Podcast appearances and mentions of peter jaworski

Alex Aragona speaks with Peter Jaworski as he explores his definition of libertarianism, and how different kinds of morality can lead to certain conclusions about libertarian institutions.

The New Zealand Blood Service has warned that without more donors we will rely more heavily on imported plasma products. Questions have been asked as to whether it is time we start compensating plasma donors to increase donations. Professor Peter Jaworski has come out with a report highlighting how every country that permits plasma compensating has surplus plasma collections. Georgetown University Associate Teaching Professor Peter Jaworski joined Mike Hosking. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alex speaks with frequent guest Peter Jaworski about the gap between a moral obligation and the expectation that some specific institution ought to be the one to realize that moral obligation - especially an institution like the state.

Georgetown University professor Peter Jaworski joins the Rush to explore the ethical dilemmnas surrounding paying for plasma donation..TDSB's Ryan Bird on whether or not exams are becoming a  thing of the past for Ontario 

Today's guests: Dr. Peter Jaworski, teaches business ethics at Georgetown University and has written extensively about the issue of plasma donor compensation Dr. Lauryn Oates, executive director - Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan

Alex Aragona speaks with Peter Jaworski as he explores his definition of libertarianism, and how different kinds of morality can lead to certain conclusions about libertarian institutions.

Alex speaks with Sabine El-Chidiac and Peter Jaworski about the advantages of advocating for more refugees and immigrants in Canada, and how it makes both immigrants and receiving countries better off. 

Peter Jaworski, a philosophy professor at the Georgetown University McDonough school of business, and Rob Gressis, a philosophy professor at California State University Northridge, join Spencer to debate the pros and cons of open borders.

In this episode, Prof. Jaworski and I discuss the relationship between business and ethics, the ethical scope of the marketplace, and various objections to the practice of paying people for blood plasma—a market that undoubtedly saves numerous lives. Peter Jaworski is an Associate Teaching Professor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. He specializes in business and medical ethics, and holds a doctorate in philosophy from Bowling Green State University. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit jimmyalfonsolicon.substack.com

Plasma-derived therapies are used daily by thousands of individuals around the world with chronic, rare conditions. Because of its diverse and lifesaving uses, knowledge of plasma-derived therapies and plasma donation is critical. Here with us to discuss the ethics of plasma is a panel of influential leaders, Mark Skinner, JD, Johan Prevot, Val Bias, and Peter Jaworski, Ph.D. This episode was originally presented during IDF's 2021 PI Conference in June.

-Presenting the Consumer Choice Center US Electric Vehicle Accessibility Index, with Elizabeth Hicks (@eohicks), US Affairs Analyst at the Consumer Choice Center https://consumerchoicecenter.org/united-states-electric-vehicle-accessibility-index/ INTERVIEW: Peter Jaworski (@petermjaworski) -Why compensating blood plasma donors is illegal in Canada and why it should change -The anti-American narrative around blood plasma donations  -Are vaccine lotteries economically worth it? Peter Martin Jaworski is an Associate Teaching Professor teaching Ethical Values of Business to undergraduates and Ethical Leadership to MBAs and Executive MBAs. He was a Visiting Research Professor at Brown University, a Visiting Assistant Professor at the College of Wooster, and an Instructor at Bowling Green State University. Radio: https://sauga960am.ca Radio: http://bigtalkerfm.com Website: http://consumerchoiceradio.com YouTube: https://youtu.be/HgZ2Cj10XTM Write to us: hello@consumerchoiceradio.com Need a VPN to mask your online surfing? Use our affiliate code: https://consumerchoiceradio.com/vpn ***PODCAST*** Apple: http://apple.co/2G7avA8 Spotify: http://spoti.fi/3iXIKIS Produced by the Consumer Choice Center: https://consumerchoicecenter.org Support the show: http://consumerchoicecenter.org/donate See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alex Aragona speaks with Peter Jaworski as he explores his definition of libertarianism, and how different kinds of morality can lead to certain conclusions about libertarian institutions.

