Testicle car markets in everything

by on November 24, 2013 at 2:14 pm in Economics, Science | Permalink

Many of us testicle owner/operators have often claimed that we’d happily donate our (usually left) testicle for something, usually some kind of car. So it shouldn’t be so shocking to hear that some loon is actually doing just that. One nut for $35,000. Which he’s using to buy a Nissan 370Z.

As much as I’d like to picture the scene where this ashen-faced man stumbles into a Nissan dealership, plonks a jar with a floating, solitary testicle on the counter, and points to a red 370Z before collapsing, the reality is much more orderly.

The man, Mark Parisi, is donating his nut to a medical research organization for a sum of $35,000.

There is more here, noting that the deal may not survive this publicity.  Here is more on Mark:

There are other advantages to being a human Guinea pig: He gets free checkups, which can save him around $700.

Parisi estimates he’s saved more than $150,000 over the past two years by participating in other medical studies, including an Ebola virus study that paid $5,000 a week, the Province Journal reported.

For the pointer I thank Skeptical Scalpel and @hswapnil.

1 Edward Burke November 24, 2013 at 2:19 pm

Don’t know whether Tesla Motors can or would want to attempt to take advantage of this for marketing purposes, but they have a genuine lead over all other manufacturers, ‘twould seem . . . .

2 Edward Burke November 24, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Further: family jewels seem not to’ve held their value very well, either. (Does the Affordable Care Tax Act offer minimum valuations?)

With due respect Mr. Parisi would seem to be one nut in at least temporary possession of two more.

Let me bail before I lose all my taste for fruitcakes . . . .

3 Alexei Sadeski November 24, 2013 at 2:37 pm

Just wait until the emerging economies get in on this market!

4 Ray Lopez November 24, 2013 at 2:47 pm

They’ll go nuts. It should be pointed out that you can have kids with just one nut… bust a nut for nuttin’ is nuts tho.

5 Robin November 24, 2013 at 2:47 pm

They showed this story last week on “Extreme Cheapskates” a TLC show, I believe. The opportunity fell through because his testosterone levels were too low. They did offer to enroll him in a testosterone replacement trial though.

6 Bill November 24, 2013 at 3:27 pm

I can imagine this scene at the auto dealership:

Left nut or right nut, sir?

Left nut.

And that, dear sir, is how you get, persons who are

Right wing nuts.

7 derek November 24, 2013 at 5:19 pm

Is this why the Left is all about redistribution? The have no balls.

8 Bill November 24, 2013 at 5:45 pm

The words “Left” and “redistribution” are just words designed to lead the uniformed.

Here is a different take on redistribution from an opinion writer in the Washington Post:

“Which is the more redistributionist of our two parties? In recent decades, as Republicans have devoted themselves with laser-like intensity to redistributing America’s wealth and income upward, the evidence suggests the answer is the GOP.

The most obvious way that Republicans have robbed from the middle to give to the rich has been the changes they wrought in the tax code — reducing income taxes for the wealthy in the Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, and cutting the tax rate on capital gains to less than half the rate on the top income of upper-middle-class employees.

The less widely understood way that Republicans have helped redistribute wealth to the already wealthy is by changing the rules. Markets don’t function without rules, and the rules that Republican policymakers have made since Ronald Reagan became president have consistently depressed the share of the nation’s income that the middle class can claim.”

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-25/opinions/35495014_1_tax-code-income-rate-on-capital-gains

9 derek November 24, 2013 at 10:51 pm

Bill, you should know better than rehashing that old marxist claptrap.

10 dan1111 November 25, 2013 at 2:46 am

Ugh. Talk about ruining the joke.

Also, this is pretty much the lamest article of all time. The author discovers that, lo and behold, if you define “redistribution” in the opposite way that it is normally understood in this context, the Republicans turn out to be redistributionist! What a logical tour-de-force! “If that’s not redistribution, I don’t know what is.” It is not, and he doesn’t.

