42 sats \ 20 replies \ @SimpleStacker 23 Jul \ parent \ on: Punishment is a Public Good econ
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.
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?
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?
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.
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