Talk:Club good

Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg[edit]

Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Education a Club-Good?[edit]

I'm working on a Master-Thesis in Educational Science in Germany. Everybody here says "Bildung ist keine Ware" wich means something like "Education is not for sale". Wich is true for Germany. But I wonder if it's a Club-Good because the use is restricted by grades. I hope someone can aswer this question. I'm quite astonished, that nobody seems to work on that issue.

Oft fällt ein Gut nicht generell in eine der vier Kategorien, sondern es hängt von den Umständen ab, um welche Art von Gut es sich handelt!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.202.109 (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National (free) education is a common good along with national health care and national defense. They are all paid by tax dollars or allocated by governments for their citizens. Paid for private education is a club good. I don't know how to change the chart. USchick (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a difference what is being discussed, national or international economics. Not everyone is entitled to national defense, education, and health care, or even food! It all depends on where you are at the moment. USchick (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with rewrite[edit]

I had to, unfortunately, revert this rewrite. While it seems good faithed and introduced expanded material, it has two major problems. First, it removes the old text entirely; as far as I can tell, nothing is preserved. This is not fair for editors who have been working on this article in the past; they deserve at least an explanation on talk. Second, the new article is poorly formatted - it has no blue links (WP:BTW), and in fact it introduces numerous Manual of Style issues: it removes categories (WP:CATEGORIES), it removes interwiki links and (a minor issue) it is even signed in mainspace (we do not sign articles, attribution is present in history). Overall, those are not major issues, but they should be addressed. I can offer help with technical issues (links), but I'd ask the editor who rewrote the article to 1) explain why s/he deemed it necessary to remove all previous text and tables and 2) to restore, in his/her new revision, the categories and interwiki links which where present in the old version (and my current, after the revert). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club theory talk page C&P (pre-redirect discussions)[edit]

Reference list[edit]

The reference list is improperly set up. The references should be inline in the article. Reading though each of the papers to find where the first editor might have thought they fit is a true pain. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If reading through the papers is painful rather than pleasurable...then well...why bother? Why not improve articles on topics that genuinely interest you? --Xerographica (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is painful because someone else clearly read and added the material. They could have just as easily done it correctly when it the material was first added. When a ref is first added it is far easier to connect it inline to the thought rather than have a follow-on editor read through an 80 page paper to find why the first editor added it in the first place. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, when we add a ref it should be inline (at the close of the thought it is the reference for). References should not be dumped willy-nilly at the bottom of a page with no explanation of how (or if) they connect with the material within the article. Doing otherwise makes a mess for others to clean up. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly could have been done better...but it was better than nothing. You're saying that the cup is half empty rather than half full. Obviously I could have invested far more time into writing this article. I could have even given up my day job to do so. I could in fact dedicate every second of every day of the rest of my life to improving this article. But so could you!

If you're truly going to fundamentally improve this article...then you're going to have to pour through more than just one 80 page paper to do so. Is it worth it for you? How can I possibly know what your opportunity costs are? All I can know is that it was worth it for me to sacrifice the alternative uses of my time in order to try and share some of the key concepts and references. --Xerographica (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's the deal. It is better for an article (any article) if you add one decent ref inline than two or a dozen or a hundred refs unconnected in a lump at the bottom of the page. It is better to create a stub with a lede and one good inline ref than a 'half full' article with many unconnected refs. The first approach allows others to add to an article, the second makes it very difficult for other editors. You know that a ref is good. You read the book and right there on page 236 is a great definition of club theory. If, when you put up the material in the article, you put the ref inline (with the page #) you'd have virtually no problems on any Wikipedia article. Truly your enjoyment and additions to the project would grow exponentially. So would everyone else's. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, your additions are indeed better than nothing. You are clearly an intelligent editor who cares about the things that he is working on. Small changes in your editing approach would pay vast dividends. Who could argue effectively with most your refs if placed inline initially? You would be in a far better place to defend and improve an article. As my grandfather said "measure twice, cut once". The small increase in effort at the front end will result in great reductions of effort and less stress on the back end. Just my opinion, for what its worth. 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the positive feedback...but your advice is a day late and a dollar short...Motivation, Agency, and Public Policy and The Other Invisible Hand. The thing is...there are other editors who could really benefit from your advice to "measure twice, cut once". I've been telling Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO to "read more, edit less". --Xerographica (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street[edit]

Capitalismojo just removed this "reliable" source...

Sesame Street - Five Bears in the Bed

It's funny because here's what I wrote to Stalwart111 nearly a month ago on my talk page... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Crux_of_the_problem.3F

Here's another simple exercise. Look over the references that I added to the entry I created for club theory. One reference should quickly grab your attention. You can be certain that Rich and Rubin saw that I created that entry. So how come they didn't notice that "reliable" source? Would it be disruptive if you were to remove it? Perhaps a bit...it's arguably relevant...but it certainly wouldn't be worth being blocked over.

So Capitalismojo wins the grand prize...he's the first one to actually look through the references. But the prize would be even greater if he could explain the relevance of the Sesame Street song. --Xerographica (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm, I imagine you added the Sesame Street video because under Club Theory we are discussing the optimal use of public goods. EG: If a swimming pool has too many members of the public using it at the same time no one gets the full enjoyment of the resource. Too many cabs in central London and the traffic is a nightmare. Too many bears in the bed and its not fun for all the bears, too few bears and it's lonely. Was that your point? Do I win a greater prize? Capitalismojo (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't the connection, you have me stumped. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the connection. So you win the grand prize...but you didn't win the bonus prize. The bonus prize would have been for the..."Therefore..."

The answer to the whole highway problem lies in “pricing” the highway correctly. The existence of congestion on our streets and highways is solely due to the fact that we do not charge high enough “prices” for their use. This is one of the main functions of price in our free enterprise economy... [p]rice relieves potential congestion around our meat counters, our motels, and our models. Why do we shun its usage in the case of highway services? - James M. Buchanan, Painless Pavements: Highways by High Finance

I found that passage in Marciano's excellent paper...Why Markets Do Not Fail. This ties into tax choice, the benefit principle, user charge and hypothecated tax. The mission is to overcome the preference revelation problem and determine exactly how much of a public good to supply. It's an important mission because society has limited resources. How can we maximize the amount of benefit we derive from society's limited resources? Answering that question is the very point of economics. --Xerographica (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POINTy addition?[edit]

The discussion above (both sections) do not seem to be focused on article improvement. Was Sesame Street included as a genuine effort to create an interesting and valuable article? If so, then wonderful. It should be, I would hope, simple or easy to explain why it is germaine to the article. But if it was added as a test or taunt to see if other editors would catch it, then the addition was WP:POINTy. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent...I'm happy to try and teach these concepts. But you haven't been willing to meet me half way. You never do your own homework. Instead, you expect me to jump through your hoops like some sort of circus clown. It's ridiculous. Learn from Capitalismojo. He read over the material and was able to provide a reasonably informed perspective on the topic of whether or not the Sesame Street song is relevant to this article. If an editor doesn't do their own homework...then how can they possibly identify whether a discussion is relevant to article improvement? --Xerographica (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then your point was to teach me and other editors? – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Club good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]