3 ms·

Can you explain how the "Survey is not a public good"? It is rivalrous only at the second order (people compete to trade based on it), but non-rivalrous in its

by jzwinck 13y ago

Can you explain how the "Survey is not a public good"? It is rivalrous only at the second order (people compete to trade based on it), but non-rivalrous in itself (everyone can get the news). Other facts regarding its "public" nature are that the University of Michigan is a public university, with substantial taxpayer funding, and the Survey was initially funded by the Fed [1] (without which, it might not have the cachet it enjoys today). [1] http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2003/IPR-WP-03-10.pdf http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpap...

JackFr 13y ago
To quote Wikipedia: "a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous" "a good or service is called excludable if it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it." If the Michigan Survey were non-excludable, we wouldn't be having this exchange. While you might argue that upon general availability through the media it is non-excludable, the excludability of the timely access is at the very heart of the issue. The argument that the University of Michigan is a public institution has some merit, however the onus is on you to suggest a legal argument for the Federal Government to compel the regents and trustees to behave in a manner contrary to what they would have done otherwise.
- jzwinck 13y ago
  Fair points. Wikipedia'a Public Good article shows at the top a fireworks display as an example. This is interesting because most large fireworks displays I've seen do offer a small number of viewers the ability to watch from nearby (i.e. to obtain more-privileged access) in exchange for money. So non-excludability may not be complete and absolute: a "public good" may be available to all comers, but also available in an enhanced form for pay. Similarly with outdoor concerts having VIP seating, parades, and so on. In the end this is a semantic issue and we can probably agree that the language is not precise enough to succinctly describe what's going on with the Survey now. But perhaps the examples above are illustrative enough, as I have rarely heard complaint about the visible existence of ticketed/VIP seating at public events. Some others here claim the Survey's dissemination would not be objectionable if it were done in a more transparent fashion (but still in tiers for pay). Finally, it's interesting that this particular news item has such a "long" advantage period for paying customers. Two seconds is a long time for computers, and even if the Survey were released "simultaneously" to everyone, those who paid to build better networks and systems to use it would still benefit. The end result might be similar, only without the extra rents paid to Reuters. If Reuters and UMich argued that without these rents the Survey could not be produced at all, I wonder if it would calm the critics.

by jzwinck 13y ago

JackFr 13y ago

To quote Wikipedia: "a public good is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous" "a good or service is called excludable if it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it." If the Michigan Survey were non-excludable, we wouldn't be having this exchange. While you might argue that upon general availability through the media it is non-excludable, the excludability of the timely access is at the very heart of the issue. The argument that the University of Michigan is a public institution has some merit, however the onus is on you to suggest a legal argument for the Federal Government to compel the regents and trustees to behave in a manner contrary to what they would have done otherwise.

jzwinck 13y ago
Fair points. Wikipedia'a Public Good article shows at the top a fireworks display as an example. This is interesting because most large fireworks displays I've seen do offer a small number of viewers the ability to watch from nearby (i.e. to obtain more-privileged access) in exchange for money. So non-excludability may not be complete and absolute: a "public good" may be available to all comers, but also available in an enhanced form for pay. Similarly with outdoor concerts having VIP seating, parades, and so on. In the end this is a semantic issue and we can probably agree that the language is not precise enough to succinctly describe what's going on with the Survey now. But perhaps the examples above are illustrative enough, as I have rarely heard complaint about the visible existence of ticketed/VIP seating at public events. Some others here claim the Survey's dissemination would not be objectionable if it were done in a more transparent fashion (but still in tiers for pay). Finally, it's interesting that this particular news item has such a "long" advantage period for paying customers. Two seconds is a long time for computers, and even if the Survey were released "simultaneously" to everyone, those who paid to build better networks and systems to use it would still benefit. The end result might be similar, only without the extra rents paid to Reuters. If Reuters and UMich argued that without these rents the Survey could not be produced at all, I wonder if it would calm the critics.