4th Grade Nation State

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Agreed. Also, I feel this is a ridiculous argument. No form of government can work in any classroom. You can't implement things such as healthcare, employment, agriculture, environment in an educational setting. I feel you don't understand the premise of NationStates by this argument. Further, promoting any form of government or political system over the others in an educational setting is tantamount to abuse of power.

You said that no form of government can work in a classroom... and then you listed public goods. So... you're under the impression that classes don't have public goods?

Last week Michelle talked with her students about their ideas for what they can spend their taxes on. One of the students had the idea for a department of pets. So if the class has a department of animals... and the kids give their taxes to this department... and whichever student is in charge of this dept uses the taxes to buy a fish for the class... will the fish be a private good or a public good?

I don't perceive it as an abuse of Michelle's power if the outcome of her efforts is that her 4th grade students grasp the basic concept of governments more than you do. Which doesn't necessarily say much since you set the bar super low.

Please tell me that you're still in school. If not, then you and/or your parents should definitely try and get a refund on your education. Your post in this thread is all the proof you'll need.

Look, Xero boy.

Your God-damned looking down on people who don't understand your shitty idea is irritating.

Go chill, you're obviously taking this way the fuck too seriously, and no one still understands whatever the hell it is you're trying to convey with your "efficiency" and "coasianism" bullshit.

[Xerographica]

Also, are you going to respond to this?

I'm not giving you his email address for you to harass him with bullshit ideas and notions like you do those poor economists. I already answered you.

Would you give his e-mail address to The Joseon Dynasty?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And what public goods does your class have?

Every time one of us asks where the taxes go, you say they may go to some mythical "department" that hasn't even been established.

So far they've established two departments... IRS and gardening. As far as I know, none of the kids have spent any of their taxes yet. It makes sense for them to wait until there are more departments. And again, Rome wasn't built in a day. If you think that you can build Rome faster... then feel free to find your own class and show us how it's done.

As it stands, this thread is primarily filled with backseat nation builders.

Says you, oh wise man who fucked up their own research into oblivion.

[Galloism]

I'm not giving you his email address for you to harass him with bullshit ideas and notions like you do those poor economists. I already answered you.

Would you give his e-mail address to The Joseon Dynasty?

Without his permission?

No. That shit's just rude.


BTW, given you snipped it out, are you now accepting the fish is a private good?

[Xerographica]

You said that no form of government can work in a classroom... and then you listed public goods. So... you're under the impression that classes don't have public goods?

Last week Michelle talked with her students about their ideas for what they can spend their taxes on. One of the students had the idea for a department of pets. So if the class has a department of animals... and the kids give their taxes to this department... and whichever student is in charge of this dept uses the taxes to buy a fish for the class... will the fish be a private good or a public good?

I don't perceive it as an abuse of Michelle's power if the outcome of her efforts is that her 4th grade students grasp the basic concept of governments more than you do. Which doesn't necessarily say much since you set the bar super low.

Please tell me that you're still in school. If not, then you and/or your parents should definitely try and get a refund on your education. Your post in this thread is all the proof you'll need.

Look, Xero boy.

Your God-damned looking down on people who don't understand your shitty idea is irritating.

Go chill, you're obviously taking this way the fuck too seriously, and no one still understands whatever the hell it is you're trying to convey with your "efficiency" and "coasianism" bullshit.

I wasn't looking down on him because he didn't understand my idea. I was looking down on him because if he truly didn't understand it.... then he should have asked questions instead of jumping to the conclusion that Michelle is abusing her power.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Would you give his e-mail address to The Joseon Dynasty?

Without his permission?

No. That shit's just rude.


BTW, given you snipped it out, are you now accepting the fish is a private good?

You're probably asking a question which you already know the answer to.

[The Two Jerseys]

And what public goods does your class have?

Every time one of us asks where the taxes go, you say they may go to some mythical "department" that hasn't even been established.

So far they've established two departments... IRS and gardening. As far as I know, none of the kids have spent any of their taxes yet. It makes sense for them to wait until there are more departments. And again, Rome wasn't built in a day. If you think that you can build Rome faster... then feel free to find your own class and show us how it's done.

I already gave you a workable scenario to simulate tax allocation. The fact that you dismissed it is your problem, not mine.

As it stands, this thread is primarily filled with backseat nation builders.

As it stands, the methodology of your experiment is primarily filled with excuses.

[Galloism]

Without his permission?

No. That shit's just rude.


BTW, given you snipped it out, are you now accepting the fish is a private good?

You're probably asking a question which you already know the answer to.

Indeed. It's like the concept of what is excludable and rivalrous is completely foreign.


Hint for Xero: excludable doesn't mean excluded, and rivalrous doesn't mean rivalled. It's about states of existence, not how it's currently being used.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I wasn't looking down on him because he didn't understand my idea. I was looking down on him because if he truly didn't understand it.... then he should have asked questions instead of jumping to the conclusion that Michelle is abusing her power.