Peter Jaworski is an assistant teaching Professor of Strategy, Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. He is co‐founder and Vice‐Chairman of the Board of Directors at the Institute for Liberal Studies. In today's episode, some of the things we talked about were: the insane power of meaningful work, plasma donation in repugnant markets, the morals/ethics of corporations, how to approach an ethical dilemma and say no, and much more! Dangerously Good with Jay Sikand is a long-form podcast where Jay explores dangerously good topics and ideas! This show is about learning new things and sharing that journey with the world! Expanding the minds and imaginations of those who want to partake. Expect new episodes and clips every Tuesday! Watch the podcast on the Dangerously Good YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okBZoFHgBxg) & For CLIPS of the podcast, subscribe to the Dangerously Good Clips Youtube channel! (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChmDAQzfpNdmEi10lqBReuQ) Chapters: 0:00 - Intro 1:38 - Work From Home setup 2:56 - Pineapples, an illustration of how wealthy we are

Peter makes the case for paid plasma. I commit basketball treasonPeter Jaworski is is an Associate Teaching Professor in Strategy, Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. He has published in Ethics, Philosophical Studies, the Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, and the Journal of Business Ethics, among others. Helpful links for this podcast:1. Peter Jaworski, Bloody Well Pay Them: The Case for Voluntary Remunerated Plasma Collections, https://www.niskanencenter.org/bloody-well-pay-them-the-case-for-voluntary-remunerated-plasma-collections/ 2. English, William and Jaworski, Peter M., The Introduction of Paid Plasma in Canada and the U.S. Has Not Decreased Unpaid Blood Donations (July 15, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3653432 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.36534323. Peter M. Jaworski, "Not compensating Canadian blood plasma donors means potentially risky reliance on foreign plasma", The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/not-compensating-canadian-blood-plasma-donors-means-potentially-risky-reliance-on-foreign-plasma-1439704. Peter M. Jaworski, "Canada should not be spending $1 billion on plasma imports; it should be producing enough to export, and for that, we need to pay Canadian donors", Policy Options: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/august-2020/why-isnt-canada-a-net-contributor-to-the-global-plasma-supply/

We spoke with Peter Jaworski, Associate Teaching Professor in Strategy, Ethics, Economics and Public Policy at Georgetown University / Author of new study: "Bloody Well Pay Them: The Case for Voluntary Remunerated Plasma Collections"

Alex Aragona and Peter Jaworski explore Peter's perspective on what the limits of markets should be. The conversation also explores the ethics surrounding paid blood and plasma donations.

In the 6th episode I sit down with Peter Jaworski, a Georgetown professor. We discuss the theory "if its good enough for FREE then it's good enough for PAY". Enjoy the listen and please leave us review on your thoughts!  Watch and please don't forget to COMMENT and SHARE! Follow us! The Podcast - @EforExplicitPodcast Corey Packer - @cp_films Peter Jaworski - @Dr_Jaws

Getting paid for your blood—do you have any concerns? Many people are opposed to donors receiving compensation for ethical reasons. Should people only donate blood for altruistic reasons? Should we worry about exploitation? How much of America’s total exports are blood products? Join Antony Davies, James Harrigan, and their guest Peter Jaworski, co-author of the book Markets Without Limits, as they discuss the morality underlying the supply and demand of blood plasma around the world. Win tickets to FEEcon 2019! Show Notes: Deficit up 15% in 2019 Deficit up 17% in 2018 Tourism and Chernobyl Foolishness of the week: Illinois to raise smoking age to 21 Florida town makes it illegal to grow vegetables State of Florida overrules Florida town Topic of the week: Blood plasma sales: Peter Jaworski Letter to Senate of Canada regarding the ban on blood plasma sales Canada needs blood plasma We should pay for blood plasma donations Bans on blood plasma sales 1 Bans on blood plasma sales 2 Don’t end NAFTA, Canada needs your bodily fluids Join the conversation: Words & Numbers Backstage Antony Davies on Twitter James R. Harrigan on Twitter Peter Jaworski on Twitter Antony Davies on Minds.com James R. Harrigan on Minds.com Let us know what you think at: wordsandnumberspodcast@gmail.com  

Why are Canadians considering prohibiting other Canadians from being paid for providing blood plasma? Peter Jaworski comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This week on Episode 390 of The Paleo Solution Podcast we have Prof. Peter Jaworski. Prof. Jaworski is an Assistant Teaching Professor teaching business ethics. He was a Visiting Research Professor at Brown University, a Visiting Assistant Professor at the College of Wooster, and an Instructor at Bowling Green State University. He is also author of the book Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests.   Show Notes: 00:00 – Pre-Intro/Summary 4:04 – Intro, Markets 7:30 – Morality and disgust 9:30 – Medicine and health care 11:55 – Why is it so hard to have a conversation about health care, markets, and morality? 13:30 – Rise in cost in certain sectors 16:25 – Decentralized market experiments 17:50 – Telemedicine and medical tourism 19:13 – Medical product market across borders, and payment for blood plasma 25:28 – Markets don’t affect wrong or right 29:00 – Market outcomes affecting morality 30:05 – Anti-market attitudes, evolution, and collectivism 34:45 – Dunbar’s Number 37:40 – Where you can find Peter and his book Website: marketswithoutlimits.com Book: Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests

My guest is Peter Jaworski of Georgetown University's McDonough School of Business. He is the author, along with Jason Brennan, of Markets Without Limits. We recorded this on August 24th, 2017, the same day Peter published an op-ed in the National Post titled "Canada needs blood plasma. We should pay donors to get it." The op-ed argues in favour of allowing people who donate blood plasma in Canada to be compensated in return: Canada buys the overwhelming majority of its plasma-protein products from American, for-profit companies that attract plasma donors by paying them. In 2016, Canadian Blood Services collected only 17 per cent of the total plasma it needs for essential plasma-products. To cover the shortfall, Canadian taxpayers spent $623 million buying just one of these products, immune globulin. That’s why Canadian Blood Services (CBS) recently asked the government for $855 million in additional funding over the next seven years. They want to use the funds to open plasma collection centres that could collect more plasma that would be used to manufacture more of these products. And small wonder. Plasma-product pharmaceuticals treat a growing list of ailments, including life-threatening bleeding disorders, immune deficiencies, and infectious diseases like tetanus and hepatitis. Despite this, when the Canadian company Canadian Plasma Services (CPS) stepped in to fill more of this need domestically—by using a paid donor model—groups like the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Canadian Health Coalition and others launched an aggressive campaign to stop them. Peter and I discuss the best and most popular arguments against compensating blood plasma donors, and organ donors in general, then Peter gives counterarguments to each of these objections. Furthermore, we discuss the United States' recent legalization of compensation for bone marrow donors. In 2012, The Institute for Justice successfully argued in front of the 9th Circuit Court of the United States that bone marrow should be exempted from the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), since bone marrow can be extracted from blood and does not thus count as an organ. Blood was specifically exempted from NOTA.

Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski think that anything you’re allowed to do for free, you should be able to do for money. That means things like buying and selling kidneys, children, sex, grades; even waiting in line. Are they right?What should you be able to buy and sell? What does it mean to pay someone for something?Show Notes and Further ReadingBrennan and Jaworski’s book is Markets without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests (2015).Markets without Limits is partially a response to this book, What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (2013) by Michael J. Sandel.One of our very first Free Thoughts podcast episodes was with James Stacey Taylor on this very same topic. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

(October 26, 2016) Dr J travels to Austin, Texas to debate philosophy professor Dr. Peter Jaworski on the topic "Markets Without Limits." Are markets for surrogacy and prostitution ethical? This event was sponsored by the Texas Economics Association, the James Q. Wilson Forum, and the Austin Institute. Check out our Ruth Refuge for the Q&A session in the middle of the event.

