On Mar 7, 2009, at 9:18 PM, Chris Gehlker wrote: > > On Mar 7, 2009, at 5:35 PM, Stefano Mori wrote: > >> >> I invite everyone to the premise of this thread that some things are >> best handled by government and some things are best handled by >> individuals and corporations. > > As Krugman points out, there used to be an area of consensus: > "But both sides, I thought, agreed that the government should provide > public goods — goods that are nonrival (they benefit everyone) and > nonexcludable (there’s no way to restrict the benefits to people who > pay.) The classic examples are things like lighthouses and national > defense, but there are many others. For example, knowing when a > volcano is likely to erupt can save many lives; but there’s no private > incentive to spend money on monitoring, since even people who didn’t > contribute to maintaining the monitoring system can still benefit from > the warning. So that’s the sort of activity that should be undertaken > by government." > > The notion that nonrival and nonexcludable goods are "public goods" > that should be provided by government goes back to "The Wealth of > Nations". These days one encounters supposedly educated people who are > innocent of the concept. As Krugman says "The intellectual incoherence > is stunning". >
excellent K > <http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/what-should-government-do-a-jindal-meditation/ >> > > > -- > Conscience is thoroughly well-bred and soon leaves off talking to > those who do not wish to hear it. > -Samuel Butler, writer (1835-1902) > > > > _______________________________________________ > OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] > http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters > List hosted at http://cat5.org/ _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
