5 ms·

Interesting case. Isn't it true, however, that everything is economized whether we like it or not? Even public works that add "value" still rely on finite res

Interesting case. Isn't it true, however, that everything is economized whether we like it or not? Even public works that add "value" still rely on finite resources (human labor, natural resources, etc...). Can we really just ignore the laws of resource allocation because we "value" something? If we really "valued" something, why not let the market strike the balance between value and efficiency?

Retric 10y ago
Externalities, generally prevent profit from aligning with optimum resource allocation for society. I may only be willing to pay X to ride a subway and it might cost Y to provide subway service, but having one less commuter on the roads is worth Z to society. In a classic free market if X < Y then I don't ride the subway, but if X < (Y - Z) society is better off if I do ride the subway. Further, subways systems, electricity, water, etc are far more efficient as a single provider which suggests a heavily regulated utility. But, if the government is going to subsidizes and heavily regulate a company like this then it's not really a company any more just a government organization with a funky org chart. To further complicate things, this opens the door for a huge range of corruption as someone is legally allowed to take taxpayer money and profit.
- djschnei 10y ago
  "Z" is a premise I disagree with; especially when government/force is involved. If you want to ride the subway to a determent of yourself for society's benefit, that's your decision. Hell, I might even be sharing the subway with you. However, I'm not about to make that decision for others. Pushing aside the individual for the collective is something I am vehemently opposed to on moral grounds. So, I guess I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with the premise.
  - infinite8s 10y ago
    On what moral grounds? Just because your chosen morality puts the individual above the group in all cases doesn't mean everybody else subscribes to that morality (in fact, I highly doubt most people subscribe to that morality fully, given the society we have built up).
    - djschnei 10y ago
      Putting the individual above the collective is a very simplistic, and quite inaccurate, summation of my morality. My morality is that I can't use violence in an aggressive manner, only defensive - this is often described as the non-aggression principle or "NAP". You might be fine with the idea that as long as the majority agree, we can delegate aggression upon the minority via a central governing body; but I am not. I also hope (and suspect) most people subscribe to the idea you can't initiate coercive force against others - however we've for some reason agreed you magically can as long as we vote about it. I'll never understand that... It seems like a logical disconnect to me... Maybe I am weird... idk.
  - Retric 10y ago
    It's not about forcing people to ride the subway it's building and subsidizing a subway so people will ride it. Abstractly, it's little different from building and maintaining a bridge. Supose you save 1/1,000th of a second of commute time on average per driver that takes the subway * 1,000,000 drivers taking the subway. That's 16 minutes eat way or 30 minutes a day. Ethics or not that is actual value. Now if you you feel morally opposed to subsides and are not willing to pay for them fine, but that does not mean they can't work. Further, building and maintaining infrastructure has been one of the hallmarks of government for 8,000+ years it's not going to change any time soon. But hey, if you want to argue for less efficient systems that's your right.
    - djschnei 10y ago
      I don't oppose subsides, per se; I oppose the involuntary collection of tax money, or any involuntary transfer of property. If for example, a subway is inherently more efficient than other means of travel, and it can be funded via ticket sales, I am SO for it. If it can't survive or exist without the involuntary collection of property, then I oppose it. And infrastructure has been a major role for governments for quite some time, and I completely agree it's a legitimate role. However, it should be based on usage fees.
pdabbadabba 10y ago
> Isn't it true, however, that everything is economized whether we like it or not? Yes! Of course! I'm not claiming that municipalities are exempt from "the laws of resource allocation" (I take it that the "law" is simply that resources are finite, and therefore must be allocated). I'm merely claiming that they can (and sometimes should) choose to economize in different ways than would a private enterprise seeking profit in the free market. The problem with letting the market perform these allocations for us is that the market, in conjunction with the various types of entities that participate in the market, is not equally equipped to capture all forms of value. In particular, private enterprises are typically not well suited to capturing value from public goods. That economic reality is the very reason we have governments. Things like the national defense, fresh air, etc. are typically not valued 'properly' in a free market and therefore must be promoted and maintained using social institutions that operate in concert with, but also partially separate from, the free market.
- djschnei 10y ago
  I understand what you're saying. I guess where I get tripped up in that "model" (for lack of a better term) is that when is that NOT the case? In other words, if what you're saying is logically consistent, why can't we just make everything a public good? What's the determining factor that makes this logic work for one thing but not anther?
  - pdabbadabba 10y ago
    I think you may be misunderstanding--because I did not make clear--what I mean by "public good.' I intended to use it in the technical economic sense which covers goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Terminology.2C_and_types_of_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Terminology.2C_and...) not the looser 'anything offered by the government' sense. Although there is plenty of room for debate about what is or is not covered by this concept, there are plenty of things that clearly are not (e.g., a factory's widget inventory) and it remains objective: nobody is free to simply 'make' everything a public good in this sense.

