pull down to refresh
21 sats \ 16 replies \ @DawnoftheDead 25 Jul \ parent \ on: Punishment is a Public Good econ
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.
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?
reply
It's about the reach of the public good being provided. Law enforcement is a public good (ostensibly), within the entire jurisdiction of the police department.
The street musician only provides a public good within the limited range of the potential audience, which will often be confined to one piece of property. Since the benefits of the public good occur there, the owner can be incentivized to fund its provision.
I don't think either should be funded by the government, but that's a separate topic.
reply
It seems if you want to discuss the reach you should not compare the street musician with the term "law enforcement" but compare the street musician with the police officer.
Or you can compare Music with Law Enforcement
For example why is one considered a public good and the other is not?
reply
I see what you're getting at, but the point about law enforcement is that it supposedly deters crime throughout the jurisdiction and the officers travel to where they're needed. The street musician doesn't have comparable traits.
Public goods discussions do get murky when you start dissecting them, but that doesn't make it a useless concept.
reply
Regarding law enforcement and crime deterrence, Steven Levitt and Gary Becker have written about this topic
reply
It's a pretty heavily covered topic. Becker is considered the pioneer of it, at least amongst economists.
I guess its not a useless concept to people who gain power and influence from it
But as an economic term it seems useless
reply
You're certainly welcome to that view, but you're talking to two economists who are telling you it's useful and who aren't trying to gain power from it.
I’m sure a small number of people will vote to subsidize street performers but not a majority
reply
At the end of the day a public good is just whatever voters say is a public good. It has little to do with economics and more to do with sophistry.
reply