Talk:Rivalry (economics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Economics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rivalrous equals Scarce?[edit]

The paragraph beginning "Non-rivalrous goods are not scarce from the point of view of the individual, but are typically scarce from a social perspective" seems slightly off to me. In what may seem like a minor quibble, it seems to me that it is the resources for producing, maintaining or improving the good that are scarce, not the good itself.

To use the example of this Wikipedia, it could be be bigger or better given extra resources but is what currently exists scarce in the economics meaning of the term? In the scarcity article the following definition is given: "a good is scarce if people would consume more of it if it were free." By this definition the Wikipedia can never be scarce.

In the Free rider article, non- or under-production of a public good is mentioned as a common problem. Are these under-produced public goods then scarce or is there a different term for lack of goods whose production needs an allocation of scarce resources but once complete can be duplicated/enjoyed by all with ease?

Can the confusion be cleared up simply by emphasising that (non-)rivalrousness is a continuum and that beautiful views and good policing are scarcer in some localities than in others? Or is this just a gap in economics created by too tight a focus on rivalrous goods and scarcity?

DavidScotson 19:55, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree totally, except that I wrote that "Non-rivalrous goods are not scarce from the point of view of the individual, but are typically scarce from a social perspective." That "typically" is a weasel-word, but it suggests that there may be some goods that aren't scarce (such as the Wikipedia). I'll clarify the text.

On the third problem, I guess the term for an "under-produced public goods" would be those public goods which aren't very important to people, so that no-one has done anything about the failure of private initiative to produce them.

Too much focus on scarcity? maybe. Some earlier author suggested that public goods aren't scarce. I added my clarifying point about them not being scarce _from the point of view of the individual_ -- but that they may be scarce from another perspective. Jdevine 22:01, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

economic goods[edit]

should this page be changed into economic goods? it talks mostly about rival and nonrival goods. so why should it be called rivolous? it also makes sense calling it economic goods. what do u8 guys think?

common cold is a good?[edit]

From the article: "Nonrival, tangible objects include a beautiful scenic view or the common cold." First, I assume 'objects' in that sentence means 'goods'. Probably it should just say 'goods'. Second, is the common cold actually considered an 'object/good'? I understand the point of the example, but perhaps there's something else that can be used in the example to serve the same purpose that is more obviously a good than 'common cold'.

Bjpremore 14:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have an issue with that sentence as well. Scenic views being considered non-rival. Space to see that certain view is limited and more often than not, you pay a premium for that view. I suppose you could say that the view itself is nonrival, but the space to view it is rivalrous. --Chicbicyclist 11:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi

I agree with Bjpremore, the examples used (common cold and scenic view) are not particularly helpful; if anything, they confuse the issue. I do not think that I understand the concept well enough to offer alternative examples. Also, the example of Television is not very good either. Clearly, a television is a rival good - two people cannot watch different programs on the same set at the same time. I think the example means television programbut it is not clear; maybe a different example could be used for clarity's sake?

84.65.163.56 17:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What exactly defines a "mainstream" economist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cndrblw26 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Need an expert[edit]

How is national defense different from national health care when it comes to being excludable? Same for national education. USchick (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Intellectual property[edit]

A recent change added "intellectual property" as a rivalrous good; however, copyrights and patents are necessarily and inherently mechanisms to apply scarcity to non-rivalrous goods. I will remove this change once; please comment with rationale if you disagree. chrylis (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated Definition to Reflect Continuous Nature of Rivarly[edit]

Following on recent advances in economic theory, the entry was updated and the number of supporting references has been quadrupled. The entry has not been revised beyond the first paragraph due to other commitments. Further work will be necessary to weed out unsupported claims and streamline the remaining. Thanks to everybody involved. Sslevine (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Value is subjective[edit]

The article says:

In fact, certain types of intellectual property become more valuable as more people consume them (anti-rival). For example, the more people using a particular language, the more valuable that language becomes.

This is incorrect, since value is subjective. As it's written, this is an attempt to say that the objective value of a language is in its ease of use with as many people as possible, and that this is true for that entire type of intellectual property. An easy counterexample would be a code, where the value of it to its creators and users is that it isn't widely known. There are also people who don't hope that their non-code language spreads beyond their tribe or ethnic group.

Since value is subjective, there is no type of intellectual property that implies any objective values. —Olathe (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)