Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks • Hacker News Board

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#11

Post by smorephism » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #9

FalconSensei wrote: post #7

Seeing fireworks is non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is. So getting a good viewing spot for the fireworks is rivalrous. BTW, the title doesn't make any sense edit: typo

> Seeing fireworks in non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is ... BTW, the title doesn't make any sense Neither does your comment! What do you mean 'in non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is'?

Being in a place can be thought of as a rivalrous good because other people cannot simultaneously be in that place.

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#12

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

mlinhares wrote: post #6

Perfect example of when it should have been made of a bunch of smaller fireworks displays, so that people wouldn't want to travel as far but would still be able to watch a fun show.

[deleted]

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#13

Post by Swenrekcah » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #9

FalconSensei wrote: post #7

Seeing fireworks is non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is. So getting a good viewing spot for the fireworks is rivalrous. BTW, the title doesn't make any sense edit: typo

> Seeing fireworks in non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is ... BTW, the title doesn't make any sense Neither does your comment! What do you mean 'in non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is'?

The article uses the term. If there is a star in the sky and I see it, I don’t consume it so that you can see it too.

But if I occupy a spot, I “consume” that so you can’t be there simultaneously.

So there is rivalry if we both want to be there.

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#14

Post by andi999 » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

QuasiAlon wrote: post #5

sweetheart wrote: post #4

This doesn't make clear at all how converting the free event to a ticketed event "broke" economics textbooks.

Apologies. Fireworks are the text book example of public goods.

The state of economy as a science seems to be in much deeper trouble than I expected.

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#15

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:13 PM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #13

chrisseaton wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seeing fireworks in non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is ... BTW, the title doesn't make any sense Neither does your comment! What do you mean 'in non-rivalrous, but being somewhere is'?

The article uses the term. If there is a star in the sky and I see it, I don’t consume it so that you can see it too. But if I occupy a spot, I “consume” that so you can’t be there simultaneously. So there is rivalry if we both want to be there.

Yes but 'in non-rivalrous' doesn't make any sense.

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#16

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:14 PM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #2

So all of the ticket proceeds go towards collecting fees and enforcing the ticket restrictions... so as to reduce public good. Sounds a lot like charging for WiFi, which usually costs as much to administer and enforce as it collects.

They charge a nominal fee so that there aren't a million people fighting over 100,00 spots stampeding each other.

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#17

Post by oh_sigh » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:15 PM UTC

mlinhares wrote: post #6

Perfect example of when it should have been made of a bunch of smaller fireworks displays, so that people wouldn't want to travel as far but would still be able to watch a fun show.

But firework enjoyment doesn't scale linearly. Launching a single firework at random places in London is not as impressive as a bunch of fireworks at one place in London.

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#18

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #15

Swenrekcah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article uses the term. If there is a star in the sky and I see it, I don’t consume it so that you can see it too. But if I occupy a spot, I “consume” that so you can’t be there simultaneously. So there is rivalry if we both want to be there.

Yes but 'in non-rivalrous' doesn't make any sense.

[deleted]

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#19

Post by whoisburbansky » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:17 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #15

Swenrekcah wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article uses the term. If there is a star in the sky and I see it, I don’t consume it so that you can see it too. But if I occupy a spot, I “consume” that so you can’t be there simultaneously. So there is rivalry if we both want to be there.

Yes but 'in non-rivalrous' doesn't make any sense.

It took coming down to your comment to realize that GP had “in non-rivalrous,” I’d just glossed it over and assumed it said “is”

Re: Why London’s NYE Fireworks Display Broke Economics Textbooks

#20

Post by oconnor663 » Thu, Dec 31, 2020, 7:21 PM UTC

sweetheart wrote: post #4

This doesn't make clear at all how converting the free event to a ticketed event "broke" economics textbooks.

I think it just means that a commonly cited example of a public good in textbooks is arguably no longer a good example. But yeah, the choice of words is pretty clickbaity.