A common hypothesis is that the need for signalling increases as more people put more effort into signalling. So while it may be beneficial for an individual to be allowed to sell their kidney to pay for student loans, that benefit gets cancelled out by the fact that it increases the chance of them getting a degree and thus makes it more necessary for others to get a degree too.
I think this view is correct and restricting kidney sales would alleviate this somewhat.
Under my worldview that falls under positional games, and taxing positional games specifically would result in less of this happening.
I believe that people who complain about exploitation are worried about something else though: I think they would also count it as exploitation if someone would sell their kidney for food, which is not a positional game/done for signaling purposes.
Under my worldview that falls under positional games, and taxing positional games specifically would result in less of this happening.
Are positional games like education currently extra taxed? Do the people defending kidney markets make sure to first tax positional games before creating the markets?
I believe that people who complain about exploitation are worried about something else though: I think they would also count it as exploitation if someone would sell their kidney for food, which is not a positional game/done for signaling purposes.
Why not say that, then? Like you could go “hey quetzal_rainbow, I think you are misrepresenting your own opinion and are actually worried about people selling their kidneys for food”? Instead of your original comment buying into the student loans example.
I don’t think we currently tax positional goods in general. I have only intuitions whether that would happen in worlds where kidney markets are introduced, and those intuitions say “no”.
Why not say that, then? Like you could go “hey quetzal_rainbow, I think you are misrepresenting your own opinion and are actually worried about people selling their kidneys for food”? Instead of your original comment buying into the student loans example.
I hadn’t considered the fact that student loans are positional goods, and that allowing more expenditure of resources on positional goods wastes them. I had treated “student loans” similar to normal goods that can be purchased. I don’t know what @quetzal_rainbow intended their comment to mean.
I don’t think we currently tax positional goods in general. I have only intuitions whether that would happen in worlds where kidney markets are introduced, and those intuitions say “no”.
So if your intuitions say that there would be no taxes on positional goods in a world with kidney markets, doesn’t that make the possibility of taxing positional goods irrelevant? It seems like the effects of those markets should be judged based on the non-taxed case, not the taxed case?
A common hypothesis is that the need for signalling increases as more people put more effort into signalling. So while it may be beneficial for an individual to be allowed to sell their kidney to pay for student loans, that benefit gets cancelled out by the fact that it increases the chance of them getting a degree and thus makes it more necessary for others to get a degree too.
I think this view is correct and restricting kidney sales would alleviate this somewhat.
Under my worldview that falls under positional games, and taxing positional games specifically would result in less of this happening.
I believe that people who complain about exploitation are worried about something else though: I think they would also count it as exploitation if someone would sell their kidney for food, which is not a positional game/done for signaling purposes.
Are positional games like education currently extra taxed? Do the people defending kidney markets make sure to first tax positional games before creating the markets?
Why not say that, then? Like you could go “hey quetzal_rainbow, I think you are misrepresenting your own opinion and are actually worried about people selling their kidneys for food”? Instead of your original comment buying into the student loans example.
I don’t think we currently tax positional goods in general. I have only intuitions whether that would happen in worlds where kidney markets are introduced, and those intuitions say “no”.
I hadn’t considered the fact that student loans are positional goods, and that allowing more expenditure of resources on positional goods wastes them. I had treated “student loans” similar to normal goods that can be purchased. I don’t know what @quetzal_rainbow intended their comment to mean.
So if your intuitions say that there would be no taxes on positional goods in a world with kidney markets, doesn’t that make the possibility of taxing positional goods irrelevant? It seems like the effects of those markets should be judged based on the non-taxed case, not the taxed case?