**I created this website literally in an hour without consulting any references on economics. I apologize for its informality, pop-up ads, and lack of professional diagrams. I promise there is relevant stuff at the bottom. Feel free to skip over stuff you feel you understand. I used Paint to create the images and Microsoft Word to create the webpage at the library since I lack internet access at home and therefore am unskilled at all things technologic.**
The law of supply states that as prices increase, the quantity supplied or produced increases. In other words, businesses would produce more goods or services to be purchased by consumers when they can charge a higher price for them. This follows the basic reasoning that businesses would want to increase their profits for self-interest. Graphically the supply curve would look something like this:
The law of demand states that as prices increase, the quantity demanded will decrease. In other words, as goods and services become more expensive, consumers are less willing to buy large amounts. Graphically the demand curve would look something like this:
The reason the graphs curve and are not straight lines is due to theories created by an important man named Keynes. I am not economics expert by any means so I will not try to explain downwardly inflexible prices. Therefore, you should find a good economics book in the library to figure it out for yourself. All I know is that it has to do with the fact that people won't settle for really low wages or something like that.
Putting the Supply and Demand Together:
When you overlap the demand and supply curves, you get this:
The price level where the two slopes intersect is called the equilibrium price (Pe). This price is also called the market-clearing price because the amount demanded and the amount supplied is the same. That name makes sense because everything in the market that is produced is bought, and then the market is empty or clear. The free market system automatically adjusts to this price. This concept is illustrated below:
When the price is above the equilibrium price, there is a surplus (Psu). In other words, the quantity supplied is greater than the quantity demanded, and the producers have leftovers. They couldn't sell everything.
When the price is below the equilibrium price, there is a shortage (Psh). In other words, the quantity demanded is greater than the quantity supplied. Consumers want more than what is being produced. These concepts are illustrated below:
The Organ Market:
Now that we have a simple understanding of the two fundamental laws that govern economics, let's examine the organ market. Demand in the organ market would be inelastic. In other words, people would pay anything for an organ because it's a "life or death" situation. They're desperate. So the demand slope would be almost vertical since people would pay pretty much any price for it. This is shown below:
Now the Pb shown above would be the black market price. People selling illegal goods tend to inflate the prices a lot because they know they can get a lot of money for it. You have to be desperate to do something illegal. This makes it seem like there's a really big surplus, but that's beside the point.
What's really important is the numbers. The simple truth is that there are potentially enough organs from the recently deceased to give a transplant to everyone who needs one. Or at least the one reference I found said it was so. This would eliminate the black market and decrease the number of living donors, since they would not be necessary. How to encourage people to write their request to become a donor in their wills and make family members see the importance of donation is the real problem. If there were remuneration in a market system for cadaveric organs, it could sway them in the right direction. Plus, the equilibrium price would be lower and more affordable. Poor people could receive extra welfare if they can't afford an organ. It's kind of like food. It's a necessity, but there's a price and a market. It's not for free. Those who truly can't afford get help from the government.
Why not just plain incentives? Why doesn't the government just dole out the cash? Well, taxpayers gripe enough already, and incentives like tax breaks don't really work because it still has to do with the whole failure to advertise problem. Thanks to government inertia, people still do not care enough and are not educated enough about donating organs (myself included). What are the odds that government implemented incentives can do any better? It's already costing $6 billion to cover the medical bills.
There's nothing like the private industry to advertise and innovate. Plus, it would drive the black market out of business for good. This is the most practical way of looking at things. To think that there could be a purely altruistic system is a bit naïve.
Eventually, people wouldn't be on a waiting list for organs so they wouldn't be desperate for them. With enough cadaveric organs to go around, people won't need living donors at all. Granted, there was that one study Finkel mentioned about how people with transplants from living people did better than those with transplants from dead people. This goes back to the old Hippocratic Oath. Why do harm to living people until it's absolutely necessary? No need to cut into a living person, right? Living donors should be a last resort anyways. Doctors can tell people that they're unwilling to perform such a surgery when a dead person can help them right away.
Personally, I do have to admit a market system for something like organs must truly be an American idea and not global as the prompt requires. Most places have socialized medicine, and this would seem ludicrous. There is always hope. Only in America…
That's essentially my solution in a nutshell (without concern for grammar, spelling, political correctness, or cohesiveness). By the way, this is a good example of how I speak, not how I write. Maybe you should consider a speech requirement in addition to writing.
