Discussion about this post

User's avatar
An Impartial Spectator's avatar

I have always thought that by focusing on income or wealth--e.g., the power to purchase rival goods--we've overlooked the importance of nonrival goods on people's well-being. A poor kid who lives next to a library and a park is much better off than a poor kid who does not. And yet, giving kids access to libraries and parks doesn't move the needle if you're only focusing on income.

However, I find the specific examples mostly bizarre. Yes, the market provides ubiquitous wifi and free video games and in this way the market provides for the poor. But most of these examples assume a large, anonymous community. If you live near one or two stores, you can loiter for a while but eventually people will learn you're not spending much money.

If a lot of non-payers begin to use the nonrival good, stores can and do make choices to turn their nonrival goods rival--requiring bathroom keys, sharing wifi passwords only with paying customers, requiring hotel keys to get into the lobby, or simply asking loiterers to leave. In these scenarios, poor folks benefit from nonrival goods provided by the market only if a preponderance of people are payers.

Expand full comment
David Roberts's avatar

The truly poor people I know would not recognize the world you're describing. They would not feel comfortable sitting in the lobby of a Four Seasons as one example. And being truly poor is extremely time consuming.

I found this post highly perplexing, as in if this is his worldview, how can I have confidence in other posts.

Expand full comment
51 more comments...