Retric 10y ago

Externalities, generally prevent profit from aligning with optimum resource allocation for society. I may only be willing to pay X to ride a subway and it might cost Y to provide subway service, but having one less commuter on the roads is worth Z to society. In a classic free market if X < Y then I don't ride the subway, but if X < (Y - Z) society is better off if I do ride the subway. Further, subways systems, electricity, water, etc are far more efficient as a single provider which suggests a heavily regulated utility. But, if the government is going to subsidizes and heavily regulate a company like this then it's not really a company any more just a government organization with a funky org chart. To further complicate things, this opens the door for a huge range of corruption as someone is legally allowed to take taxpayer money and profit.

djschnei 10y ago
"Z" is a premise I disagree with; especially when government/force is involved. If you want to ride the subway to a determent of yourself for society's benefit, that's your decision. Hell, I might even be sharing the subway with you. However, I'm not about to make that decision for others. Pushing aside the individual for the collective is something I am vehemently opposed to on moral grounds. So, I guess I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with the premise.
- infinite8s 10y ago
  On what moral grounds? Just because your chosen morality puts the individual above the group in all cases doesn't mean everybody else subscribes to that morality (in fact, I highly doubt most people subscribe to that morality fully, given the society we have built up).
  - djschnei 10y ago
    Putting the individual above the collective is a very simplistic, and quite inaccurate, summation of my morality. My morality is that I can't use violence in an aggressive manner, only defensive - this is often described as the non-aggression principle or "NAP". You might be fine with the idea that as long as the majority agree, we can delegate aggression upon the minority via a central governing body; but I am not. I also hope (and suspect) most people subscribe to the idea you can't initiate coercive force against others - however we've for some reason agreed you magically can as long as we vote about it. I'll never understand that... It seems like a logical disconnect to me... Maybe I am weird... idk.
- Retric 10y ago
  It's not about forcing people to ride the subway it's building and subsidizing a subway so people will ride it. Abstractly, it's little different from building and maintaining a bridge. Supose you save 1/1,000th of a second of commute time on average per driver that takes the subway * 1,000,000 drivers taking the subway. That's 16 minutes eat way or 30 minutes a day. Ethics or not that is actual value. Now if you you feel morally opposed to subsides and are not willing to pay for them fine, but that does not mean they can't work. Further, building and maintaining infrastructure has been one of the hallmarks of government for 8,000+ years it's not going to change any time soon. But hey, if you want to argue for less efficient systems that's your right.
  - djschnei 10y ago
    I don't oppose subsides, per se; I oppose the involuntary collection of tax money, or any involuntary transfer of property. If for example, a subway is inherently more efficient than other means of travel, and it can be funded via ticket sales, I am SO for it. If it can't survive or exist without the involuntary collection of property, then I oppose it. And infrastructure has been a major role for governments for quite some time, and I completely agree it's a legitimate role. However, it should be based on usage fees.

pdabbadabba 10y ago

> Isn't it true, however, that everything is economized whether we like it or not? Yes! Of course! I'm not claiming that municipalities are exempt from "the laws of resource allocation" (I take it that the "law" is simply that resources are finite, and therefore must be allocated). I'm merely claiming that they can (and sometimes should) choose to economize in different ways than would a private enterprise seeking profit in the free market. The problem with letting the market perform these allocations for us is that the market, in conjunction with the various types of entities that participate in the market, is not equally equipped to capture all forms of value. In particular, private enterprises are typically not well suited to capturing value from public goods. That economic reality is the very reason we have governments. Things like the national defense, fresh air, etc. are typically not valued 'properly' in a free market and therefore must be promoted and maintained using social institutions that operate in concert with, but also partially separate from, the free market.

djschnei 10y ago
I understand what you're saying. I guess where I get tripped up in that "model" (for lack of a better term) is that when is that NOT the case? In other words, if what you're saying is logically consistent, why can't we just make everything a public good? What's the determining factor that makes this logic work for one thing but not anther?
- pdabbadabba 10y ago
  I think you may be misunderstanding--because I did not make clear--what I mean by "public good.' I intended to use it in the technical economic sense which covers goods that are non-rivalrous and non-excludable (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Terminology.2C_and_types_of_goods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good#Terminology.2C_and...) not the looser 'anything offered by the government' sense. Although there is plenty of room for debate about what is or is not covered by this concept, there are plenty of things that clearly are not (e.g., a factory's widget inventory) and it remains objective: nobody is free to simply 'make' everything a public good in this sense.