Is the Space Elevator a Public Good?

[TheReal_ND]

Your definition of "public good" is way too narrow. If society advances the quality of life, that's a public good. Boiling down the moon landings into dollars & cents, they certainly weren't a financial success, and no one benefited much from them, other than quality of life. (Inspired lots of boys to become engineers.)

What's the point anymore? If the future inheritors of America decide to go back someday they can. Nothing holding them back. Except the price tag of course.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your definition of "public good" is way too narrow. If society advances the quality of life, that's a public good. Boiling down the moon landings into dollars & cents, they certainly weren't a financial success, and no one benefited much from them, other than quality of life. (Inspired lots of boys to become engineers.)

No. The term means something specific.

A space elevator would represent a tremendous benefit to our nation, and indeed the entire world, but it still would not fit the definition of a public good. It would probably confer far more benefits than any actual public good, but that still does not make it a public good.

Just because something benefits everybody doesn't make it a public good. Maybe a new term is required.

Public goods have two distinct aspects: nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption. “Nonexcludability” means that the cost of keeping nonpayers from enjoying the benefits of the good or service is prohibitive. If an entrepreneur stages a fireworks show, for example, people can watch the show from their windows or backyards. Because the entrepreneur cannot charge a fee for consumption, the fireworks show may go unproduced, even if demand for the show is strong.

The fireworks example illustrates the related free-rider problem. Even if the fireworks show is worth ten dollars to each person, arguably few people will pay ten dollars to the entrepreneur. Each person will seek to “free ride” by allowing others to pay for the show, and then watch for free from his or her backyard. If the free-rider problem cannot be solved, valuable goods and services—ones people otherwise would be willing to pay for—will remain unproduced.

The second aspect of public goods is what economists call “nonrivalrous consumption.” Assume the entrepreneur manages to exclude noncontributors from watching the show (perhaps one can see the show only from a private field). A price will be charged for entrance to the field, and people who are unwilling to pay this price will be excluded. If the field is large enough, however, exclusion is inefficient. Even nonpayers could watch the show without increasing the show’s cost or diminishing anyone else’s enjoyment. In other words, the relevant consumption is nonrivalrous. Nonetheless, nonexcludability is usually considered the more important of the two aspects of public goods. If the good is excludable, private entrepreneurs will try to serve as many fee-paying customers as possible, charging lower prices to some customers if need be.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html

[Speaker to Animals]

Also you can see how it's definitely not a public good by the fact that it suffers from zero free riders problem.

If a private corporation could manage to build a space elevator that will get cargo into LEO for a tiny fraction of the cost of using lifters, then they will make a fortune. A public good by definition is not very profitable for a private owner to control because he cannot exclude free riders.

For lots of public goods to be made profitable for private actors, we had to invent things like copyrights and patents. A song once recorded could be a public good if there did not exist copyright law, since anybody can freely copy the song without consuming a use from somebody else, and it doesn't cost anybody for them to do it either. But we had to pass laws to keep people from doing that so that recording music would remain profitable and our free riders don't become so numerous that the industry collapses and we get no more music.

[Martin Hash]

No. The term means something specific.

A space elevator would represent a tremendous benefit to our nation, and indeed the entire world, but it still would not fit the definition of a public good. It would probably confer far more benefits than any actual public good, but that still does not make it a public good.

Just because something benefits everybody doesn't make it a public good. Maybe a new term is required.

Yeah, just because the public pays for it doesn't meet the strict definition of "public good," (like healthcare), even though it's good for the public (by definition since the public chose it).

[Okeefenokee]

I think I said it before, I work with a guy who loves to call any and everything he likes or wants a right.

[TheReal_ND]

No. The term means something specific.

A space elevator would represent a tremendous benefit to our nation, and indeed the entire world, but it still would not fit the definition of a public good. It would probably confer far more benefits than any actual public good, but that still does not make it a public good.

Just because something benefits everybody doesn't make it a public good. Maybe a new term is required.

Yeah, just because the public pays for it doesn't meet the strict definition of "public good," (like healthcare), even though it's good for the public (by definition since the public chose it).

Bull SHIT. We voted for Repeal and we couldn't even get that. The best our efforts got was a half hearted attempt to peddle RyanCare which is only shades of grey different from being fucked in the ass by a dragon dildo.

[Speaker to Animals]

Healthcare is not a public good either.

You might be able to make the argument that a public health campaign to limit the spread of a disease is a public good. Defense is a public good.

There are a few basic requirements for something to be a public good. That something is not a public good doesn't mean it's shit either. It could be vital. Health care is pretty fucking important even if it's not a public good.

When we speak of public goods, we are trying to deal with specific problems that arise with them (like tragedy of the commons and free riding).

[Martin Hash]

I think I said it before, I work with a guy who loves to call any and everything he likes or wants a right.

Lots of people do that, especially people who think Rights come from someplace mystical (rather than the barrel of a gun). But YOU know the difference between Rights and wants, so fuck that guy.

[Martin Hash]

Healthcare is not a public good either.

Dude, we're not in court, and anything that takes an entire paragraph to explain because there's no exact word for it because we want to be all semantic is just going to have to use a word that does exist. Maybe there is a word, I'm too lazy to be Googling this morning, and you're on a terror, so look it up, man.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you change the meaning of public good, then economists would have to invent a new term to mean what public good meant before you redefined it.