And this differs from them not understanding your idea... how exactly?

As far as I know even those of us tracking your idea don't understand what it has evolved to.

You've been changing shit one us continually, and honestly, it doesn't make you look good when you look down on your critics on what they understand and you can't even answer in an educational way but rather in this bullshit "holier-than-thou" way.

[The Two Jerseys]

Without his permission?

No. That shit's just rude.


BTW, given you snipped it out, are you now accepting the fish is a private good?

You're probably asking a question which you already know the answer to.

Is the answer "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALA"?

[Galloism]

As it stands, the methodology of your experiment is primarily filled with excuses.

Hey now, don't forget the bullshit.

[Xerographica]

Would you give his e-mail address to The Joseon Dynasty?

Without his permission?

No. That shit's just rude.

Would you give The Joseon Dynasty's e-mail address to the psychology professor?

BTW, given you snipped it out, are you now accepting the fish is a private good?

The fish, in the context that I provided, would be a public good. The students could all benefit from having a fish in their class. They wouldn't eat the fish... they would appreciate it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You're probably asking a question which you already know the answer to.

Is the answer "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALA"?

Or a derivative, yes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Without his permission?

No. That shit's just rude.

Would you give The Joseon Dynasty's e-mail address to the psychology professor?

BTW, given you snipped it out, are you now accepting the fish is a private good?

The fish, in the context that I provided, would be a public good. The students could all benefit from having a fish in their class. They wouldn't eat the fish... they would appreciate it.

What part of "not without their permission" do you not understand?

[The Two Jerseys]

Is the answer "LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALA"?

Or a derivative, yes.

Wait, maybe it's "*random economist's quote*"...

[Galloism]

Without his permission?

No. That shit's just rude.

Would you give The Joseon Dynasty's e-mail address to the psychology professor?

If Joseon was interested.

BTW, given you snipped it out, are you now accepting the fish is a private good?

The fish, in the context that I provided, would be a public good. The students could all benefit from having a fish in their class. They wouldn't eat the fish... they would appreciate it.

That doesn't make it a public good. You have to ask if it is excludable and/or rivalrous.

Is it nonexcludable? Can all people always enjoy that fish at any time, and they can't be excluded from it?

Is it nonrivalrous? Does a person enjoying that fish prevent other people from enjoying the same fish?

If both are "yes", then it's a public good. If only the first one is yes, it's a common pool resource. If only the second one is yes, it's a club good. If both are no, it's a private good.

This is why you fail. You don't even know the difference between a public good, a private good, a club good, or a common pool resource.



For example: Social Security is a private good, but a fireworks show put on by a rich guy in his back yard for his own enjoyment is a public good.

Do you understand why?

[The Two Jerseys]

Would you give The Joseon Dynasty's e-mail address to the psychology professor?


The fish, in the context that I provided, would be a public good. The students could all benefit from having a fish in their class. They wouldn't eat the fish... they would appreciate it.

What part of "not without their permission" do you not understand?

Maybe Xero's the one who needs a refund on his education...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What part of "not without their permission" do you not understand?

Maybe Xero's the one who needs a refund on his education...

Xero needs a refund on more than his education.

[Galloism]

Maybe Xero's the one who needs a refund on his education...

Xero needs a refund on more than his education.

Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure he can understand the difference between public goods and private goods. I've tried to explain it so many times - and public goods doesn't mean "provided by the government" and private goods doesn't mean "provided by the private sector".

Social security is a private good. A fireworks show is a public good.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Xero needs a refund on more than his education.

Honestly, at this point, I'm not sure he can understand the difference between public goods and private goods. I've tried to explain it so many times - and public goods doesn't mean "provided by the government" and private goods doesn't mean "provided by the private sector".

Social security is a private good. A fireworks show is a public good.

'Seriously, I am tipsy right now and loudmouthed and I can tell that you are spot on. And I can probably tell why based on your definitions which I have to go look back and say exactly why.

And I'm at a slight disadvantage right now from Xero.

[Xerographica]

Would you give The Joseon Dynasty's e-mail address to the psychology professor?

If Joseon was interested.

Great, I'll send him a telegram to see if he's interested.

The fish, in the context that I provided, would be a public good. The students could all benefit from having a fish in their class. They wouldn't eat the fish... they would appreciate it.

That doesn't make it a public good. You have to ask if it is excludable and/or rivalrous.

Is it nonexcludable? Can all people always enjoy that fish at any time, and they can't be excluded from it?

Is it nonrivalrous? Does a person enjoying that fish prevent other people from enjoying the same fish?

If both are "yes", then it's a public good. If only the first one is yes, it's a common pool resource. If only the second one is yes, it's a club good. If both are no, it's a private good.

This is why you fail. You don't even know the difference between a public good, a private good, a club good, or a common pool resource.