What the author really thinks is that “redistribution” of wealth is good and we need more of it. That’s a perfectly respectable thing to believe, and he should just argue for that rather than confusing the issue by making up new definitions for words. It’s not as if “redistribution” is an inherently loaded word. It’s simply an accurate description of policies designed to reduce inequality by taking a larger share of tax money from the wealthy and giving benefits to the poor.

11 TMC November 25, 2013 at 11:18 am

The tax code has become MORE progressive, not less.
Don’t let that spoil the story though.

12 dearieme November 24, 2013 at 3:27 pm

“He gets free checkups, which can save him around $700”: the checkups for our car cost nothing like that. He’s being diddled.

13 prior_approval November 25, 2013 at 12:00 am

I believe the ‘free check ups’ are in regards to him not paying for medical check ups. Which, of course, in the U.S. is how it works – however, it is true that in the U.S., a lot of cars are sold using such ploys as free maintenance for a period of time.

14 dan1111 November 25, 2013 at 2:48 am

Next time, look up before commenting. You might see something flying by.

15 prior_approval November 25, 2013 at 4:55 am

Or I can just read what was posted – ‘There are other advantages to being a human Guinea pig: He gets free checkups, which can save him around $700.’

Most places in the First World don’t understand the idea of paying for medical check ups, and that is most certainly the case in dearieme’s homeland, where the idea has been absurd for several generations.

Which is likely why dearieme wrote ‘the checkups for our car cost nothing like that. He’s being diddled.’

Though who knows, maybe that comment was meant as an intentional joke, and not simply the sort of mistake any European (Australian, New Zealander, Japanese, …) would make, since essentially nobody in those places pays for any sort of ‘check up’ – except for their cars, of course.

16 dan1111 November 25, 2013 at 4:57 am

“Though who knows, maybe that comment was meant as an intentional joke”

You are getting warmer.

17 Bill November 24, 2013 at 4:13 pm

Imagine that you know that this auto dealership accepts organs in exchange for automobiles.

When you walk into the auto dealership, and now see a sign which says:

‘Parts Department”

What do you think.

18 Jay November 24, 2013 at 5:06 pm

And setting a price ceiling at $0 will NEVER create shortages for a good or service. Only Donkey’s would deny upward sloping supply curves and downward sloping demand curves.

19 Bill November 24, 2013 at 5:47 pm

Jay, Think about what you said: If there are no dollars for organs, there will be no organs transferred to others.

Is that a true statement?

Ask a person who received an organ donation.

20 Jay November 25, 2013 at 1:04 am

Bill think about what you just said. Nevermind, I’ll provide the math, see if you can solve some elementary equations.

Demand: q = 6 – p
Supply: q = 2 + p

21 dan1111 November 25, 2013 at 4:15 am

Very silly. Jay didn’t claim that no transactions would take place at $0, only that it would reduce supply. And there actually is an organ shortage.

22 Steve Z November 24, 2013 at 6:19 pm

I’ve heard about testees, but this is ridiculous!

23 zbicyclist November 24, 2013 at 7:38 pm

Interestingly, the comic artist who does “Off the Mark” shares the same name, which is why I first thought the article would have a punch line.

http://www.offthemark.com/

24 Errorr November 25, 2013 at 2:47 am

The deal for him fell through. He didn’t pass the medical because he had low testosterone.

25 dan1111 November 25, 2013 at 2:50 am

This raises an interesting point re: one of Alex’s hobby horses: why is it legal to get paid for an organ (or other things that harm health) for research, but not so that someone’s life can be saved with a transplant?

26 Axa November 25, 2013 at 6:20 am

Internet lowers transaction costs, it’s in spanish but use your preferred translator http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2013/10/18/noticias/1382092658.html

27 West November 29, 2013 at 9:04 pm

When you buy a Prius, you have to trade them BOTH in.

28 fong December 1, 2013 at 9:04 pm

I guess he valued the car more than his own body. However I don’t think people should do things like sell their body parts for material goods. It’s their body, but I don’t think anybody should be trading their organs for things like this.

29 search engine optimization December 24, 2013 at 12:03 pm

WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching for cabers

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: