3 ms·
No matter how good it might be for the general public, USPS doesn’t meet the definition of a “public good” as long as they require stamps and put more mailmen i
by erik_seaberg 5y ago
No matter how good it might be for the general public, USPS doesn’t meet the definition of a “public good” as long as they require stamps and put more mailmen in trucks every year.
The classic example is a lighthouse. It serves an unlimited number of sailors, but it’s hard to make them pay for it, which is a rationale for using tax money to build one and ignore the free rider problem.
- ddingus 5y agoThe Post has no free rider problems, and runs on postage. The service is the public good, and operating it where all are served equally (remember everyone can receive a package at no cost to them) is in the public interest. No private entity can, or even has a plan to do the same at anywhere close to the low cost and quality of service.
- erik_seaberg 5y agoA public good isn’t paid for by users. That’s part of how economists define that term, and why they make theories about how and when someone else ought to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good_(economics)
- ddingus 5y agoSee above. I am not making an entirely economic argument.