Overall looks like an election between "bad" and "worse," can't say I'm surprised it turned out this way. Milei is staunchly on the far-right socially, being anti-abortion even in cases of rape...
Overall looks like an election between "bad" and "worse," can't say I'm surprised it turned out this way. Milei is staunchly on the far-right socially, being anti-abortion even in cases of rape and equating homosexuality with zoophilia.
Dollarization may be a good short-term solution for their economic problems but that's ceding a lot of control to the US which already has a very strong hold on global politics through the dollar. Since there's already a strong present of the dollar in black markets I think it's unlikely to have strong negative effects immediately.
He has several clones of his dog Conan who died from spinal cancer in 2017, and makes "important decisions" based on conversations held with his dogs through a mystic.
This tells me that he gets advice from a mystic that suddenly became very powerful.
He has several clones of his dog Conan who died from spinal cancer in 2017, and makes "important decisions" based on conversations held with his dogs through a mystic.
This tells me that he gets advice from a mystic that suddenly became very powerful.
Apparently the mystic is his sister, so... is that better or worse? EDIT: If it's not too late I would like to enter the phrase 'Council of Conans' into the discourse
Apparently the mystic is his sister, so... is that better or worse?
His sister, Karina, who is as essential to him as Conan was, tried to help him. She studied to become a medium, and it was she who helped the deceased dog communicate with his owner.
EDIT: If it's not too late I would like to enter the phrase 'Council of Conans' into the discourse
“Bad” for Massa understates things. He’s Minister for the Economy in a country with a 140% inflation rate. That should’ve torpedoed his credibility from day one. I do think Milei’s social views...
“Bad” for Massa understates things. He’s Minister for the Economy in a country with a 140% inflation rate. That should’ve torpedoed his credibility from day one. I do think Milei’s social views are horrendous, but I am curious to see how dollarization goes (Ecuador and Panama seem to be doing okay), and given that the National Congress is more opposed to Milei than not, that should limit the amount of damage he can do overall.
I’m assuming by Congress you’re referring to the US congress? I’m not super concerned about reverse influence on the US, but the US can exert outsized influence on dollarized countries since they...
I’m assuming by Congress you’re referring to the US congress? I’m not super concerned about reverse influence on the US, but the US can exert outsized influence on dollarized countries since they control the flow of money. It’d probably be a safer bet to go with the euro since that’s not controlled by a single country, but the EU is typically more progressive than the US which probably disqualified the euro from the start.
It's less about exerting influence and more about the Fed being indifferent to what's best for a foreign country. Their job is to raise or lower interest rates (which affects the strength of the...
It's less about exerting influence and more about the Fed being indifferent to what's best for a foreign country. Their job is to raise or lower interest rates (which affects the strength of the US dollar) based on what they think is good for the US, not Argentina.
Tying the currency to the euro would have the same problem. Even within the EU, it's already a problem. Unemployment is 3% in Germany and 12% in Spain, and monetary policy is closer to what's good for Germany than what's good for Spain.
But compared to 150% inflation, tying the currency to just about any other country would be better.
Not sure the Euro is a great bet as it tends to go very badly for countries that aren't Germany. The US also runs its currency in a way that makes external adoption easier.
Not sure the Euro is a great bet as it tends to go very badly for countries that aren't Germany. The US also runs its currency in a way that makes external adoption easier.
The anti-abortion thing is definitely terrible, as are is his anti-euthanasia views. But at least from what I've read, his stated stance on homosexuality isn't quite as bad as you imply. Copying...
The anti-abortion thing is definitely terrible, as are is his anti-euthanasia views. But at least from what I've read, his stated stance on homosexuality isn't quite as bad as you imply. Copying from Wikipedia re: his political views - "If you decide to be homosexual, how does that affect my life? Not at all. My liberty? Not at all. My property? Not at all. Therefore, I have nothing to say." Sure, it's not ideal that he seems to think homosexuality is a choice, or that he compares it to zoophilia (though this remark seems like it could have been a bit tongue-in-cheek), but it's not nearly as worrisome so long as he recognizes the whole thing is none of his business. Frankly, there are a lot of people out there who think homosexuality is icky or wrong, and it will probably be generations before that changes, so it would be great if we could at least get them to append those thoughts with '...but it doesn't affect me, so it's none of my business'.
Milei also appears to be in favor of legalizing drugs, sex work, and the organ trade, which all seems good. So in total it seems like while he could be better on social issues, he could also be a lot worse and 'far-right' is probably not an accurate description.
As for Milei's economic views, I think dollarization will definitely be helpful in the short term. Honestly a big part of this is that now the BCRA can't just print money hand over fist, which is almost certainly partly to blame for Argentina's 140% inflation rate. Being a moderate/centrist libertarian, I agree with some of Milei's other fiscal policies, though I think the way he plans to implement privatization and deregulation opens the door for moneyed interests to further consolidate power. Of course, it also seems like he will face strong opposition in enacting these plans, so who knows.
I am not especially cognizant of Argentine politics, so it's unclear to me whether he's a true ideological paleolibertarian, or whether the libertarianism label is just a cover for the more typical far-right grifting (such as is very often the case in the USA). At face value he seems somewhat more like the former, and I feel like the media has done a job trying to paint him as the latter. I don't know what to think, and unfortunately I haven't seen anybody who's willing to acknowledge both possibilities and try to make an assessment from there.
