Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[ciao_yall]

Sounds like another case of the almighty Market falling down on the job when it comes to providing a public good.

Watch your language!

Nursing does not provide a public good. The service a nurse provides me cannot be consumed by my neighbor. All of medicine -- except public health [note the name] provides strictly private goods.

The number of nurses per capita in the US has increased rapidly. However, an odd thing happened in 2021. About 100,000 nurses dropped out of their profession. This could be a temporary drop caused by Covid. Whatever.

But nursing providing private goods means market would work. 'Ya want more nurses, raise their wages!

Are human beings worth more dead than alive?

So a nurse keeping someone alive, or at least healthy enough to contribute to the overall economy, is a public good or a private good?

Every other civilized country treats health care as a public good for that very reason.

[dismalist]

Sounds like another case of the almighty Market falling down on the job when it comes to providing a public good.

Watch your language!

Nursing does not provide a public good. The service a nurse provides me cannot be consumed by my neighbor. All of medicine -- except public health [note the name] provides strictly private goods.

The number of nurses per capita in the US has increased rapidly. However, an odd thing happened in 2021. About 100,000 nurses dropped out of their profession. This could be a temporary drop caused by Covid. Whatever.

But nursing providing private goods means market would work. 'Ya want more nurses, raise their wages!

Are human beings worth more dead than alive?

So a nurse keeping someone alive, or at least healthy enough to contribute to the overall economy, is a public good or a private good?

Every other civilized country treats health care as a public good for that very reason.

In other countries it's a publicly financed good. Calling health care a public good is pure rhetoric, aimed at the emotions, not at understanding allocation decisions. It's a more complicated way of justifying "I want more".

Are human beings worth more dead than alive is also a purely rhetorical question. What most people produce they also consume, so they're not contributing to anything except themselves. For the rich it's different, for we have a progressive tax system in which they pay more in taxes than they derive in benefits. Poor people consume more than they produce. This redistribution is not at all undesirable. It's like insurance.

 I wish we had more rich people.

[Wahoo Redux]

Let it all crumble.

Either people will begin to regret letting so many of our colleges wither, or...

This is a period of necessary corrective die-offs like any disease that takes out the weak in the herd. College will be business training----but that's what people want.  The strong universities will still have a humanities fringe.  Next up are the majority of PhD programs now that there is no professional future in it.

Maybe it is for the best that the humanities retrench themselves to the dilettantes, geniuses, and intrinsically creative types out there in the world.  There was a time not so long ago that writers were produced by culture, not by MFA programs.  And with the Internet, anyone can be a literary critic, and many folks are just that without the esteem of a university title.   

Languages will be lost on most, sadly, but there are many training tools online.  I don't know how social sciences will preserver without a university, but I don't know much about them.

It is a bummer, however.

Hope your prez is just resigning for a run-of-the-mill scandal, Para, and nothing more dire.
 

[selecter]

It's bad enough all of these colleges are closing, but now the world has to end, too?

[marshwiggle]

In other countries it's a publicly financed good. Calling health care a public good is pure rhetoric, aimed at the emotions, not at understanding allocation decisions.

What about public good of not having to face the externalities of poverty, homelessness, etc? People pay big bucks to live in neighbourhoods without graffiti, crime, vandalism, etc. I would say in countries with more government services most people would see living in cleaner, safer cities as a very definite public good. Real estate prices are probably useful as a proxy for how much dollar value people put on those things.

 

[dismalist]

In other countries it's a publicly financed good. Calling health care a public good is pure rhetoric, aimed at the emotions, not at understanding allocation decisions.

What about public good of not having to face the externalities of poverty, homelessness, etc? People pay big bucks to live in neighbourhoods without graffiti, crime, vandalism, etc. I would say in countries with more government services most people would see living in cleaner, safer cities as a very definite public good. Real estate prices are probably useful as a proxy for how much dollar value people put on those things.

 

You're putting too much stuff in there, Marsh. Take things one cause at a time.

