ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax



It seems pretty obvious what's the difference between compensation and reimbursement.
Reimbursement only means you can get your actual costs back -- but different legal regimes could define "actual costs" differently, so Singapore seems to be adopting a more reasonable definition that would come closer to reimbursing the true cost.
But compensation -- which is what we really want -- would allow payments substantially in excess of real cost, according to market conditions. This could in no sense be characterized as reimbursement.
Compensated organ donation is a 'textbook' case of anti-market bias. We know that economists suffer from anti-market bias less than average. Anecdotally, whenever I see an argument in favor of compensated organ donation it is usually from an economist.
Would you guess that economists, in general, are more amenable to the idea than average? Is there any other group that we might see this trend in? How about people who need organ donations? How about physicians?
Without compensation, they'll get my kidneys when they pry them from my cold, dead retroperitoneum...