I've long suspected that there is a problem with the evolution of street cleaning in a free market. Imagine a shopping district which tends to become cluttered with rubbish, making the area less attractive to shoppers. Suppose that if all the shop keepers banded together and contributed to hiring street cleaning services for the area then there would be a net benefit in terms of extra visitors that would lead to extra profits that are greater than the cost of the cleaners by some small margin. Now the problem is that if one of the shop-keepers does not want to join the scheme then what can be done? The other shop keepers can not force him to join in. Now the shop keeper that won't pay causes all sorts of problems: 1. it means that the others will have to pay more and the cost benefit equation may no longer work. 2. Other shop keepers may get angry and say "well if he's not paying then why should I". The system may all too easily fail or not get off the ground in the first place.
I've just read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Haslitt and noted that on page 69, "street cleaners" is included in a list of "public officeholders whose services are really needed", so maybe Mr Hazlitt agrees.
I also remember that there were examples in "The selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins where he shows how certain groups of animals behave sub-optimally (with respect to avoiding predation) because the "optimal" behavior can not evolve due to problems almost identical to the street cleaner problem.
So my question is this: Do Austrians acknowledge that there are a variety of "services" or "institutions" that are of benefit to society that will not evolve naturally from a free market that should rightly be set-up by a government? Is there a list somewhere that most austrians would agree upon? For example police? teachers? street cleaners? "a legal system"? infrastructure builders (road/rail)?
What Went Wrong with Economics
mickanomics: I am not lying. I will send you some things in a personal email that will convince you.
I am not lying. I will send you some things in a personal email that will convince you.
that's not necessary. Do you know how culture's evolve?
wilderness: Do you know how culture's evolve?
Do you know how culture's evolve?
I may know a few things about that, but its not my field of expertise... where is this line of questioning heading? Its getting way past my bed-time.
mickanomics: wilderness: Do you know how culture's evolve? I may know a few things about that, but its not my field of expertise... where is this line of questioning heading? Its getting way past my bed-time.
mine too.
So you answered that you know how to learn by providing your educational background and you may know a few things about culture's evolving. i wonder about your honesty, but that is something that will take a bit of time with me - so no worries i guess.
How do people build roads?
wilderness: How do people build roads?
What sort of level of detail are you requiring in your answer? How about getting to your point.... I'm off to bed.
mickanomics: wilderness: How do people build roads? What sort of level of detail are you requiring in your answer? How about getting to your point.... I'm off to bed.
What sort of detail are you able to provide?
good night
mickanomics: A) - well not really - she could only "back out" of the contract by selling up and moving out. This would cause huge disruption, not to mention all the costs of selling/buying/moving. Hardly a solution. B) - the contract won't reveal whether the freeholders/managing agents are decent people. With a bad government, you can get rid of them at the ballot box. This is not a perfect solution by any means, but at least its a possibility.
A) - well not really - she could only "back out" of the contract by selling up and moving out. This would cause huge disruption, not to mention all the costs of selling/buying/moving. Hardly a solution.
B) - the contract won't reveal whether the freeholders/managing agents are decent people.
With a bad government, you can get rid of them at the ballot box. This is not a perfect solution by any means, but at least its a possibility.
A) So you can't get out of this contract untill your Grandma dies or sells the home? No offense but you get what you deserve for signing up for such rediculousness. (In all honesty I have a hard time beleiving this is the case)
B) In a free society you can use the private court system to help your grandmother out. In all honesty though I think you could have this issue resolved now. You should put that PHD to use, a little critical thinking, and help your Grandma Out.
The free market is not egalitarian, it doesn't reward stupidity and ineffciencies. This isn't meant to be derogatory, I am mearly pointing out that the situation you got your grandmother into is not the fault of the free market, but the fault of yourself.
The free-market is about individual responsiblity. If you find yourself rather placing blame on others perhaps you should join the egalitarian socialists who wish to breed a nation full of retards, status quo, and the sub-par.
mickanomics: Is there even one road on earth, with more than 500 people living along it, that is privately owned (where the owner of the road is not also the landlord of all the tenants)?
Is there even one road on earth, with more than 500 people living along it, that is privately owned (where the owner of the road is not also the landlord of all the tenants)?
City of North Oak, Minnesota. Population 4,500. All roads are privately owned, the city owns none of the land.http://www.cityofnorth-oaks.com/
B-man: mickanomics: Is there even one road on earth, with more than 500 people living along it, that is privately owned (where the owner of the road is not also the landlord of all the tenants)? City of North Oak, Minnesota. Population 4,500. All roads are privately owned, the city owns none of the land.
City of North Oak, Minnesota. Population 4,500. All roads are privately owned, the city owns none of the land.
Thank you for that. Thanks to posts in this thread my original position on private roads has changed somewhat. It now appears to me that private roads *can* appear so long as there is some kind of governing body or person that can make the rules *in advance* so that people coming to live on the road have to sign a contract agreeing to the policies and payments for that road as a pre-condition to moving in. However this mechanism appears to lead (in the long run) to a very similar set of conditions that the anarchists so complain about with respect to government roads. i.e. the policy makers having the threat of physical force against non-payers and the residents having very unsatisfactory options with regard escaping the contracts.
filc: A) So you can't get out of this contract untill your Grandma dies or sells the home? No offense but you get what you deserve for signing up for such rediculousness. (In all honesty I have a hard time beleiving this is the case)
(Its mother - not grandmother). Well the contract no doubt simply said something like "I agree to pay my share when the outside of the building needs repairs". That doesn't sound very ridiculous to me. But of course "needs repairs" is open to very wide ranging interpretation.
filc: B) In a free society you can use the private court system to help your grandmother out. In all honesty though I think you could have this issue resolved now. You should put that PHD to use, a little critical thinking, and help your Grandma Out.