A homophobic president is harmful even if his attitude is not directly reflected by laws or regulations they put forth themselves. They create an environment that is hostile to LGBT, encouraging...
A homophobic president is harmful even if his attitude is not directly reflected by laws or regulations they put forth themselves. They create an environment that is hostile to LGBT, encouraging bigoted attitudes, and also provide an incentive for legislators to propose bigoted laws of their own, which are either implicitly or explicitly supported by the president and the political climate the president creates.
Yes, this would be a sort of worst-case scenario. As I said, I'm not all too familiar with him or Argentine politics in general, but based on what I've read, it remains to be seen whether he will...
Yes, this would be a sort of worst-case scenario. As I said, I'm not all too familiar with him or Argentine politics in general, but based on what I've read, it remains to be seen whether he will actively support his stated policies (which are pro-LGBT), or whether he will tacitly support his homophobic personal beliefs and avoid criticism by paying lip service to his stated policies. But it's important for public perception of these issues not to catastrophize the situation unless it is truly a catastrophe.
Yup. Looks like Argentina gonna be the spot for wealthy Americans who don't want to wait in line. It'll be a wonderful bastion of capitalism and poverty-driven organ harvesting. There's no way...
Yup. Looks like Argentina gonna be the spot for wealthy Americans who don't want to wait in line. It'll be a wonderful bastion of capitalism and slaverypoverty-driven organ harvesting.
I never really understood the opposition to legalized organ sales, maybe you could be more specific about what you have an issue with? There is currently a huge worldwide deficit in the supply of...
I never really understood the opposition to legalized organ sales, maybe you could be more specific about what you have an issue with?
There is currently a huge worldwide deficit in the supply of organs. Hundreds of thousands of people are on transplant waiting lists, and many die without ever being so lucky as to receive one. Legalizing sale of organs will dramatically increase the supply, while also providing significant financial benefit to organ donors.
The primary criticism I've seen is that this leads to an exploitative system where people who are desperate to pay the bills sacrifice some part of their health, while only the rich are able to afford the organs that become available on the market. But to me, this is more a criticism of a society that does not support the poor (or produces a large number of poor people to begin with) than a criticism of the organ trade.
The original argument becomes ridiculous if you apply it to anything else. There are plenty of people who work exhausting, demeaning jobs that pay minimal wages in the food industry (both production and retail), while many still struggle to afford food. Does this mean we should make selling food illegal, that all food should be donated? Perhaps there are some on the very far left who would favor this, but really their opposition is not to the organ trade specifically, but just the notion of markets in general (a view that is so distant from my own I feel like it would be pointless to argue against it). But I think most people would favor other solutions such as wage control, basic income, etc. to help people afford food and prevent them from being exploited. Ultimately, I have to ask what makes the organ trade so different that these usual solutions would not apply?
Once you create an "above board" market for it, you're also putting a lot more money and incentive into the unregulated black market for it. This is the same reason people don't want there to be...
I never really understood the opposition to legalized organ sales, maybe you could be more specific about what you have an issue with?
Once you create an "above board" market for it, you're also putting a lot more money and incentive into the unregulated black market for it. This is the same reason people don't want there to be "ethically sourced" elephant tusks. Even if any specific place only collects tusks from elephants that have died naturally or whatever, it's basically impossible to ensure every leg of the supply chain is actually operating ethically.
Now do this with human organs and it gets much much worse. You will now have dodgy or unethical organ harvesting co-occurring alongside with legitimate processes because you've introduced a ton of financial incentive (and significantly lowered the risk of cheating) into the system.
This is a good point. While some of the downsides of the current black market for organs - such as paying too little and charging too much, inadequate medical support, poor donor screening etc. -...
This is a good point. While some of the downsides of the current black market for organs - such as paying too little and charging too much, inadequate medical support, poor donor screening etc. - would probably be alleviated by above board markets, there is still the issue of coercion. But to the extent that coercion would be increased beyond what already exists in the black market, it would be linked to broader economic issues, as I mentioned before. It's hard to coerce someone into selling a kidney if they aren't on the verge of getting evicted. So it seems like the ideal solution is not to outlaw organ markets but to make sure people can afford the basic necessities of life.
I think it might be useful to compare organ black markets with drug black markets. Your argument about legal markets incentivizing black markets applies just as much to drugs - for example, the legalization of cannabis has not reduced (and in some cases has even increased) the prevalence of black markets. Where it is no longer illegal to grow or possess cannabis per se, and where drug-related law enforcement has been significantly dialed back , there is less risk to selling unregulated and untaxed cannabis, even if it is not zero-risk. As a result, there is no shortage of cheaper, black market cannabis whose cannabinoid content is unknown, and which may have been contaminated with pesticides or pathogens.
Yet many would agree it's still favorable to legalize cannabis, even though some may be harmed by the coexisting black market. Admittedly the harms are less than the organ trade, but so are the benefits - a lot of cannabis is just used recreationally, and the medical benefits are usually mild (though there are a few for whom it is life saving). In the organ trade, the potential harms of coercion are more severe, but the benefits are also huge, since a vast majority of recipients are acting from an extreme medical need.
