Sidewalks and public goods

[Minervabird]

In Europe, countries with small rural towns are losing population as kids grow up and leave for job opportunities.

Some communities ramped up their health care and other services and worked to attract retirees who can live quite well in Spain or Italy on a US or British pension.

Towns will die out on their own if there is no reason to live there.

hence the 1 euro Italian house in dying hill towns.

[dismalist]

Being a railfan myself, I think what might satisfy most people is their own

Royal Train

As a proud owner of such a train, one would also want one's own railway station

Windsor Train Station

conveniently near one's own castle

Windsor Castle

That would take care of the housing shortage, too.

Of course, no one lives at Windsor permanently, so perhaps one could rent.

Hell, the English Royals stole their land fair and square. We should have the same benefits. Life isn't fair.

[nebo113]

Dismalist...You are contributing to K16's SSDI through your taxes.

[dismalist]

Dismalist...You are contributing to K16's SSDI through your taxes.

Alas, that's a misunderstanding of insurance. Insurance is not ex ante redistribution, for I don't know if I'm gonna get the payout in the disability case. It is ex post redistribution, and it looks like taxation.

The special thing about SSDI is that it's compulsory. But there is a reason for that: We're not going to let the disabled languish in the streets so we can be exploited by free riders. Hence, make it compulsory.

For better understanding, compare to the voluntary case, fire insurance. When somebody's house burns down it makes no sense to say I'm giving the guy money. If my house were to burn down, he'd be "giving me money".

So, I'm not paying for anybody, I'm paying myself against the chance of being disabled.

[kaysixteen]

I will send  you a check for your share of my annual benefits, for now through my current year of end of current life expectancy.  With current interest.   That will probably be enough, for you to buy a slice of pepperoni to make a start on a pizza.

[dismalist]

Dismalist...You are contributing to K16's SSDI through your taxes.

Alas, that's a misunderstanding of insurance. Insurance is not ex ante redistribution, for I don't know if I'm gonna get the payout in the disability case. It is ex post redistribution, and it looks like taxation.

The special thing about SSDI is that it's compulsory. But there is a reason for that: We're not going to let the disabled languish in the streets so we can be exploited by free riders. Hence, make it compulsory.

For better understanding, compare to the voluntary case, fire insurance. When somebody's house burns down it makes no sense to say I'm giving the guy money. If my house were to burn down, he'd be "giving me money".

So, I'm not paying for anybody, I'm paying myself against the chance of being disabled.

I will send  you a check for your share of my annual benefits, for now through my current year of end of current life expectancy.  With current interest.  That will probably be enough, for you to buy a slice of pepperoni to make a start on a pizza.

I'm sorry, K-16. You don't seem to understand my perhaps deficient explanation of insurance.

[dismalist]

As the one who started this thread, thanks for all of the discussion. This has been fascinating.

Sidewalks in American cities are a patchwork because the communities were usually developed in a patchwork manner.  At certain periods a local government may have prioritized sidewalks.  During others, it didn't.  As observed in the article Marsh cites, when suburban development was at its height, there was often little concern for walkability.  And some people apparently did have some idea that sidewalks would draw elements that they didn't want.  It has often been the same with public transportation--proposals to extend bus lines and other transit are sometimes opposed on grounds that it will make it easier for criminals to get around town.  I'm not sure how widespread such sentiment actually is, but I have heard of people who opposed bus stops and such in their neighborhoods for fear it would draw crime.  I get the impression that there's not as much of that now.

What interests me most goes back to my original point. The U.S. seems like an outlier, especially among developed countries, in placing almost zero value in co-ordination of services that will be of potential benefit to everyone.

To dismalist:
I think binary categories of "public" versus "private" goods is inaccurate in many cases, especially where there is a large network effect. For instance, public transit could be thought of as more of a "private" good if only a small segment of the population use it. However, the larger the proportion who use it, the more it becomes a "public" good. In that case, it even benefits people who don't use it if it  reduces traffic congestion and drive times for everyone else.

Hell, I missed this post!

Of course, a mere binary is inadequate for analytical purposes. The "pure" public good is rare, typically only defense and radio & TV programs on the airwaves. For purposes of capacity constrained goods, such as swimming pools, where it's easy to charge entry fees, the notion of "club goods" will work. For purposes of sidewalks, where it makes little sense to charge entry fees, "local public good" will do.  To generalize, all finer distinctions come as "externalities", could be positive, could be negative, could be large, could be small, could be local, could be global, literally.

This last does not help in defending, say, subsidizing local transit. That increases travel, and its associated negative externalitites. Better to tax cars! You can see why the 92% of the population that owns cars hates this line of analysis.

[marshwiggle]

What interests me most goes back to my original point. The U.S. seems like an outlier, especially among developed countries, in placing almost zero value in co-ordination of services that will be of potential benefit to everyone.

To dismalist:
I think binary categories of "public" versus "private" goods is inaccurate in many cases, especially where there is a large network effect. For instance, public transit could be thought of as more of a "private" good if only a small segment of the population use it. However, the larger the proportion who use it, the more it becomes a "public" good. In that case, it even benefits people who don't use it if it  reduces traffic congestion and drive times for everyone else.

Hell, I missed this post!

Of course, a mere binary is inadequate for analytical purposes. The "pure" public good is rare, typically only defense and radio & TV programs on the airwaves. For purposes of capacity constrained goods, such as swimming pools, where it's easy to charge entry fees, the notion of "club goods" will work. For purposes of sidewalks, where it makes little sense to charge entry fees, "local public good" will do.  To generalize, all finer distinctions come as "externalities", could be positive, could be negative, could be large, could be small, could be local, could be global, literally.

This last does not help in defending, say, subsidizing local transit. That increases travel, and its associated negative externalitites. Better to tax cars! You can see why the 92% of the population that owns cars hates this line of analysis.

Wouldn't taxing fuel make more sense? A car that isn't driven isn't contributing to those negative externalities.

[dismalist]

What interests me most goes back to my original point. The U.S. seems like an outlier, especially among developed countries, in placing almost zero value in co-ordination of services that will be of potential benefit to everyone.

To dismalist:
I think binary categories of "public" versus "private" goods is inaccurate in many cases, especially where there is a large network effect. For instance, public transit could be thought of as more of a "private" good if only a small segment of the population use it. However, the larger the proportion who use it, the more it becomes a "public" good. In that case, it even benefits people who don't use it if it  reduces traffic congestion and drive times for everyone else.

Hell, I missed this post!

Of course, a mere binary is inadequate for analytical purposes. The "pure" public good is rare, typically only defense and radio & TV programs on the airwaves. For purposes of capacity constrained goods, such as swimming pools, where it's easy to charge entry fees, the notion of "club goods" will work. For purposes of sidewalks, where it makes little sense to charge entry fees, "local public good" will do.  To generalize, all finer distinctions come as "externalities", could be positive, could be negative, could be large, could be small, could be local, could be global, literally.

This last does not help in defending, say, subsidizing local transit. That increases travel, and its associated negative externalitites. Better to tax cars! You can see why the 92% of the population that owns cars hates this line of analysis.

Wouldn't taxing fuel make more sense? A car that isn't driven isn't contributing to those negative externalities.

Of course.