Greater health care financing will not affect graffiti except second order. Attack externality problems at source: Not Mothers against Drunk Driving causing the drinking age to be raised, and inducing binge drinking as a substitute, but rather, spot checks to deter drunk driving. And on and on.

Real estate prices are for shit, for the supply of housing is restricted by political means -- called zoning. Supply is political. The problem is us.

Now, I don't mean this seriously, but I wish that you could laugh with me: Externalities are the last argument of a scoundrel! :-)

[ciao_yall]

Are human beings worth more dead than alive is also a purely rhetorical question. What most people produce they also consume, so they're not contributing to anything except themselves. For the rich it's different, for we have a progressive tax system in which they pay more in taxes than they derive in benefits. Poor people consume more than they produce. This redistribution is not at all undesirable. It's like insurance.

Really? So there is no such thing as  surplus value?'

I leave you with this New Yorker cartoon.

[marshwiggle]

In other countries it's a publicly financed good. Calling health care a public good is pure rhetoric, aimed at the emotions, not at understanding allocation decisions.

What about public good of not having to face the externalities of poverty, homelessness, etc? People pay big bucks to live in neighbourhoods without graffiti, crime, vandalism, etc. I would say in countries with more government services most people would see living in cleaner, safer cities as a very definite public good. Real estate prices are probably useful as a proxy for how much dollar value people put on those things.

 

You're putting too much stuff in there, Marsh. Take things one cause at a time.

Greater health care financing will not affect graffiti except second order. Attack externality problems at source: Not Mothers against Drunk Driving causing the drinking age to be raised, and inducing binge drinking as a substitute, but rather, spot checks to deter drunk driving. And on and on.

From the IMF:

Public goods are those that are available to all ("nonexcludable") and that can be enjoyed over and over again by anyone without diminishing the benefits they deliver to others ("nonrival"). The scope of public goods can be local, national, or global. Public fireworks are a local public good, as anyone within eyeshot can enjoy the show.

What is, and is not, a public good is somewhat in the eye of the society. If everyone, or even a majority, is willing  to pay for decorative lightposts, then decorative lightposts are a public good. What each society is willing to pay for is a reflection of what that society values as a public good, but there's no guarantee that different societies will have the same values.

[ciao_yall]

From the IMF:

Public goods are those that are available to all ("nonexcludable") and that can be enjoyed over and over again by anyone without diminishing the benefits they deliver to others ("nonrival"). The scope of public goods can be local, national, or global. Public fireworks are a local public good, as anyone within eyeshot can enjoy the show.

What is, and is not, a public good is somewhat in the eye of the society. If everyone, or even a majority, is willing  to pay for decorative lightposts, then decorative lightposts are a public good. What each society is willing to pay for is a reflection of what that society values as a public good, but there's no guarantee that different societies will have the same values.

Another definition of "public goods" is that they have a greater benefit to the overall society than any one individual. Governments are good funders of these goods because it is difficult to get individuals to pay up, yet without these economic and civil society are a hot mess.

Roads, shipping ports, and airports help transport essential goods, making them less expensive and more accessible. But one person, or even group of people, doesn't have the resources to build an airport or capture the long term return on investment on that airport.

Schools make people educated and create doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, inventors, and even musicians and artists so people can enjoy the creations of those entrepreneurs and inventors. But if you try to privatize the cost of education, not as many people would take advantage of it for themselves or their children.

Health care makes people able to contribute to the overall well-being of society by working to contribute economically, caring for family members, and so on.  But how many people avoid going to the doctor because they don't want to pay a small co-pay and end up with a serious condition because something minor went unchecked?

The list goes on.

[spork]

You don't have to read Paul Romer's work to understand what a public good is. The definition is quite simple. And it's not what people here (except for dismalist) are talking about.

Universities, home builders, and string quartets have all behaved similarly in respect to productivity gains over time.

[secundem_artem]

You don't have to read Paul Romer's work to understand what a public good is. The definition is quite simple. And it's not what people here (except for dismalist) are talking about.

Universities, home builders, and string quartets have all behaved similarly in respect to productivity gains over time.

You and the dismal one make an interesting argument.

