pull down to refresh
90 sats \ 25 replies \ @SimpleStacker 23 Jul \ parent \ on: Punishment is a Public Good econ
When I teach about public goods, I emphasize that the characteristic of being non-rival and non-excludable isn't a hard and fast rule but can depend on circumstances. Hence, the degree of non-rivalry of a road depends on the level of congestion.
It's like the concept of a slope. One can say that mountains are sloped, but it doesn't mean that they're sloped equally everywhere. Rather, the degree of slope can vary from position to position. That doesn't make the concept of slope useless, just as it doesn't make the concept of rivalry and excludability useless.
Well put. In many cases, things are only effectively public goods, rather than perfect public goods.
reply
You reach people that roads are public goods?
reply
The slope of a roof can endanger law enforcement
You teach economics? more people need to learn economics even if it's a weekly column by John Cochrane
reply
Yep, I teach economics and I totally agree that more people need to have some basic economic literacy.
Interestingly, I find that young people are much less interested in it than middle age people. I guess it's something that doesn't seem interesting until you personally experience how much it affects you.
reply
The concept of "Public Goods" is not economic literacy tho. Its a bad concept
reply
Street musicians fit the definition of a public good but the "experts" assert some kind of privilege and decide to not classify them as public goods.
Same thing about roads. Roads do not fit the definition of a public good, but then the "experts" assert some kind of privilege and call it a public good anyway
So what is the motivation behind this term? Why do experts push the concept?
reply
ChatGPT says Street Musicians are not really a public good because they cant play all the time and everywhere at once and then it brings up Street Lighting and National Defense as a better example of a public good, but neither of those are available everywhere all the time either.
When pressed further it says the street musicians are not public goods because they arent funded by taxes, so i ask if street musicians become a public good if the government started funding them and it still says no.
reply
I don't have a problem with thinking of street musicians as providing public goods. Like all public goods, it's only an accurate description up to a point.
Most economists argue for subsidizing public goods production, so maybe they don't want to actually contend with cases that make that seem silly.
reply
Coase Theorem comes to the rescue here. The non-rivalry of street music only extends to a certain radius, usually extending to the jurisdiction of a handful of private actors. Thus, they can choose whether or not they want to subsidize street musicians. E.g. A shopping mall can choose to supplement the earnings that mall musicians get from passers by.
In general, the public good should be subsidized / provided at the geographic extent to which its non-rivalry / non-excludability extends. Thus, street music should be subsidized by malls / groups of retailers. Tornado sirens should be subsidized by local townships, not the federal government. Police departments are subsidized by cities, and so on and so forth.
reply
You cannot compare a street musician and a police department?
But you can compare a street musician and a police officer. Why should one be funded by the government and the other not?
During the 1980s and 90s there was a movement combining the disciplines of Law and Economics. Famous people affiliated with Law and Economics were Nobel Prize winner Ronald Coase, David Friedman, Richard Epstein, Richard Posner and Douglas Ginsburg. Many of them were affiliated with U. of Chicago.
reply
and law enforcement can be a public good
QED
reply