The freeholders were probably not breaking the law.
filc: The free market is not egalitarian, it doesn't reward stupidity and ineffciencies. This isn't meant to be derogatory, I am mearly pointing out that the situation you got your grandmother into is not the fault of the free market, but the fault of yourself.
What should she/we have done differently to have avoided/escaped the situation?
mickanomics:It now appears to me that private roads *can* appear so long as there is some kind of governing body or person that can make the rules *in advance* so that people coming to live on the road have to sign a contract agreeing to the policies and payments for that road as a pre-condition to moving in. However this mechanism appears to lead (in the long run) to a very similar set of conditions that the anarchists so complain about with respect to government roads. i.e. the policy makers having the threat of physical force against non-payers and the residents having very unsatisfactory options with regard escaping the contracts.
It now appears to me that private roads *can* appear so long as there is some kind of governing body or person that can make the rules *in advance* so that people coming to live on the road have to sign a contract agreeing to the policies and payments for that road as a pre-condition to moving in. However this mechanism appears to lead (in the long run) to a very similar set of conditions that the anarchists so complain about with respect to government roads. i.e. the policy makers having the threat of physical force against non-payers and the residents having very unsatisfactory options with regard escaping the contracts.
Perhaps so, but the residents most likely have a vested interest in the upkeep of the roads. It's not like our government today where each individual pays for the roads and highways for everyone, regardless of their personal usage.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
mickanomics: Thank you for that. Thanks to posts in this thread my original position on private roads has changed somewhat. It now appears to me that private roads *can* appear so long as there is some kind of governing body or person that can make the rules *in advance* so that people coming to live on the road have to sign a contract agreeing to the policies and payments for that road as a pre-condition to moving in. However this mechanism appears to lead (in the long run) to a very similar set of conditions that the anarchists so complain about with respect to government roads. i.e. the policy makers having the threat of physical force against non-payers and the residents having very unsatisfactory options with regard escaping the contracts.
Of course it does not. A government will impose a uniform policy on every road and destroy competition. A free market for roads will provide many competing roads for residents to settle on. The more successful roads will earn more profits and buy out the less successful, and new competitors will appear at the margins. This is the definition of a free market.
As it stands today people cannot escape the contracts because they are not contracts but government legislation. They can still try to escape from one jurisdiction to another. (For example, from Detroit to the suburbs.) That process is actually quite fluid. What they can't do is compete with the government by starting a new city under their own administration, and since Detroit is not allowed to fail, this results in the city going to complete ruin.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
mickanomics:What should she/we have done differently to have avoided/escaped the situation?
Not have purchased the service. Plain and Simple.
mickanomics:The freeholders were probably not breaking the law.
Law's shouldn't be made to protect dumb decisions. Also, in the free society the private court system won't necessarily be used for people who are breaking "The Law", but those individuals that have contracts that need to be disputed.
Look, bottom line is your Ma made a mistake. Now you want a blanket protective legislation which will effect every man, women, child, and businessmen in this country just to protect your Ma's poor decision making?
mickanomics:(Its mother - not grandmother). Well the contract no doubt simply said something like "I agree to pay my share when the outside of the building needs repairs". That doesn't sound very ridiculous to me. But of course "needs repairs" is open to very wide ranging interpretation.
With no clause to leave or stop service? I highly doubt this. Whats the name of the company? I'll be glad to look them up.
If something is *really needed*, it *will be* delivered one way or another.
With or without doubtful "help" of the government...
As a customer I like clean shops with clean surroundings.
As a shopkeeper I know of my potential customers' likes and dislikes,so I choose a place for my business in appropriate - e.g. clean - neighbourhood,where other shopkeepers care of cleanliness as I do and I also hire eligible personnel.
If something is of *true benefit* to society - the society will surely manage with that question.
Normal 0
I have learned a great deal from the process of this discussion. I've decided to summarize my current understanding as follows:
Comparison of Government and private utility provision.
Government utility provision
Private utility provision
Slow change by voting.
Slow change by market forces.
Great economy of scale.
Less economy of scale.
Decisions can be made once.
Repetition of the same decisions being made by multiple parties.
No understanding of contracts / smallprint required by consumer - no need to even read any contracts.
Great understanding of contracts / smallprint essential to avoid poor value service provision.
Utility provider can use force against you if you don’t pay.
No easy way to switch from one provider to another.
Competition between providers is hampered.*
Competition between providers is hampered.**
* Often governments will tender out or licence utility provision to different companies in different parts of the country. Over time the government can see which companies provide the best value. Unfortunately this “competition” mechanism is hampered by A) cronyism and B) by the fact that some parts of the country may be fundamentally easier to provide utilities for than others, there by making it harder to determine who is really doing best.
** One may argue that people may migrate form areas where the provision of a utility is better than an area where the provision is worse, but this is a very weak “market force” because the provision of a single utility will usually be only be a tiny component of the whole decision about where to locate.
mickanomics:No understanding of contracts / smallprint required by consumer - no need to even read any contracts.
Do you see this as a positive?