Indian Giver

A politically incorrect phrase if ever there was one as I have no idea of its origins but it refers to someone who gives you something as a gift and then at some point asks for the gift back, presumably on the pretense that it was just a loan.

I mention this as I was asked about the lotto gift conundrum, i.e. someone gives you a lotto ticket presumably as birthday present or some such reason and low and behold you win the big prize of let’s say $5M, the conundrum at least in some people’s minds is that they may have an obligation to the giver of the ticket to share their new found bounty and if they do what amount is sufficient to discharge this obligation.

This doesn’t stand much logical scrutiny now does it?

Let’s change the scenario just a little. When you give the Lotto gift you have the potential to turn say a small gift, say $5 into a large gift say $5M. What if it is the other way around, you provide a higher priced gift that suddenly turns into a small value gift, eg You give someone an expensive set of Waterford Crystal Water glasses that set you back $1,000 for six glasses and the person you give them slips, drops and smashes the lot, turning them into zero. Would you be surprised if they turned to you and said, that was rubbish gift a load of broken glasses how about some more? Yes thought so.

How about a bloke goes into a bar orders a drink, gets into his car afterwards and drives into a bus killing 10 people. Is the bar staff responsible for this? (in NZ we have in part made them so but that is another story)  Surely the bloke in the car is really the responsible party.

What about a gun seller who sells a gun to someone who accidentally uses it to shoot a hunting companion. Is the gun seller responsible for the death?

In all of the above when there is a negative consequence we quite readily see the dividing line between us and the negative consequence, if we are the gift giver, bar staff or gun seller.

When there is a positive outcome that could ascribe a benefit to us (a share in a big win) we start to see shades of grey or “obligations”

There really is no difference just the outcome.

What if the giver purchased two tickets and gave one as a gift and kept one and that one was the winner, do you think they would feel they should share the winnings with the receiver of the gift who but for some bad luck could have gotten the winning ticket. No didn’t think so.

So there really is no logical obligation is there, but what about that other kind of reasoning the emotional kind. People trying to sell you products have known for thousands of years that if you give someone something then they are inclined to feel some obligation in return and may well buy something from your store.

I had a direct experience of this in Florence when a street hawker approached me and tried to sell me some scarves or hat or something I don’t recall. I told him no thanks and promptly ignored him. At which point he grabbed my hand and shoved a couple of carved animals into my hand “for you” “I give for you” says he and having regained my attention he whipped out some sort of flute and played a quick tune on the flute, then offering to sell me one. No thanks mate says I, already told you I wasn’t interested. He was most put out, he had given me a gift and put on a show, it was now my turn to anti up. When he realised I was immune to his charms such as they were he demanded back his gift, the carved animals, which I gave him and he then stormed off. (actually if he just asked about the animals I might have given some money for those, they were quite good but I digress)

So there is a sharing contract within humans and it usually works, I look after you, you look after me. When one of us breaks the contract we tend to get upset, like my hawker. The fact that I didn’t want to contract with him was his problem. If I had entered his shop and he had put on the same routine my inclination to go along with the trade would have been much stronger.

So to the lotto winner and the gift giver. I think it is inevitable that you would provide some reciprocal gift in return not because it is logical but because of the unspoken social contract. 

Like most gift giving the level would be commensurate with the initial gift and the relationship with the giver. In some cases your conscience could be soothed for little money in other cases it is going to cost you plenty.

It is all about the social contract that we have with our other human beings and about how we should treat them. Everyone has a copy of the contract that they keep memorised in their head. The problem is all of us have made our own copy with various clauses that others may or may not have.

Dopey Media

Name a drug that was discovered and brought to market by a government, any government any time anywhere. I have some spare time so I will wait while you think about it. Try googling it, I don’t mind.

Did you google it, if you did you will likely find an article or two pumping up the role that fundamental research plays in the development of drugs and even the development of actual drugs in a research lab. Great, well done, thanks very much we appreciate your efforts research folk really I do. But….. (who didn’t see that coming) none of them made it to market without a private company in the mix who picked up where the researches left off and actually got them into the hands of patients and that is what counts. Having the cure for cancer on a shelf in a lab is no use to anyone, distribution to the consumer (patient) is what makes it useful.

So what I hear you ask. Well today on the radio I heard a women campaigning and explaining how you could buy and import Hep C generic drugs into NZ because we do not current provide these through Pharmac with the only option being self-funding of the patent holders drugs at a very high price. We are talking $60k - $100k  for a course of medication (I think but she didn’t actually say) vs some $6k. So it is easy to see the attraction and let’s be honest with ourselves if I was dying of Hep C and could use her system to fix the problem I probably would.

But….. Yep another one, why is she allowed on the radio to promote this idea? Here is what she is actually suggesting in the long term. A drug company (don’t know which one) invested a ton of money developing the drug and getting it FDA approved to bring it to market. This costs on average $4 Bn USD and can be as much as $11 Bn. To give that some perspective the Health budget in NZ is only $11 Bn USD total. To make this worth their while they charge like wounded bulls for as long as they can or put another way until their patent runs out (20 years). At which point every other drug company in the world copies their drug and starts grabbing their market and the price inevitably tumbles.

In the case of the Hep C drug China and India in particular have decided to ignore US patents so drug companies in those companies start manufacturing at a cheap price straight away as they have not had to part out with the $4 Bn the other company did.

NZ plays ball and only uses patent medicines until the patent runs out and then we buy the cheapest we can get. If you don’t act that way then private drug companies will stop spending the $4 Bn to bring the drugs to market, and as we know, no one else is doing it, therefore no new drugs, i.e. the cure for Hep C would never make it out of the lab.

So the wide spread popularisation of her cunning scheme helps 20 years of Hep C patients (before the patent runs out) but condemns everyone else to potentially no new drugs as a result. 

Like I said I may well do the same as her if I had Hep C what I certainly would not do is allow her a powerful spot on my radio show (if I had one) to promote an idea that could harm many many people (the ones who won’t get new drugs) in favour of helping a few.

The lack of critical thinking of our modern media continues to astound.