The benefits for the recipients, the people giving up organs for money will not stop being poor AND will greatly damage their health. And maybe not even for the recipient, as they might be...
In the organ trade, the potential harms of coercion are more severe, but the benefits are also huge,
The benefits for the recipients, the people giving up organs for money will not stop being poor AND will greatly damage their health. And maybe not even for the recipient, as they might be attached to a bill they realistically would never be able to pay.
It is akin to legalizing human trafficking, slavery or hiring people to commit crimes for you. It is exploitative and it should not be allowed just because there are other bad thing already happening in the world.
That’s a political project that is many orders of magnitude more complex than simply forbidding the trade in organs. The harms are both minor and the harms of enforcement are high. In contrast...
So it seems like the ideal solution is not to outlaw organ markets but to make sure people can afford the basic necessities of life.
That’s a political project that is many orders of magnitude more complex than simply forbidding the trade in organs.
Admittedly the harms are less than the organ trade, but so are the benefits
The harms are both minor and the harms of enforcement are high. In contrast there is little harm in enforcing restrictions on black market organ trades. All it does it ensures supply that is relatively agnostic to potential recipients’ ability to pay rather than being yet another thing that rich people get dibs on at the expense of everyone else.
While rich people are certainly more likely to be able to afford to buy organs, I don't think everyone else would be totally out of luck. Granted I'm no expert on health insurance in Argentina,...
The harms are both minor and the harms of enforcement are high. In contrast there is little harm in enforcing restrictions on black market organ trades. All it does it ensures supply that is relatively agnostic to potential recipients’ ability to pay rather than being yet another thing that rich people get dibs on at the expense of everyone else.
While rich people are certainly more likely to be able to afford to buy organs, I don't think everyone else would be totally out of luck. Granted I'm no expert on health insurance in Argentina, but at least speaking from what I know about my own health insurance, I'm pretty sure that if supply were not an issue, if I needed an organ transplant, I'd be able to get my insurance to pay for it (though I might need to do a little legwork convincing them). I am by no means rich, and my insurance is mid-tier. Maybe not everyone in my economic situation would fare exactly the same, but I can't imagine that the affordability issue is nearly as prohibitive as the fact that there are so few organ donations under the current system.
I mean, yes, if we lived in a society that was significantly different from any society current present on planet earth, paying people for donating organs wouldn't be bad. Like many other issues,...
But to me, this is more a criticism of a society that does not support the poor (or produces a large number of poor people to begin with) than a criticism of the organ trade.
I mean, yes, if we lived in a society that was significantly different from any society current present on planet earth, paying people for donating organs wouldn't be bad. Like many other issues, abolishing poverty would get rid of a ton of problems there.
There are plenty of people who work exhausting, demeaning jobs that pay minimal wages in the food industry (both production and retail), while many still struggle to afford food. Does this mean we should make selling food illegal, that all food should be donated? Perhaps there are some on the very far left who would favor this, but really their opposition is not to the organ trade specifically, but just the notion of markets in general (a view that is so distant from my own I feel like it would be pointless to argue against it).
This is a straw man. As someone who is literally a socialist, believing that workers are being exploited more generally doesn't mean all types of exploitation are identical or equal. Yes, workers are being exploited for their labor in myriad ways. But it's an obvious escalation for the poor to need to literally sell their body parts to the rich in order to survive. Equating that to the (still incredibly exploitative) experience of working in the food industry is farcical.
But I think most people would favor other solutions such as wage control, basic income, etc. to help people afford food and prevent them from being exploited. Ultimately, I have to ask what makes the organ trade so different that these usual solutions would not apply?
I support all those things as ways to address poverty. We should do them! But you can't wave away the practical, very predictable harm organ trading causes by saying that if we solved poverty, it wouldn't be an issue. We aren't even close to the point in any country on earth to solving the problem of poverty to an extent that organ trading would not result in exploitation. Allowing organ trading prior to abolishing poverty is at best negligent towards the well-being of the poor, and paying lip-service to solving poverty sometime in the future doesn't get rid of the harms it would have immediately upon being instituted.
I also highly doubt Milei, as a libertarian, is particularly for wage controls and basic income. Even though libertarian is applied to a wide variety of political stances, they're pretty much all solidly in the camp where they're opposed to that kind of state regulation and spending.
Even if the exploitation of the organ trade is more serious than that of the food industry, what I meant for the comparison to show is that in both situations there are two alternatives - a legal...
This is a straw man. As someone who is literally a socialist, believing that workers are being exploited more generally doesn't mean all types of exploitation are identical or equal. Yes, workers are being exploited for their labor in myriad ways. But it's an obvious escalation for the poor to need to literally sell their body parts to the rich in order to survive. Equating that to the (still incredibly exploitative) experience of working in the food industry is farcical.
Even if the exploitation of the organ trade is more serious than that of the food industry, what I meant for the comparison to show is that in both situations there are two alternatives - a legal market where exploitation occurs but at least there is at least a moderate availability of the product, or a ban on sale resulting in a less exploitative system where there is very little availability, alongside a potentially more exploitative black market (where availability is also very low). When it comes to a product that is so necessary for survival (food and organs both), I personally feel that low availability is more harmful than exploitation.
