Activist thinking — curse or blessing?
There is much to criticize in activism (especially by economists), but is it all bad?
Imagine your kidneys have ceased functioning, and you have been needing dialysis for months, waiting for a transplant. Buying and selling organs is of course illegal, but you also know that your neighbour’s kidney would be a match for you. Hypothetically, how much would you be willing to pay her for one of her healthy kidneys? Alternatively, imagine the reverse situation, and it is you who have the organ that would help your neighbour, and she asks you to name your price. How much money would you want for it?
Would you, in either case, engage in economic decision making, weighing up costs and benefits? Would you, in the first case, reflect on the luxuries you’d be willing to sacrifice to get a healthy kidney right now? In the second case, would you imagine what you might buy with the sum of money you’d demand from your neighbour? Or would you be willing to pay what it takes to get the organ you so badly need — or not even consider parting with your own healthy kidney for any money?
Benefits without the costs
We are here, albeit hypothetically, at the border of ordinary economic decision making. Many of our decisions do involve weighing up costs…
