Understanding “Public Goods”

July 31, 2020 by Dan Mitchell  @ International Liberty

I wrote last month about “anarcho-capitalists” who think we don’t need any government because markets can provide everything.

Most people, though, think that there are certain things (such as national defense and the rule of law) that are “public goods” because they won’t exist if they’re not provided by government.

Academics tell us, if we want to be rigorous, that there are two characteristics that define public goods.

1. They are goods that people won’t buy because they can reap the benefit without paying (economists say this means the good is “non-excludable” while normal people refer to this as the free-rider problem).
2. They are goods that can be universally shared since one person’s consumption of the good doesn’t limit another person’s consumption of the good (economists say such goods are “non-rival”).

That’s a bit wonky, so let’s consider the example of national defense.

In a world with bad countries (or, to be more accurate, a world with nations governed by bad people), there’s a risk or external aggression. Since most people wouldn’t want to be conquered – and presumably mistreated – by foreign aggressors, national defense is valuable.

But how would it be provided in the absence of government? Maybe Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos would have an incentive to cough up some cash since they have a lot of wealth to protect, but most people (including most rich people) might figure that someone else would cover the cost and they could enjoy protection for free.

This two-part series from Marginal Revolution University explains public goods, using the example of asteroid defense. Here’s an introductory video.

And here’s a follow-up version that has a bit more detail.

I’m writing about this wonky issue because the debate over public goods, at least in some quarters, also is a debate about the size of government.

Consider this image of supposed public goods.

It shows all sorts of activities where governments today play a role, but most of those things aren’t actually public goods since they can be – and sometimes are – privately provided (see examples for fire protection, money, roads, education, health, air traffic control, and parks).

In other words, as Professor Tabarrok noted in the second video, something isn’t a public good just because it’s currently being handled by government.

Indeed, let’s look at the classic example of lighthouses, which often are cited as an example of something that absolutely must be provided by government. Yet scholars have found that the private sector led the way (before being supplanted by government).

For a more prudent view of public goods, Ronald Reagan’s FY1987 budget included a set of principles to help guide whether the federal government should play a role in various areas.

Those six principles could even be boiled down to one principle: Always opt for the private sector whenever possible.

I’ll close by identifying the bureaucracies in Washington that provide genuine public goods. As you can see, much of the federal government (Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, etc) doesn’t qualify.

To be sure, I’m using a broad-brush approach with this image. Some of the bureaucracies that I crossed out do a few things that qualify as public goods (such as nuclear weapons research at the Department of Energy), and the bureaucracies that didn’t get crossed out do lots of things (such at veterans health care) that should be in the private sector.

The bottom line is that much of the federal government isn’t needed, based on what’s a genuine public good. And for much of America’s history, at least prior to the 1930s, Washington was only a tiny burden because it was only involved in a few areas, such as national defense.

Though it’s worth noting that government could – and should – be much smaller even using an expansive definition of public goods and the role of government.

This Vet Imprisoned for Digging Ponds on His Land Died. Now His Widow Continues the Fight

Kevin Mooney / @KevinMooneyDC / May 19, 2019 / 59 Comments

The name of a Navy veteran may be cleared after he was convicted, fined, and imprisoned for digging ponds in a wooded area near his Montana home, to supply water in case of fire.   The Supreme Court has vacated a lower court ruling against Joe Robertson, who was sent to federal prison and ordered to pay $130,000 in restitution through deductions from his Social Security checks.

Any definitive legal victory for Robertson would be posthumous, since he died March 18 at age 80.

But his lawyers describe the Supreme Court’s action as a “big win” for Robertson’s widow, Carrie, who plans to carry on the fight.  President Barack Obama’s Justice Department had prosecuted Robertson for digging in “navigable waters” without a permit, in violation of the Clean Water Act.........Congress initially passed the Clean Water Act in 1948, but lawmakers greatly altered and expanded it into the current form with amendments in 1972............ To Read More.... 

Democrats want increased government control (except on the border)

August 23, 2019 By Jack Hellner

It seems Democrats want control of everything except the borders and their greed for power continues to escalate. Every day they are supported by almost all purported journalists and media outlets in their quest for money and power. 

1920’s: Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted abortion to build a cleaner race. Democrats continually increase their support for Planned Parenthood even though they abort black and brown babies at a much higher percentage than their percentage of the population.......To Read More....

 

Observations From the Back Row: 6-4-11

...

We have all been lied to by a shameless confederation of scientists, their professional publications, their formal organizations, and politicians seeking to use this big scare to advance their careers and agendas. The problem for all of them is that the real science does not support global warming and never did. Real scientists, branded dissenters, skeptics, and deniers, held true to the principles of science, knowing that it would eventually end this vast and terrible hoax. - Alan Caruba

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jun 2nd 2011

Part One: Hippie of the Week
Part Two: Warmists & Scaremongers
Part Three: Inconvenient Truths
Part Four: AGW in the News
Part Five: Global Hottie

Obama Commerce Nominee is a Warmist nut John Bryson, President Barack Obama's nominee to be secretary of commerce, said it was “incredibly important” that the United States pass cap and trade legislation and that America needed to be a global leader in combating man-made global warming.

“I regard it as incredibly important that the United States comes forth in this year with federal climate change legislation as a foundation for moving ahead,” Bryson told the U.N. International Energy Conference in late August 2009. “I think we in the U.S. have an obligation to assist in significant ways in providing leadership in this community of nations that you represent and addressing energy and climate change.”….. Bryson, a co-founder of the liberal environmentalist group Natural Resources Defense Council, was most recently a member of the United Nations’ Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change, a panel of scientific and industry experts tasked with providing advice on combating global warming.

Obama wants John Bryson to lead an agency that is responsible for promoting and fostering business and industry. Why Obama would choose to put an anti-business anti-jobs and anti-economic growth nut in charge of our economic recovery - who was a co-founder of the wildly anti-everything Natural Resources Defense Council - is quite insane! -John Ray

TAYLOR: Don’t look behind the green curtain Global warming alarmists are throwing a temper tantrum this week after a Virginia judge affirmed that scientists who receive public funds to study global warming are subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests regarding their taxpayer-funded research. The alarmists’ outrage at being required to divulge and justify the data and theories that lead to their predictions of doom and gloom stands in stark contrast to the often-vilified skeptics who welcome scientific transparency with open arms.

A Virginia state judge issued a May 24 order requiring the University of Virginia to produce by Aug. 22 documents the university acknowledges are subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. A separate order sets the stage for the American Tradition Institute to review and challenge the withholding of documents the university claims are exempt from disclosure owing to asserted academic freedom or proprietary research claims….. While alarmists like Mr. Mann fear the disclosure of their methods and data, skeptics have long championed transparency and openness. What does that tell you about who is and who is not confident the data back them up?

Gore-monism: Romney believes in manmade global warming Before a town hall meeting in Mancester, New Hampshire today, Romney said, I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that. It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors. This statement obviously doesn’t bode well for the prospect that Romney would rein in the EPA and its endangerment finding and economy-killing greenhouse gas regulations.

MILLOY: Do GOP hopefuls trust Al Gore? What would Al Gore do? Could that really be New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s thought process? The GOP’s darling and “please-run-for-president-now” governor earned national attention last week for pulling New Jersey out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the cap-and-trade program set up by Northeast states. But in doing so, Mr. Christie revealed a serious lapse in political instinct and judgment that should cause Republicans to ask whether he and others like him are ready for the White House….Mitt Romney has expressed reservations about taking unilateral action on greenhouse gases, but his broader view on climate science is, at best, unknown. Tim Pawlenty has renounced his support for cap-and-trade. But has he embraced climate skepticism?

The EPA: Economic ‘Savior’ or Jolly Green Tyrant? Rest easy America, for not only is the EPA busy saving the planet, it’s taken on a new responsibility: saving the economy. The Departments of Commerce and Energy can close up shop and Treasury Department better start investing in some new equipment to count all of the riches that are going to flood into America’s coffers now that EPA is on the job…..Forget all that rubbish you may have heard that suggests that piling more and more regulations on American industry inhibits economic growth. It’s actually quite the opposite, and we know this because Ms. Jackson assures us it is so: the more environmental regulations, the more money we’ll all make. Don’t you worry for a moment about abandoning the use of the cheapest, most abundant energy resource we have, for example. America will be far better off burning less coal and generating electricity by using… er… uh… Well, we’re still working that out, but the less coal we use the more money we’ll make and we’ll also reduce our dependence on foreign oil – or something like that. They’re still working up the figures summarizing coal imports from Saudi Arabia, apparently …..All the EPA is trying to do is to right the ship before it’s too late. Another dozen or so major new regulations and happy days will be here again. Just you wait and see America – just wait and see.

Overruled Ever wonder if anyone in government gives a thought to costs when one of its labyrinthine laws is put into effect? Turns out at least one federal agency says it's prohibited from doing so. Which explains a lot. In a town where the government is accustomed to doing whatever it wants, one member of Congress has challenged the system. Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., asked the Environmental Protection Agency about its rule-making process. What she learned is breathtaking, but not surprising.

Market Speaks: Impacts of EPA Train Wreck Will Be Much Higher Than Anticipated Reality has interceded in EPA’s attempt to play down the impact of its train wreck regulations on the electric utility industry. First came the widely reported news that Louisville Gas & Electric had filed for a 19% rate increase by 2016 to pay for the upgrades that the regulations will require.

Senators Stand Up to EPA’s Assault on Private Property On April 27, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a Clean Water Act jurisdictional guidance document that would drastically expand the EPA’s ability to regulate private land and water. Just as the EPA used regulation to get around Congress’s rejection of cap-and-trade legislation to tax carbon dioxide, the agency is again ignoring Congress after policymakers failed to move legislation forward.

Terence Corcoran: Green Jobs Agenda Is A Threat To Economic Recovery The G8 economic model of government spending and intervention across the economies of the developed world may well be the reason that banks and others are holding on to their assets and wealth. If you want to know why the U.S. economy and much of the developed world appeared Wednesday to be sliding sideways or even declining — weak job markets, slow growth, sagging production, falling housing markets, soaring commodity prices, plunging stock values — a reasonable starting point would be the economic policy musings in the final declaration from last week’s G8 Summit in Deauville, France. In addition to being flush with the usual generalized econo-blather of summit communiqués, it is also an instructive checklist of Obamanomics and the interventionist extremism that now guides economic policymaking around the world.

The Chopping Block: William Watson on Green Growth Painting all buildings green would boost jobs too — at a cost. The latest trendy justification for higher government spending is “Green Growth.” Last month, the OECD put out a major report heralding a big, new Green Growth initiative. Last week, the G8 devoted a section of its communiqué to the subject. The table at right, borrowed from an earlier column by Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, suggests we’ve already skipped ourselves pretty far down this green-brick road….. The trouble is, Green just doesn’t do anything special for the economy. Except when it hurts it.

Is it time for a crime of ecocide? Most now accept that the Earth is fragile, but can the legal system help to secure its future? Among the ideas currently gaining currency is adding a crime of ecocide to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). If this idea is accepted, ecocide would join war crimes, aggression, crimes against humanity and genocide as a fifth crime against peace….. It reflects a redefinition of the ‘rights’ debate away towards the idea that ‘planetary rights’ merit as much protection as their human counterparts. The aim is for the law to treat the earth not as an inert commodity, but as a living being with intrinsic value.

10 Reasons You Shouldn’t Steer Toward Ethanol The ongoing turmoil in the Middle East has resulted in higher gas prices, inconveniencing Americans who are already attempting to pick up the pieces following the recent economic downturn. In recent years, ethanol has become a popular alternative to gasoline because of its low cost and ability to burn cleanly. However, with the government's quest to increase ethanol production and reduce our dependence on oil, the latter of which is a necessary goal, many of ethanol's flaws have been overlooked. Whether you're concerned for the environment or just a college kid on a budget, you should first consider the following 10 reasons to steer away from the corn-based fuel before making it a regular purchase.

Atrazine not a carcinogen, study says Who didn’t know that the Environmental Working Group was wrong about atrazine being a carcinogen? The herbicide atrazine was not associated with cancer in a study of 36,357 applicators (i.e., a relatively highly-exposed population), according to a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP).

Woman with bed bugs denied medical treatment Christine Lewis said she was just being honest with the nurse at Colorado's Aurora Medical Center when she showed her the festering bites on her arms just before she was to have a spinal injection for her back pain. But when the doctor arrived, instead of showing compassion, Lewis alleges he refused to do the procedure, telling her, "it could be in your hair, it could be in your clothes and we can't have you bring that into our operating room," and then just "ran out the door." ………"I had been bitten a lot and they were red and inflamed and weepy," said Lewis. "The doctor gave me a perfectly good medical explanation why he didn't want to do the procedure. But then he went on to show ignorance, telling me I could bring the bugs into the hospital on my hair and clothes. They could come in on a delivery truck or anyone who walks in to the hospital. I am not a dirty person. He went too far."

Find way to fund aquifer species protection Through the creation of Edwards Aquifer Authority in 1993, the Legislature brought a temporary end to the federal Endangered Species Act litigation over the aquifer by giving the region a deadline to assure that certain endangered aquatic species would ...

My Take - This is insanity and a good reason to dumping the ESA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service along with the EPA.

Center for Biological Diversity seeks to destroy Fort Huachuca to save the San ...…. Calling the Army's reliance on this 2007 opinion “arbitrary and capricious,” the judge said the Army has violated its duty under the Endangered Species Act to ensure that its operations don't jeopardize the two species' existence. ...

My Take – Another good reason to dump the EPA and to pass laws that forbid greenie lawsuits.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,

"To talk of many things:

Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax -

Of cabbages and kings,

And why the sea is boiling hot,

And whether pigs have wings."

###