Showing posts with label satire. Show all posts
Showing posts with label satire. Show all posts

Friday, December 29, 2023

Price discovery

 Here's SMBC on price discovery:

 

Mouseover: "Normal People: you economists keep assuming humans have perfect pricing information Microeconomists: we need ever more complex auction mechanisms to suss out the true preferences humans are constantly hiding!" 

Saturday, August 12, 2023

Repugnance watch: British satire considers cellular agriculture in human meat

In The Conversation:

The British Miracle Meat: how banning repugnant choices obscures the real issue of poverty  by Renaud Foucart

"A provocative Channel 4 satirical programme, The British Miracle Meat, has led to hundreds of complaints to media regulator Ofcom. The mockumentary depicts ordinary Britons facing the cost of living crisis selling thin slices of their tissue to an innovative factory that uses it to grow lab meat.

The show was inspired by Jonathan Swift’s satire A Modest Proposal (1726), in which the author of Gulliver’s Travels suggests poor Irish people sell their children for food. The Channel 4 show’s creators wanted to make viewers think about the effects of the cost of living crisis, as well as the future of food.

Viewers were left baffled, however, seeing the show as promoting cannibalism. In the UK, it is illegal to sell human organs and other tissues. But in economics, we teach our students the theory of “repugnant markets” – those in which disgust or distaste lead governments to ban certain transactions rather than tackling the underlying economic reasons for them."

Wednesday, December 29, 2021

Intergalactic market for organs

 Sometimes it seems that those who are most worried about markets for kidneys are worried about different things than those who are most worried about kidney patients.  

In case you were wondering, here's a video game to help you empathize with those you might otherwise disagree with: Space Warlord Organ Trading Simulator . It can be yours for just $19.99, much less than the cost of an eyeball.

"ORGANS. Everyone has them, and everyone wants them. You are an Organ Trader, the funnel for fleshy meat parts into a strange, evolving, and desperate universe full of clients.

"Contend with the cutthroat organ market. Trade viscera with dubious figures. Keep vampire-leech organs from devouring the rest of the goods inside your cargo hold. Flood galaxies with meat. Make a profit.

"This is Space Warlord Organ Trading Simulator: the sci-fi body horror market tycoon you didn't know you needed."

*************

And,  in case you aren't tuned into repugnant transactions via video game, here's a review of the game in the Guardian:

Space Warlord Organ Trading Simulator review – ghoulish satire of human greed

"It’s a premise as old as time: buy low, sell eyes. And spleens. More of a frantic clicker-game than a strategy sim, Space Warlord Organ Trading Simulator is only slightly more complex than a screensaver, though still chemically compulsive. Days are split between navigating a fleshy stock market, and trying to outbid cyborgs and dogs with names like Chad Shakespeare on the freshest human cuts. Think eBay as overseen by Harlan Ellison’s Allied Mastercomputer. You accept orders, wait for the organs to show up, grab them before a rival trader does and try to make a profit. As you progress, your customers get fussier. Organs are graded like trading cards, or Destiny loot drops. Where does a mythic lung come from, anyway? No time to think about it. The market wants what it wants."

**********

All of which reminds me of this old/new question:

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Tuesday, December 28, 2021

SMBC on economists and money (and game theory)

 Here's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on economists: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/econs

And it's a two-fer, economists are hot over at SMBC: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/holes



***********



Tuesday, November 25, 2014

A new market for blog posts?

Kim Krawiec is on top of the taboo trades game, and has some new ones to suggest: I particularly like the idea that if you have some fact that requires a citation, maybe we could arrange that...

Selling The Starred Footnote

I’m late to the game in blogging about this, but I just found out about it on Friday at a conference on the Ethical Limits of Markets hosted by the Institute For The Study of Markets and Ethics at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business (about which I’ll have more to say later).  Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski are selling acknowledgements in the preface of their book Markets without Limits, which will be published by Routledge Press, most likely in late 2015 or early 2016.
The book answers the question “Are there some things which you permissibly may possess, use, and give away, but which are wrong to buy and sell?” in the negative, in contrast to the numerous books already written on the topic which take the contrary position.  Brennan and Jaworski are selling three tiers of acknowledgements: Silvermint Tier, Platinum Tier, and Gold Tier (The Silvermint Tier is so named because philosophy and women’s studies professorDaniel Silvermint is paying to have the highest tier named after him.)
Wish I had thought of that!  But no reason I can’t adopt it going forward.  In addition, I’ve decided to sell links to and mentions of your work in my blog posts and tweets.  I’m still working out the exact fee schedule, but will charge extra for highly positive mentions and even more for highly negative mentions (as controversy is always an attention getter). Finally, if those pesky law review editors won’t stop bothering you for support that you can’t find, just let me know and I’ll sell you a blog post setting out the needed statements, to which you can then cite. 
We often complain that student editors demand support for obviously correct statements of common knowledge – indeed, it is sometimes the case that the proposition is so widely known and accepted that it is difficult to find discussion of the point in print.  For example, you may want to reference the uncontroversial view that “professors of market regulation are considered smarter and more interesting than professors of constitutional law,” yet struggle to find something in print to that effect (in contrast to the faculty lounge and hallway conversations in which this assertion is frequently found). Problem solved!  Just let me know the statements for which you need a citation and I’ll post them here for a fee.  The profit possibilities on this one are nearly endless.