This is especially true if the exploitation doesn't take away any existing options. As you point out, a person could end up in a situation where they need to sell a kidney to make a rent payment. But isn't this often preferable to the alternative that would exist in the current situation, namely that the person is evicted and becomes homeless? If it were not preferable, then they would not choose to sell their kidney - maybe the person has someone to stay with, or they feel they can endure a short period of homelessness because they just got a job and know of a cheaper place they can rent when they get their first paycheck.
Now obviously, all of these options are terrible. But it doesn't make sense to me to make a terrible option illegal when the only other options are often more terrible.
I also highly doubt Milei, as a libertarian, is particularly for wage controls and basic income. Even though libertarian is applied to a wide variety of political stances, they're pretty much all solidly in the camp where they're opposed to that kind of state regulation and spending.
I agree this could be a problem. As I pointed out in my original post, some of Milei's economic plans are too extreme and rapid and may further entrench the existing oligopoly, and something similar may very well happen given his views on welfare. Personally, I look at the notions of a free market and small government as more of an end goal than an ideological tenet. Like many other moderate/centrist libertarians (there are more of us than you think!), I think something like basic income is necessary to deal with the existing humanitarian crisis of poverty, and that privatization and deregulation, while economically beneficial, must be implemented gradually and with an eye towards preventing corruption.
A big factor in all of this is whether Milei actually has the political support to implement all of his policies. If he is able to reform Argentina's currency woes and legalize the organ trade, but faces enough resistance and critical oversight in his other economic policies to retain (or even increase) welfare in the short term, then things may work out well. I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything, but I guess we'll have to see exactly what happens.
Well it's not like our organs regenerate. Each human has quite a limited supply of available organs to supposedly "trade" with health tradeoffs potentially for making those decisions... so it only...
Well it's not like our organs regenerate. Each human has quite a limited supply of available organs to supposedly "trade" with health tradeoffs potentially for making those decisions... so it only seems remotely reasonable to me (and even then I am stretching for sake of argument) to hypothetically allow organ trade while poverty exists if and only if the monetary return is so extremely high and financially securing that someone never has to consider selling another and never has to pay for any health complications that arise. For a rent payment? That's an absolutely ridiculous situation. So what, they need to sell another one next month? In a world where we can voluntarily sell organs to solve personal financial problems I don't think a month's rent is going to cut it.
This goes along with the poverty-needing-solved-first discussion. It still seems quite perverse for someone to permanently give up a part of their physical being for money, no matter how much.
I find equating this to discussions about food pretty useless considering we can easily grow more food in comparison to the rather extreme event of giving up an organ we cannot regrow
I am personally quite amazed to be reading actual arguments in support of an organ trade even without all the necessary co-issues that need solved before such an idea seems remotely useful. My mind is sufficiently boggled for the week
Organ trade seems evidently harmful in so many ways and for so many obvious reasons that discussing it does not seem like a good use of anyone's time. At the very least, the argumentative duties...
I am personally quite amazed to be reading actual arguments in support of an organ trade even without all the necessary co-issues that need solved before such an idea seems remotely useful. My mind is sufficiently boggled for the week
Organ trade seems evidently harmful in so many ways and for so many obvious reasons that discussing it does not seem like a good use of anyone's time. At the very least, the argumentative duties should be entirely on the side of its defenders.
It's okay to defend absurds, but the effort should be asymmetrically allocated to the ones making the absurd claim.
I should have used a better example than paying rent - realistically, organs are valuable enough that even in a legal market one would likely be able to sell them for hundreds of thousands of...
I should have used a better example than paying rent - realistically, organs are valuable enough that even in a legal market one would likely be able to sell them for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was thinking more that not being able to pay rent is the straw that breaks the camel's back on that decision, not that the organ would only be able to cover one rent payment.
This goes along with the poverty-needing-solved-first discussion. It still seems quite perverse for someone to permanently give up a part of their physical being for money, no matter how much.
People give up their health for money all the time. There are plenty of dangerous, physically taxing, or otherwise injurious jobs, but even if the health effects of these are ultimately permanent, they are more gradual and more socially acceptable, so it's harder to conceptualize this as the same kind of sacrifice as selling an organ.
In some ways, selling an organ may be a better trade for one's health than a physical labor (for instance). As they say, 'it's expensive to be poor', and someone who's eking out a living a little bit at a time may be losing more money renting an apartment instead of owning one, buying poor quality home goods that constantly need replacing, eating cheap food that worsens their health, etc., not to mention that they may not be able to afford an education or any other sort of investment in their future. Taking a lump sum for an organ may give someone the leverage to stabilize their expenditures, and in the long run save them money.
I find equating this to discussions about food pretty useless considering we can easily grow more food in comparison to the rather extreme event of giving up an organ we cannot regrow
It's not a perfect comparison, but just because we can grow more food doesn't mean we should neglect the cost of doing so. A permanent loss of an organ is extreme, but think about how much labor you would need to apply towards the production or sale of food to make the same amount of money - we're talking years and years of labor, and the loss of time is just as permanent as the loss of a body part. I think it's up to the individual to assess which trade-off is worthwhile.
And for what it's worth, I would love to solve the necessary co-issues in tandem with legalization of the organ trade. I felt I made my support for basic income pretty clear (for instance), and there should obviously be some initial regulatory framework aimed at preventing abuses.
This exact same argument could be used for selling yourself into indentured servitude. Or allowing child labor -- only the truly desperately poor who really need the money would have their young...
