 15-ounce boy named Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John. The baby was delivered through an unidentified surrogate mother.
"The child is the first for John, 63. Us Weekly confirmed the adoption on Monday.
"...In the past, the British native attempted to adopt an HIV-positive child from the Ukraine with Furnish, but was forbidden to by government officials due to both John's age and marital status."
"Elton John must have been really nice this past year. The legendary singer and songwriter and his husband welcomed a new child into their lives on Christmas Day.
"The "Benny and the Jets" singer and filmmaker David Furnish are the parents to a 7-pound, 15-ounce boy named Zachary Jackson Levon Furnish-John. The baby was delivered through an unidentified surrogate mother.
"The child is the first for John, 63. Us Weekly confirmed the adoption on Monday.
"...In the past, the British native attempted to adopt an HIV-positive child from the Ukraine with Furnish, but was forbidden to by government officials due to both John's age and marital status."
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Medical marijuana in NJ
Marijuana--an herb whose recreational properties became well known before its medicinal ones--continues to be regarded as a repugnant transaction even in places where laws are being adapted to make marijuana available as a prescription drug.
Democrats Shape Marijuana Law: A Challenge to Gov. Christie's Approach
"New Jersey Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with a challenge to the Christie administration's rules for the state's new medical marijuana program, despite a supposedly bipartisan compromise the governor announced earlier this month.
"Democrats are unhappy with regulations to implement the program, saying it falls short of a law already described as the most restrictive in the country. The rules would limit the potency of marijuana, among other specifications contrary to the law signed in January just before Mr. Christie took office.
"In putting his own stamp on the program, Mr. Christie says he is trying to make sure New Jersey doesn't become another California or Colorado, where critics say it is too easy for healthy people to buy pot intended for those with medical problems."
Democrats Shape Marijuana Law: A Challenge to Gov. Christie's Approach
"New Jersey Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with a challenge to the Christie administration's rules for the state's new medical marijuana program, despite a supposedly bipartisan compromise the governor announced earlier this month.
"Democrats are unhappy with regulations to implement the program, saying it falls short of a law already described as the most restrictive in the country. The rules would limit the potency of marijuana, among other specifications contrary to the law signed in January just before Mr. Christie took office.
"In putting his own stamp on the program, Mr. Christie says he is trying to make sure New Jersey doesn't become another California or Colorado, where critics say it is too easy for healthy people to buy pot intended for those with medical problems."
Monday, December 27, 2010
Joel Klein steps down as NYC school chancellor
In an interview in the NY Times about his tenure as chancellor (Departing Schools Chief: ‘We Weren’t Bold Enough’), Klein says this about school choice:
"There are schools in this city that I would send my children to without a moment’s hesitation, and others that I wouldn’t. Schools have to turn around from within. There’s not somebody at a central office who waves a wand on this stuff. That’s why I want to give people choices."
Here are my papers on school choice in NYC.
"There are schools in this city that I would send my children to without a moment’s hesitation, and others that I wouldn’t. Schools have to turn around from within. There’s not somebody at a central office who waves a wand on this stuff. That’s why I want to give people choices."
Here are my papers on school choice in NYC.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Repugnance by residence: only Dutch can buy marijuana in Maastricht now
It's official:
The prohibition on the admission of non-residents to Netherlands ‘coffee-shops’ complies with European Union law "Around 2.7 million tourists a year who visited Maastricht’s 14 coffee shops will have to look elsewhere for their cannabis, as the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld a ruling that prohibits non-Dutch residents from entering those venues.
“The rules are intended to put an end to the public nuisance caused by the large number of tourists wanting to purchase or consume cannabis in the coffee-shops in the municipality of Maastricht,” the court ruled, according to a press release published on its website."
HT: Bettina Klaus
The prohibition on the admission of non-residents to Netherlands ‘coffee-shops’ complies with European Union law "Around 2.7 million tourists a year who visited Maastricht’s 14 coffee shops will have to look elsewhere for their cannabis, as the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld a ruling that prohibits non-Dutch residents from entering those venues.
“The rules are intended to put an end to the public nuisance caused by the large number of tourists wanting to purchase or consume cannabis in the coffee-shops in the municipality of Maastricht,” the court ruled, according to a press release published on its website."
HT: Bettina Klaus
Saturday, December 25, 2010
'tis the season to exchange gift cards
Cardpool is making a market in gift cards, offering to buy yours, and sell you those cashed in by others.
"You are always buying directly from us and selling directly to us. Cardpool buys our gift cards directly from our customers, verifies the authenticity and balance of each gift card, and holds on to them until a buyer is found. Even though we may never find a buyer for a given gift card, we pay sellers within 24 hours of receiving their gift card."
Here's how they address the trust problem involved with putting a gift card in the mail to them:
"How do I know I'll receive payment after sending you my gift cards?"
"Great question! Although there is a bit of a leap of faith here, we've received glowing reviews from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, NPR, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other highly reputable publications. In addition, we're backed by the same founders, CEOs, and investors responsible for many of the brands we've come to love including Google, Facebook, PayPal, Zappos, StubHub, Twitter, Skype, Slide, Lotus, Mint, and many others. We were only able to do this by putting our customers first.
If you'd like to learn more, read about us in the news and learn more about our investors."
Unlike the original-issue market for gift cards, exchanged gift cards come in discrete amounts (sometimes they are the unused credit from the originally issued amount, or sometimes they are merchandise credit for goods that were returned). For example, when I looked there were four cards from the retailer Ann Taylor, in face value amounts $197.53, $212.17, $235.44, and $257.09, all being offered at a 15% discount...
HT: Joshua Gans
"You are always buying directly from us and selling directly to us. Cardpool buys our gift cards directly from our customers, verifies the authenticity and balance of each gift card, and holds on to them until a buyer is found. Even though we may never find a buyer for a given gift card, we pay sellers within 24 hours of receiving their gift card."
Here's how they address the trust problem involved with putting a gift card in the mail to them:
"How do I know I'll receive payment after sending you my gift cards?"
"Great question! Although there is a bit of a leap of faith here, we've received glowing reviews from CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, NPR, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and many other highly reputable publications. In addition, we're backed by the same founders, CEOs, and investors responsible for many of the brands we've come to love including Google, Facebook, PayPal, Zappos, StubHub, Twitter, Skype, Slide, Lotus, Mint, and many others. We were only able to do this by putting our customers first.
If you'd like to learn more, read about us in the news and learn more about our investors."
Unlike the original-issue market for gift cards, exchanged gift cards come in discrete amounts (sometimes they are the unused credit from the originally issued amount, or sometimes they are merchandise credit for goods that were returned). For example, when I looked there were four cards from the retailer Ann Taylor, in face value amounts $197.53, $212.17, $235.44, and $257.09, all being offered at a 15% discount...
HT: Joshua Gans
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