…or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Inequality. David R. Henderson (http://www.davidrhenderson.com) is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and a professor of economics at the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California. Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century (http://amzn.to/1LT9jLG) managed to do something unprecedented among equation-dense economic tomes, it became the #1 selling book on Amazon.com. The book tapped in to a hot topic among politicians and the general public: the high (and possibly rising) wealth and income shares of the top 1%. However, David points out that although the book was a best-seller, it wasn’t actually a best-reader. Amazon logs the sentences people highlight, and the top five most-highlighted sentences in Capital all appear in the first 26 pages (www.wsj.com/articles/the-summers-most-unread-book-is-1404417569). It seems that, at least among kindle readers, most people didn’t make it past the introduction. It appears that people buy the book to back up the views they already hold. David thinks that the huge interest in economic inequality in general and the wealth of the 1% in particular was sparked in the 1990s by politicians, including Al Gore, and picked up by journalists like Sylvia Nasar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Nasar), before influencing the economics debate. Piketty has been able to ride this wave of public interest at what appears to be its crest. David distinguishes between inequality of wealth, inequality of income, and inequality of power. Income inequality is the difference in the amount of income we each take in in wages, interest, dividends, and government transfers (e.g. welfare or social security payments), the four main sources of income for most people. Wealth should ideally include the total value of a person’s assets in addition to the stream of income he is likely to earn in the future, though this stream is more often ignored in wealth statistics. Wealth inequality is not the same as income inequality. Critically, since people earn variable income throughout their lives, income inequality doesn’t capture what we think of as the gap between “rich” and “poor.” Retired people who own two-million-dollar homes might have low incomes, but they certainly aren’t poor. Or, to use an example that’s relevant to myself, as a PhD student my income probably sits in the bottom quintile, and yet I can expect a much higher income after I graduate. The major factor in both income inequality and wealth inequality (measured by current assets and not expected earnings) is age. Teenagers earn little or nothing, but they grow into adults and gain skills and education, their incomes rise, and they gain wealth through savings. Even if everyone had the same lifetime earnings, there would still be significant inequality in any given year since some people would be young low-earners, while others would be older, wealthier high-earners. And since the older people would have had the chance to accumulate wealth over a lifetime, they would have twenty times the wealth of their younger counterparts. While there is a correlation between wealth and power, that correlation is by no means perfect. David gives the example of Bill Gates who discovered the hard way that when you have too little political influence, it can be costly. Gates was hit with a long and costly antitrust suit, after which he greatly expanded his lobbying efforts; he had learned his lesson. David agrees with Joseph Stiglitz’ argument (http://amzn.to/1LT9dDC), to some extent, that large accumulations of wealth are the result of rent seeking. Local governments restrict the building of new homes and developments that could expand the supply of housing. Thus, they keep real estate prices artificially high to the benefit of those who already own their homes. This is an example of successful rent seeking by homeowners to the detriment of non-homeowners. However, while Stiglitz would argue that this justifies a higher tax rate on the wealthy, David prefers the more direct solution of simply reducing or removing these restrictions. The following are also mentioned in this episode: Wealth Inequality in America (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM) Piketty and Saez vs. Burkhauser and Cornell: Who’s right on income inequality and stagnation? (https://www.aei.org/publication/piketty-and-saez-vs-burkhauser-and-cornell-whos-right-on-income-inequality-and-stagnation/) Income and Wealth by Alan Reynolds (http://amzn.to/1LOy1Ma) The Boskin Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boskin_Commission) Myths of Rich and Poor by W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm (http://amzn.to/1NOvEYR) Mark J. Perry on individual income inequality (https://www.aei.org/publication/sorry-krugman-piketty-and-stiglitz-income-inequality-for-individual-americans-has-been-flat-for-more-than-50-years/) Greg Mankiw’s favourite textbook (http://amzn.to/1Rihq8j) Bernie Madoff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff) The McCulloch chainsaw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._McCulloch) Lyndon B. Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson) David’s review of Capital in the 21st Century for Regulation (http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2014/10/regulationv37n3-9.pdf) David’s (unexpectedly) controversial EconLog post about ordinal utility (http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/05/tyler_cowen_on_14.html) Robert Solow’s review of Capital in the 21st Century (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed) Matthew Rognlie’s response to Piketty (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-reviewed) and Randal O’Toole’s comment on Rognlie’s response (http://www.cato.org/blog/housing-wealth-inequality) Branko Milanović’s blog on global inequality (http://glineq.blogspot.ca/) David’s article on The Bottom One Percent (http://www.hoover.org/research/bottom-one-percent) Peter Jaworski (http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/pj87/?action=viewpublications&PageTemplateID=360 Is Government the Source of Monopoly? By Yale Brozen (http://amzn.to/1HdvyI0)

In this Kosmos Online podcast, Dr. Phil Magness talks with Peter Jaworski, a visiting instructor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University, about some of the teaching techniques that he uses in his courses.