But......

Economists can define "public good" however they want, but it appears that the rest of us, in the great unwashed, disagree.

It's a bit like "liberal".  Political scientists can define this as they wish, but the public has devised its own definition and it has nothing to do with classical liberalism.

Experts can do what they like. But once their work or vocabulary enters the public consciousness, I would argue that the experts have lost control of the discussion.

Surely dismalist would see this as the success of the marketplace where the rest of us have decided on the appropriate definition?  8-)

[marshwiggle]

You don't have to read Paul Romer's work to understand what a public good is. The definition is quite simple. And it's not what people here (except for dismalist) are talking about.

Universities, home builders, and string quartets have all behaved similarly in respect to productivity gains over time.

So is the IMF definition wrong?

[dismalist]

Playing with definitions gets one nowhere. It does confirm my belief that when trying to use a science they do not understand humans start with a conclusion and then string some words together to make the conclusion seem cogent. The theory of relativity shows that everything is relative, right? :-)

Surplus value is a useful enough concept in analyzing a slave society. The slave can be said to produce surplus value in a labor theory of value. But we don't live in a slave society and the labor theory of value has been superseded 150 years ago. Charley Marx got it wrong, very wrong.

Public goods are those that are available to all ("nonexcludable") and that can be enjoyed over and over again by anyone without diminishing the benefits they deliver to others ("nonrival"). The scope of public goods can be local, national, or global. Public fireworks are a local public good, as anyone within eyeshot can enjoy the show.

That's standard, but a tad convoluted.

The main concept is "nonrival". The 101st Airborne Div protects me and my neighbors at the same time.

"Non-excludable" was added by one Richard Musgrave in the 1950's.

And yes, the scope of public goods can vary, with local being the most useful. There are very few pure public goods where one can just keep adding consumers, defense being one.

The point for organizing supply is that without excludability the market will underproduce a pure public good. It will be underproduced even with exclusion, except when there is perfect price discrimination! [This is why I don't like adding "excludability' to the definition, but that's my problem.]

So, we come full circle: The market generally underproduces pure public goods. So it's effective rhetoric to call everything in  sight a public good so that the government can do it!

[marshwiggle]

Playing with definitions gets one nowhere. It does confirm my belief that when trying to use a science they do not understand humans start with a conclusion and then string some words together to make the conclusion seem cogent. The theory of relativity shows that everything is relative, right? :-)

Surplus value is a useful enough concept in analyzing a slave society. The slave can be said to produce surplus value in a labor theory of value. But we don't live in a slave society and the labor theory of value has been superseded 150 years ago. Charley Marx got it wrong, very wrong.

Public goods are those that are available to all ("nonexcludable") and that can be enjoyed over and over again by anyone without diminishing the benefits they deliver to others ("nonrival"). The scope of public goods can be local, national, or global. Public fireworks are a local public good, as anyone within eyeshot can enjoy the show.

That's standard, but a tad convoluted.

The main concept is "nonrival". The 101st Airborne Div protects me and my neighbors at the same time.

"Non-excludable" was added by one Richard Musgrave in the 1950's.

And yes, the scope of public goods can vary, with local being the most useful. There are very few pure public goods where one can just keep adding consumers, defense being one.

A homeless encampment in a public park makes the park less enjoyable for everyone. The people in the encampment can be removed to jail, or to public housing. Is the cost of putting them in jail a public good, since it restores everyone's enjoyment of the park? Is the cost of putting them in public housing a private good, (because its primary benefit is to them), or is it a public good since it lets everyone enjoy the park? If the cost of housing is less than the cost of jail, is it then a public good?

[FishProf]

Is this discussion binary?  Are the only choices -1)  Private good: let the market handle it¹ OR  2) Public Good - Government's job?

Is there a middle ground where its neither/both?  The market won't provide it b/c the ROI isn't there, but the Gov't isn't the right place because it benefits the individual more than the group.

Nursing JOBS might be private goods, but a quality health care system seems more like a public good.

What am I missing?

¹ Individual human misery be damned.