Analysis of a Market for Votes

Evaluating a Market for Human Organs

A new service allows people to hire someone to wait in line for them at a popular public event. The person waiting is paid for their time, and the person hiring them avoids the long wait. Assuming all parties are consenting adults who are fully informed, which statement best explains why this transaction could be considered a mutually beneficial improvement compared to a situation where paying for a spot is disallowed?

Evaluating a Market for University Admission Slots

Evaluating a Market for Personal Data

Evaluating a Market for Military Service Substitutes

A new company offers a service providing clients with verifiable, but false, alibis for personal, non-criminal situations (e.g., deceiving a spouse about one's whereabouts). The company and its clients are consenting, fully-informed adults. From an economic perspective that considers only the direct exchange, this transaction appears to make both parties better off. However, what is the strongest argument for legally prohibiting such a market?

A new service allows individuals to pay for 'friendship services,' where they hire someone to provide companionship and social interaction for a fee. Both parties are consenting, fully-informed adults. A proponent of the service argues: 'Since the exchange is voluntary and mutually agreed upon, it indisputably makes both parties better off than they were before, and therefore, there are no valid reasons to consider legally prohibiting this market.' Is this proponent's statement correct?

Each of the following scenarios describes a hypothetical market. Match each market scenario with the primary economic or ethical argument often raised against it, even if other arguments might also apply.

Evaluating a Market for Community Pollution Rights