I can see the problem one runs into by using DNA and other body parts for purposes other than those that the donors expected. But there are high transaction costs associated with trying to get consent from large groups in order to carry out successful experiments. It becomes a missed opportunity to effective research especially when those that don’t want to cooperate “appear to be necessary” to finding what information scientists do need to head down a promising path. How does one find the happy balance between human rights and expedited scientific research? What if the gains from the research are greater than the emotional and perhaps psychological cost to the individual? Does that mean we can favor one over the other? Yes. If a choice had to be made, I would choose in favor of limited scientific restrictions. Especially if there are ways to keep people content and happy, such as by keeping injurious information from being leaked. Sacrifice for the greater good is not a bad thing. We shouldn’t ignore the potentially good effects that come from allowing researchers to use what information they already do have for further research. Again, the costs of doing so are little and rarely hurtful in comparison to the good that comes from allowing doctors to do such things. Requiring the consent of those whose DNA we do have before any other purposes are pursued would impose too much of a burden on the system and detract from the work of researchers to do what they are meant to do.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’
Arizona’s Immigration Law: the Hidden Costs.
Recently, Arizona passed new legislation regarding illegal immigrants. The internet and media are up-in-arms over whether this law is good, bad, racist, or practical. This article discusses how Arizona’s bold steps in immigration reform will have an impact not only within Arizona, but will extend to affect neighboring states such as Texas. States like Texas are now reviewing their own immigration policies.
But is Arizona’s new reform worth the risks? Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst stated “I understand the frustration of the people of Arizona with the federal government’s failure to secure our borders and stop illegal immigration, drug trafficking and dangerous transnational gangs coming across from Mexico…I think the federal government should do [their part] by dramatically increasing the number of border patrol agents to secure our borders once and for all.” Arizona’s new policy, however takes the opposite approach. The new statute allows state law enforcement officers to arrest those suspected of being “illegals” if they fail to carry documentation proving legal residency with them at all times. Although this will surely be able to further the ability to stop the spread of illegal immigrants within the state, it will come with a price. The opportunity cost of enforcing the new law should be obvious. According to Katy Bacon, “we can’t have police officers taken off of answering 911 calls in order to stop cars on the street or ask for people’s papers in a restaurant.” The law will inevitably cause police officers to spend more time enforcing immigration laws and imprisoning (more often than not) non-violent immigrants when their time could be spent protecting the state’s citizens from dangerous criminals.
Even more importantly, there is a statute within the new law which allows citizens to sue local law enforcement if they believe that they are not properly enforcing the new immigration laws. This puts officers in a double-bind. Either they spend their maximum amount of effort enforcing immigration policies, at the expense of capturing violent and dangerous criminals, or else they risk the possibility of lawsuits from citizens dissatisfied with the level of enforcement on immigration laws.
There are many other issues and problems with immigration reform which can and probably should be looked to in order to decide what would truly be best for the country, however, my time is somewhat limited. What do you think? Does Arizona’s new immigration law look like it will prove beneficial or detrimental to Arizona and its neighboring states?
Negative Externalities equal for everyone?
Recently, a massive oil spill was sparked in the Gulf of Mexico after an oil rig sank and left a well open, which is now spewing roughly 200,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The owner of the rig, BP, has made various attempts at sealing the well using eight robotic submarines but has so far been unsuccessful.
This article brought me back to the beginning of the semester and the topic of negative externalities. Even though drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by U.S. companies has some benefits, mainly keeping gas prices down, how much is it really worth to us as a nation to risk our fragile ecosystems in order to save money at the pump? Personally, I feel that off shore drilling is not a very appealing solution to our dependency on foreign oil, a feeling that is only reinforced when something like this happens. However, when I think about the possible negative externalities that can come from further dependency on foreign oil, I think that I am willing to risk the occasional oil spill in exchange. Inversely, the value of our nation’s fragile ecosystems is far greater to others than to me, which illustrates perfectly how and why deciding what is “right” is so difficult, since the impact of negative externalities such as this oil spill can not accurately be measured for everyone, but rather purely on a case by case basis.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/oil.spill.coast.impact/index.html?hpt=T2
eminent auburn
These two articles 1 2 discuss the impact of eminent domain on a local business in Auburn, New York. Though eminent domain hadn’t been used yet at the time of the article the city had said it was prepared to use it if forced to.
Eminent Domain is a difficult subject to discuss. On the one hand, I believe that for certain PUBLIC good projects like an airport or a highway, it might be a good tool that cities can use to serve broad interests. On the other hand, we should ask what gives the city of Auburn the right to pick and choose which taxpayer is better for a certain location.
The city’s argument for taking the property is that the hotel will employ more people and will bring in more tax money than the businesses that currently reside in the location. The city’s point of view is that this is a positive step for the majority of the citizens. The city will also pay the current owners a ”fair” price for their property. Now if an outsider looks upon this situation what will he say? Economic efficiency is being served, and everyone will come out better as property owners are compensated and the new property generates more tax money. But, it is not likely that this is the way the current owners see it and because we can all imagine ourselves in their shoes, we may oppose it as well.
The thought of one’s property being taken for “economic gains” rarely sits well with Americans. There is a certain expectation that once you purchase a piece of property, that no one can come and selectively take away your rights to that land without your consent. Moreover, the public good in this case depends on a private company producing the benefit the city projects. This event is reminiscent of the Kelo case, another situation where property was taken so that a company might create jobs in the community. Unfortunately, when the economy turned, the company moved out. Nothing the city could do would stop the effect of the economy and so the citizens gained nothing from this intrusion on property rights.
