11–20 of 32 posts
Sidewalks don't even pass the test - like they say for roads, a sidewalk could become congested
By this definition next to nothing qualifies as public good because consumption of a thing usually… consumes it and there is not infinite amounts of things in the world.
Free transit can discourage even poor people from riding transit as service is what they need: most can afford the fares and so not charging it means you have less money to put into better service. Almost everyone who uses transit would benefit ffrom more routes and more frequent service. Even in cities like Tokyo or Paris where people use transit a lot there are missing services that more money is needed to provide.
I bet a transit system can save a lot of money by eliminating the overhead costs of fare collection.
At one point, I've read, fare collection on toll roads used to chew up about 50% of the money paid. In general these days, payment for transit and roads is largely automated and self-service. It's not free to collect but I'm sure the economics have changed.
The idea here isn't that transit itself is a public good, which is non-excludable (people can get the benefit without paying for it) and non-rival (one person having it means someone else doesn't have it).
The idea is that the availability of quality transit is a public good. Who benefits from good public transportation? Well, if you own a shop downtown, you benefit because 1) employees can come to work for your shop 2) customers can come to buy things from your shop. If all the other shops decided to get together and subsidize public transit, you could just not join in and reap the benefits without paying the costs -- i.e., it's non-excludable. On the other hand, the fact that your neighboring shop's employees and customers are using public transit doesn't stop your employees and customers using public transit -- i.e., it's non-rival.
Quality public transit can help ensure that poorer people can get higher quality jobs. Who benefits when the poor can get quality jobs? Well, everyone -- there are more workers, there are more consumers, there's less crime, the hospitals are less overloaded, the businesses in the city center can afford to hire staff, etc. The city as a whole is a lot nicer, not just for the poor people, but for the rich people who can afford to fly around in helicopters. Again, if all the other rich people decided to band together and subsidize public transit so that their city would be nicer, you could just not join in and reap the benefits without paying the costs -- i.e., it's non-excludable. On the other hand, the fact that all your rich friends are enjoying a nicer city doesn't stop you from enjoying it as well -- i.e., it's non-rival.
The same argument goes for education. Obviously one person's education itself is a private good; but the availability of an educated workforce is a public good which benefits all companies; and the universal availability of education benefits all people: if everyone has an opportunity to better their circumstances, there's lower crime and so on; and you never know who may discover the next cure for cancer, or the next fantastic technological breakthrough.
Isn't it strange how when things that demonstrably improve public life, but are not really profit generators, we have to go over every sing thing, every assumption, no matter what, with a fine-tooth comb, to see if it really is perfect, and if it's not, we need to not even attempt it.
Maybe it’s semantics but, this article fails to prove that it’s core argument isn’t a semantic one. I get that you cannot label transit as a public good in economic terms. Nobody who is presenting reasons it should be free or heavily subsidized is attempting to do so. They are presenting arguments about environment, equity, etc. They are not trying to prove that it is nonexcludable and nonrival. The article even admi…
What happened?
Why is this stuff so consistently making it to the front page?
Has an Enteral September crept over the online tech community while I was bust living?
These 'nonrival and nonexcludable' examples also fail this test. In fact practically any resource in this universe effectively fails because a malicious/entrepreneurial individual can (and will, if there's enough value and not enough enforcement) force scarcity.
If I make a 911 call, finite emergency resources (Law Enforcement, medical, fire, and potentially national guard) are allocated to me. SWATing individuals has demonstrated that it is possible to prevent others from consuming these resources. Yet LE must (and should) respond to SWATing calls.
If my business pollutes the surrounding clean air and clean water, other businesses and individuals cannot capitalize (yes! The essence of this article!) On this seemingly public good.
If the article is looking for a public good argument, it should consider the not-so-direct economic benefit of reducing car accidents and DUI rates.
I personally don't think the majority of Americans drive because they want to. I think Americans drive because public transportation options outside of major cities were gutted nearly a century ago.
Maybe it’s semantics but, this article fails to prove that it’s core argument isn’t a semantic one. I get that you cannot label transit as a public good in economic terms. Nobody who is presenting reasons it should be free or heavily subsidized is attempting to do so. They are presenting arguments about environment, equity, etc. They are not trying to prove that it is nonexcludable and nonrival. The article even admi…
Back in the Slashdot day's we'd call this FUD (Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.) and move to the next discussion. What happened? Why is this stuff so consistently making it to the front page? Has an Enteral September crept over the online tech community while I was bust living?
Add a 'Category' list to the submission page with the existing categories. If the post is miscategorised the moderator(s) can correct this. This would solve the problems some have with the increase in political chitchat while others who deem tech to be inseparable from politics can get their fill.
This would be an easy change which does not add significant extra load to the server. As it stands I already ignore the front page since I access HN through the RSS feed, others use tailor-made (web) apps to customise their entry points to the site so the argument that a change like this would lead to a fragmented experience by taking away the universal entry point is moot - there is no universal entry point.
Maybe it’s semantics but, this article fails to prove that it’s core argument isn’t a semantic one. I get that you cannot label transit as a public good in economic terms. Nobody who is presenting reasons it should be free or heavily subsidized is attempting to do so. They are presenting arguments about environment, equity, etc. They are not trying to prove that it is nonexcludable and nonrival. The article even admi…
/s
Maybe we should call it "republic good" so is not to enrage the economists.
Maybe it’s semantics but, this article fails to prove that it’s core argument isn’t a semantic one. I get that you cannot label transit as a public good in economic terms. Nobody who is presenting reasons it should be free or heavily subsidized is attempting to do so. They are presenting arguments about environment, equity, etc. They are not trying to prove that it is nonexcludable and nonrival. The article even admi…
How dare the hoi polloi confuse "good for the public (everyone)" with "public good"! /s Maybe we should call it "republic good" so is not to enrage the economists.