Free Riding Leftist Nonsense
I think it's safe to assume that the folks running local public radio stations adhere to leftist politics. Given that, it's a wonder that their reality never affects their politics.
My local public radio station is currently in a fund raising cycle. Today, the radio hosts noted a couple of interesting points: one, 10% of their funding comes from the feds, the balance from listeners; two, only 10% of listeners support the station.
While I found the first point interesting (I assume the feds really kick in at the national level), it was the second point that caught my attention. Free riders outnumber contributors 9 to 1, yet the station still exists. In fact, the hosts openly accept free riders as welcome members of their listener base. Why? I suspect the hosts understand the situation and realize that each listener is a potential contributor (and, likely, headcount for federal funds).
Here I thought that one of the main reasons for interventionist government is the free rider gumming up so-called public goods. But the free rider (this rider included) has not stopped NPR from broadcasting in Columbus, Ohio. If the free rider can't stop the leftist propaganda machine on the radio, why would anyone believe that other so-called public goods would disappear without government funding?
If the hosts would only take a hard look at their reality, they might just realize that government is not the necessary means to their ends. Or, for that matter, the means to any productive end.
Comments (16)
Ruben Rivero
May 28, 2007 was a funeral day for Radio Caracas Televisión, Venezuela´s favorite open TV station. Since its editorial line was not to the pleasure of Chavez, he just did not renew its concession. In lieu of it he placed on channel 2, the best channel in terms of physical signal, a horrible leftist station whose only programming worth watching was the Olympics.
The nightmare continues.
Published: October 21, 2008 10:53 PM
David Bratton
It isn't just public radio and TV where that sort of model works though. How many times have you watched Battlestar Galactica but didn't buy a pick-up truck afterwards?
Published: October 21, 2008 11:00 PM
Maturin
I am much more concerned about the "free drivers" than the free riders!
Why should my tax dollars go to support a political agenda I disagree with?
I can only get my viewpoint aired by sending my private donations to organizations I deem worthy. But I am forced to support a station and a point of view that I patently do not agree with.
How is this different from state supported religion, or single party governments (like Venezuela!), when the state financially supports a particular political point of view, thus giving it unfair advantage in media exposure over competing beliefs?
It is a more subtle form of coercion, but it is still coercion if the state only sanctions non-profit (non-taxed) "public" broadcasting for one political viewpoint.
Published: October 22, 2008 8:06 AM
Michael A. Clem
If only 10% of their funds come from government, then they could probably make do without that 10%. I'm wondering if this might not be a way to phase out government control and ownership of other things, like public schools, libraries or public transportation. If an increasing amount of their funding comes from private sources instead of public sources, then wouldn't they, too, get to the point where they don't need public funds?
Published: October 22, 2008 9:19 AM
Michael
David, one important distinction is that the advertising agency that purchased that time slot to sell their client's new 4X4 pick-up truck during a commercial break, did so with private capital. The government uses tax dollars (or simply prints them out of thin air) to fund the public radio service.
Published: October 22, 2008 11:45 AM
Person
Jim_Fedako: Great job on refuting an argument no one's made. Of course many activities continue even when there are free riders that derive a tremendous benefit therefrom. The problem is that they are underprovided relative to a Pareto maximum, not that they are prevented from existing altogether.
You could just the same say that trees will still be cut down even if lumber profits were taxed at 100% (e.g. because some people could do non-profit lumber production). Yet, for some reason, that wouldn't convince you that a 100% lumber tax would be harmless. Why is that?
(Remember, the claim you're refuting is that it would be *harmless*. "Taxes are evil" is non-resposive until you name the *specific* harm.)
Published: October 22, 2008 11:47 AM
Stanley Pinchak
Person,
I don't know what you are trying to get at, but the state has no business being involved in radio. Period. We certainly have or could implement the technology to eliminate free riders in just about any particular industry. There are advantages to having "free riders." Ask Microsoft and Adobe in the software realm. There are many reasons why a "free rider" at first appearances will actually be nothing of the sort when analyzed in a more wholistic manner. Through network effects, economies of scale, educational and training opportunities, and many other factors the free rider is often worth keeping around, regardless of what Pareto may say. In anything as complex as an economy, one can maximize only a few degrees of freedom, but with consequences totally unknowable ex ante. This is why we have free riders and always will have them. This is why sometimes attempts to eliminate the free rider are reversed once the big picture can be reexamined in hindsight.
Published: October 22, 2008 2:57 PM
Person
Stanley_Pinchak: No, you don't know what I'm trying to get at, you didn't attempt to find out, and your response shows. All you got out of my post was "bad guy!"
All I'm saying is, there's a big difference between:
1) Free riders introduce inefficiencies, but on net they're small.
and
2) Free riders introduce no problems whatsoever.
Jim_Fedako is trying to argue 2), when 1) is more realistic. Just because the free market is the best system doesn't mean every argument that says anything even slightly negative against it is wrong.
And of course I never said the state should support radio.
Published: October 22, 2008 4:31 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Person,
You are certainly very clear. At least the second time around.
Published: October 22, 2008 7:02 PM
Jim Fedako
Person,
What am I trying to argue?
NPR is binary and not subject to Pareto optimality. Really, what is the optimal level of NPR within the Columbus, Ohio area when NPR is either on the air or off the air? Is two NPRs optimal? Or is it one half NPR? Remember, FM radio is a so-called public good since it is nonrivalrous and nonexcludable (FM that is) so the second and subsequent instances of NPR provide nothing, other than options on the radio dial.
Open up the concept of externalities and you will find free riders everywhere.
Of course, Pareto is the bridge to neoclassical ideas. But, you have to answer these questions:
1. How can you derive the Pareto optimal level of anything? Really, how can you? If you crack that nut, go after the calculation debate next.
2. And, if the level could be identified, how can the level be delivered absent government coercion?
This takes us into the same mess as monopolies, where supposed inefficiencies haunt the economy.
And, Pareto fits nicely into game theory where the conclusion is always the same: the omnipotent, omniscient, altruistic third party must guide folks to the Pareto optimal solution -- even when those folks chose the Nash equilibrium.
Who is that third party? We know him as government of course.
Published: October 22, 2008 9:38 PM
Person
Jim_Fedako: It's pretty embarassing for you that you lack the creativity to conceive of the relevant variables to Pareto-optimize across. All you could think of is "NPR vs. not-NPR", indeed a binary choice.
Think again: the relevant variable would be the (non-binary) amount of money spent on NPR, or on any of the various types of programs therein. The free rider problem -- despite what your ignorance of the literature says -- is that it's possible to make everyone better of by having some people pay more, and some others produce more. But, because of coordination problems and whatnot, no one pays more and no one produces more. Not, that "no one produces at all", which you majestically refuted.
Property rights in the relevant resource. