Isen at 19:07, 30 July 2007

2007-07-30T19:07:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:07, 30 July 2007
Line 4:		Line 4:

	The term public good is often used to refer to goods that are non-excludable as well as non-rival. This means it is not possible to exclude individuals from the good's consumption. Fresh air may be considered a public good as it is not generally possible to prevent people from breathing it. However, technically speaking such goods should be called pure public goods. These are highly theoretical definitions: in the real world there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rival or non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods in the real world approximate closely enough for these concepts to be meaningful.		The term public good is often used to refer to goods that are non-excludable as well as non-rival. This means it is not possible to exclude individuals from the good's consumption. Fresh air may be considered a public good as it is not generally possible to prevent people from breathing it. However, technically speaking such goods should be called pure public goods. These are highly theoretical definitions: in the real world there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rival or non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods in the real world approximate closely enough for these concepts to be meaningful.

			''Naive Objection (by David Isenberg):
			Think about the limits of the above definition! Suppose you have a unit if fresh air, a public good by the above definition, and somebody lights a fire, consuming the oxygen. Suddenly the air is rival. Now is "fresh air" no longer a public good? In other words, perhaps the term, "public good," is defined by an additional characteristic, i.e., the use of that good, by an agreement that the good is public.

			''Naive Objection 2 (by same guy):''
			Above it says in the real world there may not be absolutely non-rival goods, but what about IDEAS? Ideas are always non-rival -- if I tell you my idea, there's more of it, so ideas are actually anti-rival or negatively rival, i.e. subject to increasing returns. Ideas are excludable, of course; if I don't tell you mine you may never learn it. But once the secret is out, ideas are the ULTIMATE public good, according to the above definition.

			But, as I say above, I (naively) believe that the above definition is incomplete, or otherwise deficient.
			''

Dweinberger: pasted in the wikipedia entry

2007-05-04T16:44:14Z

pasted in the wikipedia entry

New page

From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good Wikipedia]:

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivalrous. This means: consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce the amount of the good available for consumption by others.[1] For example, if one individual eats a cake, there is no cake left for anyone else; but breathing air or drinking water from a stream does not significantly reduce the amount of air or water available to others.

The term public good is often used to refer to goods that are non-excludable as well as non-rival. This means it is not possible to exclude individuals from the good's consumption. Fresh air may be considered a public good as it is not generally possible to prevent people from breathing it. However, technically speaking such goods should be called pure public goods. These are highly theoretical definitions: in the real world there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rival or non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods in the real world approximate closely enough for these concepts to be meaningful.

Defining Public Good - Revision history

Isen at 19:07, 30 July 2007

Dweinberger: pasted in the wikipedia entry