pull down to refresh
101 sats \ 14 replies \ @SimpleStacker 25 Jul \ parent \ on: Punishment is a Public Good econ
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.
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.
reply
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.
reply
I dont feel strongly about this tbh. But what would happen if you began stating publically that public goods is not a usefull economic term? Im sorry for getting a bit real but you would probably lose standing and maybe even your job even if you had arguments to back it up. If that is the case you are using it gain power :) But it is what it is
reply
I would absolutely not lose my job over that and neither would anyone else. That's completely absurd.
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