Virginia Postrel on Style
Nov 27 2006Author and journalist Virginia Postrel talks about how business competes for customers using style and beauty, going beyond price and the standard measures of quality. She looks at the role of appearance in our daily lives and the change from earlier times when style and beauty were luxuries accessible only to the wealthy. She also talks about her donation of a kidney to a friend and how that affected the intensity of her feelings about the policies surrounding organ donations.
Mailbag (Time mark 55:43-58:30)-
- On
- . John Brothers makes two comments: What if government actually did a good job of setting up Medicare effectively? Support would increase, but woe to us if we try to change or improve it later. Markets and systems change over time. Also: Getting gov't to do better is not the same as trying to get the gov't to do less. Both take time and energy.
- Pietro Poggi-Corradini observes: Where gov't. is in competition with the private sector, some of these improvements would happen because the gov't. would want to attract more employees to its own cafeteria. Perhaps Thaler just wants to give the government consulting advice or be a government adviser. Doesn't that joint/conflicting interest suggest that "libertarian paternalism" is an oxymoron?
-
- [Additional resource: the podcast
- with Ed Glaeser.--Econlib Ed.]
READER COMMENTS
Tim Sydney
Nov 27 2006 at 10:33pm
Virginia Postrel’s discussion of style and aesthetics actually had a roundabout link with her discussion on the economics of kidney donation.
To a large extent the opposition to kidney markets is based on a form of aesthetic imperialism where those who neither need kidneys or who are apparently unwilling to donate their own, impose their ethical viewpoint on others. It is interesting that we have a large lobby of social liberals who adamantly object to religious conservatives imposing their moral viewpoints on non-violent private behaviour, these stalwarts seem missing-in-action on this issue.
There is a similar problem in the ambulance sector. Here in Australia we have a highly competitive tow truck industry and state government run monopolies of ambulance service. The result is that tow trucks usually arive at the scene of a vehicle accident well before any ambulance. As a result state governments are now imposing regulations to ensure tow truck drivers know emergency first aid. If and when the idea of private competitive ambulance service is raised the objection is always ‘ethical’. It’s degrading to think first aid would be provided by businessmen with mercenary motivations, better to bleed to death waiting for civil servants to show up!
The ethical imperialism of the state ambulance monopoly seems comparable to the motives of the kidney rationing lobby.
Chris Meisenzahl
Nov 29 2006 at 1:05pm
I enjoyed this podcast quite a bit. I especially liked the commentary on watches and fountain pens, as I enjoy both. 😉
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
Stuart Berman
Nov 29 2006 at 11:29pm
Another brilliant podcast – your material is consistently thought provoking.
It seems that a good way to ‘market’ organ donations would be some kind of ‘assurance’ that donors would be guaranteed a replacement kidney (organ) should the need arise so that the donation becomes in essence an insurance policy. A free market of organs would probably obviate the guarantee however public sentiment needs a little persuasion.
Comments are closed.