3 ms·

No, just as sandwiches don't become a public good if I leave my kitchen door unlocked. Please just read the standard economic definitions of the terms. Basical

No, just as sandwiches don't become a public good if I leave my kitchen door unlocked. Please just read the standard economic definitions of the terms. Basically I suspect you just prefer driving, and are trying to create a tortured definition of "public good" You sure got that one wrong. I haven't owned a car since 2000 and I hated it for all 6 months. The fact that I prefer mass transit and walkable cities doesn't mean that this preference deserves subsidies. (I'd be happy with eliminating the laws that make such things illegal and insanely expensive when legal.)

snowwrestler 11y ago
I understand the standard definition fine--what I'm pointing out is your inconsistency in applying that definition, like listing as examples research, public art, and free roads despite the fact that none of them satisfy the characteristics of non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Even the wikipedia page is hilariously mixed up, listing a public lighthouse as a public good, even though a person needs to own a ship to benefit from the lighthouse (excluding most people), only so many ships can pass through a section of the sea at one time (making it rivalrous), and of course the government can just turn off the light whenever it wants (excluding everyone). Edit to add: if a road or a park or a lighthouse can be a public good, then so can a subway. If a subway can't be a public good, then neither can a road, a park, or a lighthouse, since they all violate the definition in similar ways.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The government can't exclude people who don't pay for the lighthouse from using it. It's all or nothing - hence not excludible. A subway can exclude anyone who doesn't pay while including anyone who does. To take the example of several subways I've been on recently (NYC, Delhi, Amsterdam, Boston), if you don't pay the turnstile won't let you through. If you scroll up, you'll find me explicitly agreeing that roads are a private good which should be paid for via user fees (either gas or odometer taxes), and those who refuse to pay should be excluded.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    Okay, I'll think about this. Thanks for the discussion. Have a good weekend.

snowwrestler 11y ago

I understand the standard definition fine--what I'm pointing out is your inconsistency in applying that definition, like listing as examples research, public art, and free roads despite the fact that none of them satisfy the characteristics of non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Even the wikipedia page is hilariously mixed up, listing a public lighthouse as a public good, even though a person needs to own a ship to benefit from the lighthouse (excluding most people), only so many ships can pass through a section of the sea at one time (making it rivalrous), and of course the government can just turn off the light whenever it wants (excluding everyone). Edit to add: if a road or a park or a lighthouse can be a public good, then so can a subway. If a subway can't be a public good, then neither can a road, a park, or a lighthouse, since they all violate the definition in similar ways.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
The government can't exclude people who don't pay for the lighthouse from using it. It's all or nothing - hence not excludible. A subway can exclude anyone who doesn't pay while including anyone who does. To take the example of several subways I've been on recently (NYC, Delhi, Amsterdam, Boston), if you don't pay the turnstile won't let you through. If you scroll up, you'll find me explicitly agreeing that roads are a private good which should be paid for via user fees (either gas or odometer taxes), and those who refuse to pay should be excluded.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Okay, I'll think about this. Thanks for the discussion. Have a good weekend.