This is especially true if the exploitation doesn't take away any existing options. As you point out, a person could end up in a situation where they need to sell a kidney to make a rent payment. But isn't this often preferable to the alternative that would exist in the current situation, namely that the person is evicted and becomes homeless? If it were not preferable, then they would not choose to sell their kidney - maybe the person has someone to stay with, or they feel they can endure a short period of homelessness because they just got a job and know of a cheaper place they can rent when they get their first paycheck.
This exact same argument could be used for selling yourself into indentured servitude. Or allowing child labor -- only the truly desperately poor who really need the money would have their young children working in factories, after all! This exact argument WAS used against establishing the 8-hour workday and has been used to advocate against minimum wages. Poor and desperate people will willingly participate in tons of things that harm them because they're, well, poor and desperate. But that doesn't mean these things should be allowed solely because they'd help a poor person make rent.
There are really only two positions here. You can believe that the government should make certain ways of harming the poor and desperate illegal, because when they're legal they will inevitably used to exploit people in horrific ways that we don't deem acceptable as a society. You then have to argue why you think that selling one's organs does not meet that threshold but indentured servitude and child labor and working for less than minimum wage do. I honestly think most people would believe that selling one's own organs is a deeper and more permanent choice than many other things like that which we do regulate.
The other option is to believe that the government shouldn't make any of those things illegal, despite the fact that they'll be used to harm poor people, because the poor and desperate want to "voluntarily" participate in those systems to afford to survive. This is, I strongly suspect, far closer to what Milei believes and it's certainly closer to the practical effects of the policies he advocates for. You may well not believe this yourself, given that you call yourself a moderate/centrist -- if you do believe this, you absolutely cannot claim to be moderate.
No. Quite often, housing prices are a result of politics, and rent is a factor of what people are able to pay. Increasing how much people are able to pay just results in rent going up, and...
As you point out, a person could end up in a situation where they need to sell a kidney to make a rent payment. But isn't this often preferable to the alternative that would exist in the current situation, namely that the person is evicted and becomes homeless?
No.
Quite often, housing prices are a result of politics, and rent is a factor of what people are able to pay. Increasing how much people are able to pay just results in rent going up, and non-kidney-sellers being priced out. All you're doing is enriching landlords and taking away poor peoples' kidneys.
The solution here is to unfuck the housing market, not to permit organ markets.
I don't think I agree with this assessment. There are many factors that determine rent prices, and while the housing shortage does mean landlords can increase rent to a point, there is enough...
I don't think I agree with this assessment. There are many factors that determine rent prices, and while the housing shortage does mean landlords can increase rent to a point, there is enough competition to keep prices somewhat limited, especially as we see the work-from-home movement gaining momentum, which increases the choice people have in where to live. In fact, some research suggests that UBI does not cause housing market inflation. I think mechanistically the situation is similar to what you'd see from the increased average wealth of renters from a legalized organ market.
And actually, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems that organ sales are lucrative enough that many people who make money from them would turn away from renting towards property ownership, which further reduces any potential effect on rent prices.
I agree that we should unfuck the housing market, but I don't think legalized organ markets will have much of an effect on it one way or another.
Overall looks like an election between "bad" and "worse," can't say I'm surprised it turned out this way. Milei is staunchly on the far-right socially, being anti-abortion even in cases of rape and equating homosexuality with zoophilia.
Dollarization may be a good short-term solution for their economic problems but that's ceding a lot of control to the US which already has a very strong hold on global politics through the dollar. Since there's already a strong present of the dollar in black markets I think it's unlikely to have strong negative effects immediately.
He has several clones of his dog Conan who died from spinal cancer in 2017, and makes "important decisions" based on conversations held with his dogs through a mystic.
This tells me that he gets advice from a mystic that suddenly became very powerful.
Apparently the mystic is his sister, so... is that better or worse?
EDIT: If it's not too late I would like to enter the phrase 'Council of Conans' into the discourse
It depends. Maybe his sister is very reasonable.
Argentinian Rasputin?
My thought as well.
Argentinian Lady Rasputin. Progress!
“Bad” for Massa understates things. He’s Minister for the Economy in a country with a 140% inflation rate. That should’ve torpedoed his credibility from day one. I do think Milei’s social views are horrendous, but I am curious to see how dollarization goes (Ecuador and Panama seem to be doing okay), and given that the National Congress is more opposed to Milei than not, that should limit the amount of damage he can do overall.
I’m assuming by Congress you’re referring to the US congress? I’m not super concerned about reverse influence on the US, but the US can exert outsized influence on dollarized countries since they control the flow of money. It’d probably be a safer bet to go with the euro since that’s not controlled by a single country, but the EU is typically more progressive than the US which probably disqualified the euro from the start.
Nope, Argentina’s Congress
It's less about exerting influence and more about the Fed being indifferent to what's best for a foreign country. Their job is to raise or lower interest rates (which affects the strength of the US dollar) based on what they think is good for the US, not Argentina.
Tying the currency to the euro would have the same problem. Even within the EU, it's already a problem. Unemployment is 3% in Germany and 12% in Spain, and monetary policy is closer to what's good for Germany than what's good for Spain.
But compared to 150% inflation, tying the currency to just about any other country would be better.
