idk. I mean, losing an election means losing your job. Sure, some of a CEO's compensation is in the form of stock options, but some of it is straight-up salary.
I think maybe we do see a lot of competition amongst cities to give residents hwhat they want. But here comes the black pill: Residents are dumm and they want dumb things. As consumers, they also want dumm things. This is bad news for libertarians. Especially dogmatic "the market will provide!" libertarians.
Sure, the market is more likely to provide things that statistical minorities want. You don't need 51% of the people in your town to like your favourite chocolate bar, in order to get your local convenience store to sell it. But you do need "enough" people to buy it.
And maybe not "enough" people want cities with no deficit spending, low taxes, no zoning regulations and variable-rate road tolling. Dr Caplan wants it. So do I. But that's not enough. (And I can't live in the US anyway and even if I did, I wouldn't wanna live in the Commonwealth of Virginia. But I'd visit!)
I think even if we had a free-market of for-profit municipalities, we would get municipalities that are very similar to the ones we already have. Unfortunately. Cause that's hwhat the market wants.
Great idea for a plenary address! It's like with the Coase Theorem: half the fun is figuring out why it doesn't work in a given situation.
One problem is the standard reason for government failure, that output and performance are hard to measure, unlike with businesses, where you can look at profit to see how well a manager is doing. And the product--"education", say-- is very hard to measure the quality of. These are both problems for all nonprofits, as you say, not just government. A nonprofit that is still run by a founder or that relies on donations does have some advantage over government.
You might like chapters 3 and 4 of my draft regulatoin book, which I put aside for some years but now think I ought to publish. https://rasmusen.org/regulation/
idk. I mean, losing an election means losing your job. Sure, some of a CEO's compensation is in the form of stock options, but some of it is straight-up salary.
I think maybe we do see a lot of competition amongst cities to give residents hwhat they want. But here comes the black pill: Residents are dumm and they want dumb things. As consumers, they also want dumm things. This is bad news for libertarians. Especially dogmatic "the market will provide!" libertarians.
Sure, the market is more likely to provide things that statistical minorities want. You don't need 51% of the people in your town to like your favourite chocolate bar, in order to get your local convenience store to sell it. But you do need "enough" people to buy it.
And maybe not "enough" people want cities with no deficit spending, low taxes, no zoning regulations and variable-rate road tolling. Dr Caplan wants it. So do I. But that's not enough. (And I can't live in the US anyway and even if I did, I wouldn't wanna live in the Commonwealth of Virginia. But I'd visit!)
I think even if we had a free-market of for-profit municipalities, we would get municipalities that are very similar to the ones we already have. Unfortunately. Cause that's hwhat the market wants.
It costs money to move and it costs your friendships to move.
Great idea for a plenary address! It's like with the Coase Theorem: half the fun is figuring out why it doesn't work in a given situation.
One problem is the standard reason for government failure, that output and performance are hard to measure, unlike with businesses, where you can look at profit to see how well a manager is doing. And the product--"education", say-- is very hard to measure the quality of. These are both problems for all nonprofits, as you say, not just government. A nonprofit that is still run by a founder or that relies on donations does have some advantage over government.
You might like chapters 3 and 4 of my draft regulatoin book, which I put aside for some years but now think I ought to publish. https://rasmusen.org/regulation/