2 ms·
I'm not surprised, just amazed people would say it's "(more) valuable" and the UK must be "doing something right" without a second thought as to whether they're
by lozenge 5y ago
I'm not surprised, just amazed people would say it's "(more) valuable" and the UK must be "doing something right" without a second thought as to whether they're confusing financial value with moral value, or whether the transfer of money really represents a transfer of value.
Spare me the Econ 101, Harley Street is a status symbol, the doctors there are not more highly paid because they're objectively safer or more skilled.
I guess we could call Africa's history of conflict, exploitation and colonialism, and usurious loans from the World Bank to leaders who aren't interested in their citizens' welfare, a distortion of the local market.
- Droobfest 5y agoIt's a matter of risk that I'm paying for to avoid, not absolute quality. I would not wager my life on a random doctor in Africa even while 90% of doctors there might be more skilled than in London. I'm paying to eliminate the risk of encountering the worst 10%. In that light, yes I would personally expect the doctors in London to be able to avoid the worst outcomes better on average. Whether that's warranted is another discussion. This goes for loads of stuff. I would wager a $30 meal to be fresher than a $5 meal on average. I'm not saying there aren't any $5 meals that are fresher than some $30 meals, but just that the $30 has a lot lower chance to make me sick.
- burnished 5y agoI think you're confusing a sometimes reasonable heuristic (you can get what you pay for), with some kind of underlying or real value.
- MichaelZuo 5y agoYou were the one who wrote in a monetary figure, thus implying some monetary value to the “worth”. If you want to consider solely moral value, without any monetary component, then that obviously has different implications.