Not sure the Euro is a great bet as it tends to go very badly for countries that aren't Germany. The US also runs its currency in a way that makes external adoption easier.
The anti-abortion thing is definitely terrible, as are is his anti-euthanasia views. But at least from what I've read, his stated stance on homosexuality isn't quite as bad as you imply. Copying from Wikipedia re: his political views - "If you decide to be homosexual, how does that affect my life? Not at all. My liberty? Not at all. My property? Not at all. Therefore, I have nothing to say." Sure, it's not ideal that he seems to think homosexuality is a choice, or that he compares it to zoophilia (though this remark seems like it could have been a bit tongue-in-cheek), but it's not nearly as worrisome so long as he recognizes the whole thing is none of his business. Frankly, there are a lot of people out there who think homosexuality is icky or wrong, and it will probably be generations before that changes, so it would be great if we could at least get them to append those thoughts with '...but it doesn't affect me, so it's none of my business'.
Milei also appears to be in favor of legalizing drugs, sex work, and the organ trade, which all seems good. So in total it seems like while he could be better on social issues, he could also be a lot worse and 'far-right' is probably not an accurate description.
As for Milei's economic views, I think dollarization will definitely be helpful in the short term. Honestly a big part of this is that now the BCRA can't just print money hand over fist, which is almost certainly partly to blame for Argentina's 140% inflation rate. Being a moderate/centrist libertarian, I agree with some of Milei's other fiscal policies, though I think the way he plans to implement privatization and deregulation opens the door for moneyed interests to further consolidate power. Of course, it also seems like he will face strong opposition in enacting these plans, so who knows.
I am not especially cognizant of Argentine politics, so it's unclear to me whether he's a true ideological paleolibertarian, or whether the libertarianism label is just a cover for the more typical far-right grifting (such as is very often the case in the USA). At face value he seems somewhat more like the former, and I feel like the media has done a job trying to paint him as the latter. I don't know what to think, and unfortunately I haven't seen anybody who's willing to acknowledge both possibilities and try to make an assessment from there.
A homophobic president is harmful even if his attitude is not directly reflected by laws or regulations they put forth themselves. They create an environment that is hostile to LGBT, encouraging bigoted attitudes, and also provide an incentive for legislators to propose bigoted laws of their own, which are either implicitly or explicitly supported by the president and the political climate the president creates.
Source: I'm Brazilian.
Yes, this would be a sort of worst-case scenario. As I said, I'm not all too familiar with him or Argentine politics in general, but based on what I've read, it remains to be seen whether he will actively support his stated policies (which are pro-LGBT), or whether he will tacitly support his homophobic personal beliefs and avoid criticism by paying lip service to his stated policies. But it's important for public perception of these issues not to catastrophize the situation unless it is truly a catastrophe.
🎶One of these things is not like the others🎶
Yup. Looks like Argentina gonna be the spot for wealthy Americans who don't want to wait in line. It'll be a wonderful bastion of capitalism and
slaverypoverty-driven organ harvesting.There's no way this ends well for Argentina.
Just because he's in favor of organ trading, doesn't mean he'll be able to pass it into law.
I never really understood the opposition to legalized organ sales, maybe you could be more specific about what you have an issue with?
There is currently a huge worldwide deficit in the supply of organs. Hundreds of thousands of people are on transplant waiting lists, and many die without ever being so lucky as to receive one. Legalizing sale of organs will dramatically increase the supply, while also providing significant financial benefit to organ donors.
The primary criticism I've seen is that this leads to an exploitative system where people who are desperate to pay the bills sacrifice some part of their health, while only the rich are able to afford the organs that become available on the market. But to me, this is more a criticism of a society that does not support the poor (or produces a large number of poor people to begin with) than a criticism of the organ trade.
The original argument becomes ridiculous if you apply it to anything else. There are plenty of people who work exhausting, demeaning jobs that pay minimal wages in the food industry (both production and retail), while many still struggle to afford food. Does this mean we should make selling food illegal, that all food should be donated? Perhaps there are some on the very far left who would favor this, but really their opposition is not to the organ trade specifically, but just the notion of markets in general (a view that is so distant from my own I feel like it would be pointless to argue against it). But I think most people would favor other solutions such as wage control, basic income, etc. to help people afford food and prevent them from being exploited. Ultimately, I have to ask what makes the organ trade so different that these usual solutions would not apply?
Once you create an "above board" market for it, you're also putting a lot more money and incentive into the unregulated black market for it. This is the same reason people don't want there to be "ethically sourced" elephant tusks. Even if any specific place only collects tusks from elephants that have died naturally or whatever, it's basically impossible to ensure every leg of the supply chain is actually operating ethically.
Now do this with human organs and it gets much much worse. You will now have dodgy or unethical organ harvesting co-occurring alongside with legitimate processes because you've introduced a ton of financial incentive (and significantly lowered the risk of cheating) into the system.
This is a good point. While some of the downsides of the current black market for organs - such as paying too little and charging too much, inadequate medical support, poor donor screening etc. - would probably be alleviated by above board markets, there is still the issue of coercion. But to the extent that coercion would be increased beyond what already exists in the black market, it would be linked to broader economic issues, as I mentioned before. It's hard to coerce someone into selling a kidney if they aren't on the verge of getting evicted. So it seems like the ideal solution is not to outlaw organ markets but to make sure people can afford the basic necessities of life.
