Talk:Public goods: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner (→Further development: new section) |
imported>Nick Gardner (→Title change: new section) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
This seems to me to be a good start on what should be a useful article on an important subject. The topic is touched upon in the microeconomics article, and needs expanding. I look forward to watching its further development. | This seems to me to be a good start on what should be a useful article on an important subject. The topic is touched upon in the microeconomics article, and needs expanding. I look forward to watching its further development. | ||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 03:47, 12 November 2007 (CST) | [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 03:47, 12 November 2007 (CST) | ||
== Title change == | |||
The title is likely to confuse readers who are not familiar with the jargon of economics. They would probably guess it to be about the abstraction "the good of the public" or "the public welfare". | |||
The more conventional "Public Goods" overcomes that difficulty because people automatically think of goods as commodities or products, which is what the article is about. So I suggest changing the title to "Public Goods". | |||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 03:56, 12 November 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 03:56, 12 November 2007
Definitions and sources
THe marginal cost of usage of a bridge or road is not zero. I am not particularly happy with this definition: will get back to you on this. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:01, 11 November 2007 (CST)
You're right, there is wear and tear on the bridge. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that once you've already built the bridge, the marginal cost of making the bridge available to additional people is zero, not the cost of additional people using it. Making the bridge available for one person costs the same as making it available for everyone; maintenance is a different story. How about:
While a pure public good is strictly non-rivalrous and non-excludable, the more general usage of the term is that public goods should conform to both properties to a reasonable extent. Strictly speaking, a bridge is a marketable public good or club good because the bridge owner can build a toll booth and exclude people from using it. Furthermore, bridges are only non-rivalrous during slow periods, if too many people use the bridge at once, there will be a traffic jam and everyone's enjoyment of the bridge will decrease. However, due to the large capital outlay required for constructing a bridge, and the transactions cost associated with collecting tolls, many bridges are operated by the government and provided as a public good. Stephen Saletta 17:50, 11 November 2007 (CST)
Further development
This seems to me to be a good start on what should be a useful article on an important subject. The topic is touched upon in the microeconomics article, and needs expanding. I look forward to watching its further development. Nick Gardner 03:47, 12 November 2007 (CST)
Title change
The title is likely to confuse readers who are not familiar with the jargon of economics. They would probably guess it to be about the abstraction "the good of the public" or "the public welfare". The more conventional "Public Goods" overcomes that difficulty because people automatically think of goods as commodities or products, which is what the article is about. So I suggest changing the title to "Public Goods". Nick Gardner 03:56, 12 November 2007 (CST)