One thing that gradually became clear early in the discussion was that few understood the meaning of "good", as in "public good". The term as used here refers to "item" or "thing". It doesn't necessarily mean that whatever we're talking about is good for society, although usually is, in some way or another. Here is an explanation of "public good". Here is a shorter explanation for those on a time budget.
But the lack of understanding of this basic economic fact was clear: So you are saying public goods are the stuff that was paid for with tax dollars, right? You say public can have feelings and emotions outside of the feelings of the individuals in the group called "public"? That is double counting. See you're missing my point. If you want to say they need to be funded by government because they were funded by government, fine. But that is circular reasoning.
<facepalm> <sigh>
Public goods are things built/developed with tax money and which are available for everyone to use, pretty much without restriction, without a direct cost to use, and available to everyone no matter where they live.
Examples are: public non-toll roads, the public education system, provincial and national parks, national defense, public health and safety, food inspection systems, public libraries, transportation networks, even, at one time, the Internet.
When I posted this, the response was: My argument is the market can and has and will supply all those things so they are not public goods.
When I mentioned libraries, this was the response: Only because someone decides to call them that. You admit yourself that a building called a library is a public good but I assume a building called a bookstore isn't. It's just an arbitrary classification that means you think it should be managed by government. But if access to reading materials or traffic free roads or any other good and service is the desire then the government is the most inefficient and the market the most productive means to that end.
My response went like this: Nonsense. A library is not a building. It may be housed in a building, but it's much more than a building. Check one out sometime. You'll see. A bookstore isn't built and paid for from tax revenue. Bookstores sell things. Libraries don't. Libraries aren't "managed" by governments. In my experience, they are managed by independent volunteer boards, certainly here in BC they are. They receive tax-based funding to provide a public good. And they do that much, much cheaper than a private business could which would have to make a profit. You really should learn more about libraries.
The "discussion" went on for some time, my point being that some things (goods) are best provided by government through tax revenue at least partly because there was little profit incentive for private business to provide such goods. There are other reasons as well but you'll have to read the information from the link provided above.
The Libertarian view was, so far as I could see, for no role for government, nothing should be public goods, everything should be private goods, private ownership.... and so it went.
There was more...much more. About roads: No. they aren't a public good. They are just long and thin and that confuses people. Roads are property like anything else. Every good reigns down benefits on more than just the purchaser. My neighbours garden is beautiful and I enjoy the view. It doesn't make it a public good because of my enjoyment of it. "Good" implies someone values it. Someone is an individual. The public can't value something, that is anthropomorphic metaphor.
And my response: Your neighbour's garden wasn't developed and paid for with tax dollars. It isn't a public good, by definition. I'm glad you like it, but it's not a public good. The use of the term "good" here is a synonym for a "thing" or an "item". A public park, built and paid for with tax $$ is a public good... a public "thing". Public goods are generally developed because sufficient numbers of tax payers, though their government, decide that something is worthwhile. Often because private enterprise has no interest in providing that something because there isn't a profit motivation available to them. Anthropomorphism refers to attributing human feelings to inanimate objects or to non-human organisms. Since the public is made up of people, it's entirely appropriate to argue that the public can value something. Just go see how much a city park is enjoyed by the public on a hot summer's day. The "public" is just a collective (oooops, "collective", that nasty socialist word...) of individuals, all liking something together. Have you ever been to a park? Did you like it? Or did the fact that it was created using tax $$ completely sour the experience for you?
Just for interest, there are other categories of "goods" - private goods, which are easily exchanged through markets, common-property goods, which aren't easily exchanged through markets and where government is often called upon to regulate (air, water), and near-public goods.
The "common-property " goods are another interesting case because this is where we have so many problems related to overuse (fisheries) and pollution (oceans, lakes, air, water). Since they are not owned by anyone directly, nobody seems to look after them properly. There was a term that appeared some years ago: "The Tragedy of the Commons" that describes the failure to look after common-property goods.
No comments:
Post a Comment