I think it might be useful to compare organ black markets with drug black markets. Your argument about legal markets incentivizing black markets applies just as much to drugs - for example, the legalization of cannabis has not reduced (and in some cases has even increased) the prevalence of black markets. Where it is no longer illegal to grow or possess cannabis per se, and where drug-related law enforcement has been significantly dialed back , there is less risk to selling unregulated and untaxed cannabis, even if it is not zero-risk. As a result, there is no shortage of cheaper, black market cannabis whose cannabinoid content is unknown, and which may have been contaminated with pesticides or pathogens.
Yet many would agree it's still favorable to legalize cannabis, even though some may be harmed by the coexisting black market. Admittedly the harms are less than the organ trade, but so are the benefits - a lot of cannabis is just used recreationally, and the medical benefits are usually mild (though there are a few for whom it is life saving). In the organ trade, the potential harms of coercion are more severe, but the benefits are also huge, since a vast majority of recipients are acting from an extreme medical need.
The benefits for the recipients, the people giving up organs for money will not stop being poor AND will greatly damage their health. And maybe not even for the recipient, as they might be attached to a bill they realistically would never be able to pay.
It is akin to legalizing human trafficking, slavery or hiring people to commit crimes for you. It is exploitative and it should not be allowed just because there are other bad thing already happening in the world.
That’s a political project that is many orders of magnitude more complex than simply forbidding the trade in organs.
The harms are both minor and the harms of enforcement are high. In contrast there is little harm in enforcing restrictions on black market organ trades. All it does it ensures supply that is relatively agnostic to potential recipients’ ability to pay rather than being yet another thing that rich people get dibs on at the expense of everyone else.
While rich people are certainly more likely to be able to afford to buy organs, I don't think everyone else would be totally out of luck. Granted I'm no expert on health insurance in Argentina, but at least speaking from what I know about my own health insurance, I'm pretty sure that if supply were not an issue, if I needed an organ transplant, I'd be able to get my insurance to pay for it (though I might need to do a little legwork convincing them). I am by no means rich, and my insurance is mid-tier. Maybe not everyone in my economic situation would fare exactly the same, but I can't imagine that the affordability issue is nearly as prohibitive as the fact that there are so few organ donations under the current system.
You’ll lose at auction
I mean, yes, if we lived in a society that was significantly different from any society current present on planet earth, paying people for donating organs wouldn't be bad. Like many other issues, abolishing poverty would get rid of a ton of problems there.
This is a straw man. As someone who is literally a socialist, believing that workers are being exploited more generally doesn't mean all types of exploitation are identical or equal. Yes, workers are being exploited for their labor in myriad ways. But it's an obvious escalation for the poor to need to literally sell their body parts to the rich in order to survive. Equating that to the (still incredibly exploitative) experience of working in the food industry is farcical.
I support all those things as ways to address poverty. We should do them! But you can't wave away the practical, very predictable harm organ trading causes by saying that if we solved poverty, it wouldn't be an issue. We aren't even close to the point in any country on earth to solving the problem of poverty to an extent that organ trading would not result in exploitation. Allowing organ trading prior to abolishing poverty is at best negligent towards the well-being of the poor, and paying lip-service to solving poverty sometime in the future doesn't get rid of the harms it would have immediately upon being instituted.
I also highly doubt Milei, as a libertarian, is particularly for wage controls and basic income. Even though libertarian is applied to a wide variety of political stances, they're pretty much all solidly in the camp where they're opposed to that kind of state regulation and spending.
Even if the exploitation of the organ trade is more serious than that of the food industry, what I meant for the comparison to show is that in both situations there are two alternatives - a legal market where exploitation occurs but at least there is at least a moderate availability of the product, or a ban on sale resulting in a less exploitative system where there is very little availability, alongside a potentially more exploitative black market (where availability is also very low). When it comes to a product that is so necessary for survival (food and organs both), I personally feel that low availability is more harmful than exploitation.
This is especially true if the exploitation doesn't take away any existing options. As you point out, a person could end up in a situation where they need to sell a kidney to make a rent payment. But isn't this often preferable to the alternative that would exist in the current situation, namely that the person is evicted and becomes homeless? If it were not preferable, then they would not choose to sell their kidney - maybe the person has someone to stay with, or they feel they can endure a short period of homelessness because they just got a job and know of a cheaper place they can rent when they get their first paycheck.
Now obviously, all of these options are terrible. But it doesn't make sense to me to make a terrible option illegal when the only other options are often more terrible.
I agree this could be a problem. As I pointed out in my original post, some of Milei's economic plans are too extreme and rapid and may further entrench the existing oligopoly, and something similar may very well happen given his views on welfare. Personally, I look at the notions of a free market and small government as more of an end goal than an ideological tenet. Like many other moderate/centrist libertarians (there are more of us than you think!), I think something like basic income is necessary to deal with the existing humanitarian crisis of poverty, and that privatization and deregulation, while economically beneficial, must be implemented gradually and with an eye towards preventing corruption.
A big factor in all of this is whether Milei actually has the political support to implement all of his policies. If he is able to reform Argentina's currency woes and legalize the organ trade, but faces enough resistance and critical oversight in his other economic policies to retain (or even increase) welfare in the short term, then things may work out well. I'm sure I haven't convinced you of anything, but I guess we'll have to see exactly what happens.