What difference does it make whether any of the students technically could be excluded from enjoying the fish in their classroom? Sure, technically a curtain could be put around the fish and only one student would be allowed to enjoy the fish. So what? That scenario is entirely stupid. Debating it would be stupid because that stupid scenario is not going to happen. If the dept of animals did purchase a fish for the classroom... no students would be prevented from enjoying/admiring/watching/appreciating the classroom fish. Therefore, the fish would be a public good.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What difference does it make whether any of the students technically could be excluded from enjoying the fish in their classroom? Sure, technically a curtain could be put around the fish and only one student would be allowed to enjoy the fish. So what? That scenario is entirely stupid. Debating it would be stupid because that stupid scenario is not going to happen. If the dept of animals did purchase a fish for the classroom... no students would be prevented from enjoying/admiring/watching/appreciating the classroom fish. Therefore, the fish would be a public good.

Not to be an asshole (oh who am I kidding...?), but you're the economist, aren't you?

You should be able to figure this shit out without Gallo having to tell you.

The fish would be, under Gallo's definitions, a club good, at best, because it belongs to the classroom.

[Galloism]

That doesn't make it a public good. You have to ask if it is excludable and/or rivalrous.

Is it nonexcludable? Can all people always enjoy that fish at any time, and they can't be excluded from it?

Is it nonrivalrous? Does a person enjoying that fish prevent other people from enjoying the same fish?

If both are "yes", then it's a public good. If only the first one is yes, it's a common pool resource. If only the second one is yes, it's a club good. If both are no, it's a private good.

This is why you fail. You don't even know the difference between a public good, a private good, a club good, or a common pool resource.

What difference does it make whether any of the students technically could be excluded from enjoying the fish in their classroom?

It determines what type of good it is.

You called it a public good. If it's excludable or rivalrous, it's not - PERIOD.

You used the wrong term. It's either a freely accessible private good, or a club good, at best. Honestly, it mostly fits the definition of a club good I think, as only the people that are part of that club get the benefit of the good. Even then, they only get the benefit at certain times of day, in accordance with the club's hours. It is excludable, and excluded for a portion of the day every day.

Like a gym.

[Galloism]

What difference does it make whether any of the students technically could be excluded from enjoying the fish in their classroom? Sure, technically a curtain could be put around the fish and only one student would be allowed to enjoy the fish. So what? That scenario is entirely stupid. Debating it would be stupid because that stupid scenario is not going to happen. If the dept of animals did purchase a fish for the classroom... no students would be prevented from enjoying/admiring/watching/appreciating the classroom fish. Therefore, the fish would be a public good.

Not to be an asshole (oh who am I kidding...?), but you're the economist, aren't you?

You should be able to figure this shit out without Gallo having to tell you.

The fish would be, under Gallo's definitions, a club good, at best, because it belongs to the classroom.

Actually, they're not my definitions - they're basic economic definitions.

Excludability

In economics, a good or service is called excludable if it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not paid for it from having access to it. By comparison, a good or service is non-excludable if non-paying consumers cannot be prevented from accessing it.

Rivalry

In economics, a good is said to be rivalrous or rival if its consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers.[1] A good is considered non-rivalrous or non-rival if, for any level of production, the cost of providing it to a marginal (additional) individual is zero.

It's arguable that the fish, in the way it's being used, is not rivalrous. A kid looking at the fish doesn't prevent any other kid from looking at the fish. However, it is most definitely excludable, and, presuming you accept the non-rivalrous presumption from before, this places it firmly in the realm of a club good.


So I ask Xero this (and you can play too if you want):

What type of good is a car?

What type of good is downloadable software?

What type of good is grazing land?

What type of good is defense?

[The Two Jerseys]

If Joseon was interested.

Great, I'll send him a telegram to see if he's interested.

That doesn't make it a public good. You have to ask if it is excludable and/or rivalrous.

Is it nonexcludable? Can all people always enjoy that fish at any time, and they can't be excluded from it?

Is it nonrivalrous? Does a person enjoying that fish prevent other people from enjoying the same fish?

If both are "yes", then it's a public good. If only the first one is yes, it's a common pool resource. If only the second one is yes, it's a club good. If both are no, it's a private good.

This is why you fail. You don't even know the difference between a public good, a private good, a club good, or a common pool resource.

What difference does it make whether any of the students technically could be excluded from enjoying the fish in their classroom? Sure, technically a curtain could be put around the fish and only one student would be allowed to enjoy the fish. So what? That scenario is entirely stupid. Debating it would be stupid because that stupid scenario is not going to happen.

You know what else is stupid?

Debating how students will allocate their "taxes" when they have nothing to allocate their taxes to, because their "government" isn't even performing basic government functions.

If the dept of animals did purchase a fish for the classroom... no students would be prevented from enjoying/admiring/watching/appreciating the classroom fish. Therefore, the fish would be a public good.

Like how nobody is prevented from collecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, GI Bill benefits, food stamps...