Perhaps city leaders in Auburn should take a lesson from Ms. Kelo’s loss.
A comment on the Greek Bailout.
So i tried commenting on the post concerning the Greek bailout but the comment wouldn’t publish. So this format will have to do.
I think that the Obama Administration’s concern over the Greek deficit may come from the impacts that the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. appears to have had on the declining Greek finances. Goldman Sachs is a company that comes to mind when looking back on the economic hardships experienced by the United States over the last couple of years. Similar to the United States banking meltdown, Greece is suffering from their use of “liar loans” that were used to mislead other nations into thinking Greek deficit was really Greek profit. By cooking the books, Greece was able to have a prominent role in European politics, peaking with the privilege of hosting the 2004 Summer Olympic Games. It is these Games, that served as an early example of Greece borrowing more money then it could every wish to remake.
The significant different between the U.S. and Greek financial crisis is that, if aided, the Greek deficit could prove to be a “contagion.” Greek If other countries rush to the aide of Greece they could be consumed by the burdening debt. Nations such as Portugal and Romania could tank leaving Eastern Europe at the mercy of the West. The Euro and Dollar could prove too weak to support the burdens of Greek assistance.
The United States would do best to adhere to the economic position taken by Germany, hesitating before placing the value of the dollar into a situation where the outcome is anyone’s guess. Wouldn’t sound economic theory insist on letting Greece suffer the consequences of a bad economic policy?
Fool’s Gold? The case of Olympic hosting
In 2004 the world was invited back to the city of Athens, birthplace of the Olympics, to participate in the summer Olympic Games. Greece was the smallest nation to ever host the games, but few worried that the small country wouldn’t be able to manage the event. In 2002 the Greek deficit was a manageable 1.4 percent of the nation’s GDP and Greece was eager to receive the benefits of hosting. However, the promise of increased tourism, employment, and additional economic revenue fell short of its promise as Greece fell further into debt. Six years later the Greek economic status continues to fall deeper into debt as the deficit has climbed well over 12.7 percent of GDP 02.htm.
While Greek politicians petitioned the European Union for aide, the world was in Vancouver celebrating the Winter Games. In the weeks following, Vancouver economists and Olympic experts happily concluded that “The Olympic Games [had] provided a big, even if temporary, boost to retail trade, arts, entertainment and recreation, accommodation and food services in Vancouver. [Concluding that] all in all, the Olympics had injected about 600-million into the economy.” Canada
More countries than ever before in Olympic history are petitioning for the chance to host the games. But is it in the best economic interest of a country to host an Olympic Game?
Supreme Court to rule on violent video games and minors
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_wguy/20100427/tc_ytech_wguy/ytech_wguy_tc1807_2 I think that this is a very interesting article. This talks about recent strike downs of the Supreme Court in similar cases. Do you believe that the incentives are in the right place on either side of this law? Should minors be regulatable in entertainment? I think that speech is important, but I also believe that there are things that should be kept from children. If this passes, do you think that children will need to be admitted to R movies if it is R for violence?
Tough Laws for Underage DUI
KSL posted this article that discusses the a new Utah law concerning penalties for underage DUI’s. The penalty is extremely severe to the degree of having your license taken away until the minor individual turns 21 years old. An example is given of a girl who is 17 and will have to go without a driver’s license for 4 more years. She was pulled over for an improper left hand turn and registered a .03 on the breathalyzer test.
I do not think anybody should drink and drive, even if they are under the limit of .08. But I also do not think it is reasonable in the least to take away a driver’s license until the individual turns 21 years old. This law is too much especially considering that a first time DUI and testing over a .08 for somebody over 21 loses their license for only 120 days. There needs to be a smaller first penalty to dampen the blow. It is unreasonable for somebody who usually is finishing up high school, and even college, to do so without the opportunity to drive.
It is also interesting to note that the senate president Michael Waddoups had a wife seriously injured by a person driving under the influence of alcohol. I wonder if he has a particularly subjective opinion based on his experiences that would lead him to push through such tough laws? Also, Mr. Waddoups planned on people less than 21 hearing about the law from their peers in order to be informed of its enforcement. It is a pretty sad deal when somebody doesn’t know about the law, breaks it, then has a DUI on their record and no driver’s license until they turn 21.
America’s Bailout of Greece = Rationality?
A recent Washington Times article, relating to the IMF’s bailout of Greece, ignited an honest concern for rationality in governance. The proposal for the IMF to bailout Greece currently stands at approximately $50 billion. The United States happens to hold the largest share in the IMF’s monetary relief funds. This share is set at about 17 percent and the perplexing controversy lies in the shares held by other EU member countries. Germany stands at 6 percent, France at 5, the United Kingdom 5, and Italy at 3 percent of the bailout sharing. Crunching simple numbers reveals the United State’s share to be a gut wrenching $8 billion. Our share of the punch combined is equal to that of the aforementioned European nations own contributions. In addition, this bailout comes at a time when talks of our own deficit reaching unsustainable figures is at hand. Why then is this being considered by our political leaders? If Greece fails, which is highly likely without substantial support, would it not serve to strengthen a US dollar that has taken a hit by Euro dominance? Would not foreign nations start to buy back dollars they sold for Euros long ago? The bottom line rests with our nation being in no position to dull out lump sums against ‘possible’ returns on interest. Certain economic crises call for a measure of selfish state actions and America taking on the debt crisis of a foreign nation at this point simply seems wrong. Wake up Washington. Our ‘robust’ economy is in no way the wishing well of world wealth it once was and any sense of saving market rationality certainly seems lost by these endeavors.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/20/america-on-the-verge-of-bailing-out-greece/
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.htm