Well it's not like our organs regenerate. Each human has quite a limited supply of available organs to supposedly "trade" with health tradeoffs potentially for making those decisions... so it only seems remotely reasonable to me (and even then I am stretching for sake of argument) to hypothetically allow organ trade while poverty exists if and only if the monetary return is so extremely high and financially securing that someone never has to consider selling another and never has to pay for any health complications that arise. For a rent payment? That's an absolutely ridiculous situation. So what, they need to sell another one next month? In a world where we can voluntarily sell organs to solve personal financial problems I don't think a month's rent is going to cut it.
This goes along with the poverty-needing-solved-first discussion. It still seems quite perverse for someone to permanently give up a part of their physical being for money, no matter how much.
I find equating this to discussions about food pretty useless considering we can easily grow more food in comparison to the rather extreme event of giving up an organ we cannot regrow
I am personally quite amazed to be reading actual arguments in support of an organ trade even without all the necessary co-issues that need solved before such an idea seems remotely useful. My mind is sufficiently boggled for the week
Organ trade seems evidently harmful in so many ways and for so many obvious reasons that discussing it does not seem like a good use of anyone's time. At the very least, the argumentative duties should be entirely on the side of its defenders.
It's okay to defend absurds, but the effort should be asymmetrically allocated to the ones making the absurd claim.
I should have used a better example than paying rent - realistically, organs are valuable enough that even in a legal market one would likely be able to sell them for hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was thinking more that not being able to pay rent is the straw that breaks the camel's back on that decision, not that the organ would only be able to cover one rent payment.
People give up their health for money all the time. There are plenty of dangerous, physically taxing, or otherwise injurious jobs, but even if the health effects of these are ultimately permanent, they are more gradual and more socially acceptable, so it's harder to conceptualize this as the same kind of sacrifice as selling an organ.
In some ways, selling an organ may be a better trade for one's health than a physical labor (for instance). As they say, 'it's expensive to be poor', and someone who's eking out a living a little bit at a time may be losing more money renting an apartment instead of owning one, buying poor quality home goods that constantly need replacing, eating cheap food that worsens their health, etc., not to mention that they may not be able to afford an education or any other sort of investment in their future. Taking a lump sum for an organ may give someone the leverage to stabilize their expenditures, and in the long run save them money.
It's not a perfect comparison, but just because we can grow more food doesn't mean we should neglect the cost of doing so. A permanent loss of an organ is extreme, but think about how much labor you would need to apply towards the production or sale of food to make the same amount of money - we're talking years and years of labor, and the loss of time is just as permanent as the loss of a body part. I think it's up to the individual to assess which trade-off is worthwhile.
And for what it's worth, I would love to solve the necessary co-issues in tandem with legalization of the organ trade. I felt I made my support for basic income pretty clear (for instance), and there should obviously be some initial regulatory framework aimed at preventing abuses.
This exact same argument could be used for selling yourself into indentured servitude. Or allowing child labor -- only the truly desperately poor who really need the money would have their young children working in factories, after all! This exact argument WAS used against establishing the 8-hour workday and has been used to advocate against minimum wages. Poor and desperate people will willingly participate in tons of things that harm them because they're, well, poor and desperate. But that doesn't mean these things should be allowed solely because they'd help a poor person make rent.
There are really only two positions here. You can believe that the government should make certain ways of harming the poor and desperate illegal, because when they're legal they will inevitably used to exploit people in horrific ways that we don't deem acceptable as a society. You then have to argue why you think that selling one's organs does not meet that threshold but indentured servitude and child labor and working for less than minimum wage do. I honestly think most people would believe that selling one's own organs is a deeper and more permanent choice than many other things like that which we do regulate.
The other option is to believe that the government shouldn't make any of those things illegal, despite the fact that they'll be used to harm poor people, because the poor and desperate want to "voluntarily" participate in those systems to afford to survive. This is, I strongly suspect, far closer to what Milei believes and it's certainly closer to the practical effects of the policies he advocates for. You may well not believe this yourself, given that you call yourself a moderate/centrist -- if you do believe this, you absolutely cannot claim to be moderate.
No.
Quite often, housing prices are a result of politics, and rent is a factor of what people are able to pay. Increasing how much people are able to pay just results in rent going up, and non-kidney-sellers being priced out. All you're doing is enriching landlords and taking away poor peoples' kidneys.
The solution here is to unfuck the housing market, not to permit organ markets.
I don't think I agree with this assessment. There are many factors that determine rent prices, and while the housing shortage does mean landlords can increase rent to a point, there is enough competition to keep prices somewhat limited, especially as we see the work-from-home movement gaining momentum, which increases the choice people have in where to live. In fact, some research suggests that UBI does not cause housing market inflation. I think mechanistically the situation is similar to what you'd see from the increased average wealth of renters from a legalized organ market.
And actually, the more I think about it, the more likely it seems that organ sales are lucrative enough that many people who make money from them would turn away from renting towards property ownership, which further reduces any potential effect on rent prices.
I agree that we should unfuck the housing market, but I don't think legalized organ markets will have much of an effect on it one way or another.
Nice to see he's not even in office yet and he's already sabre rattling about the Falklands.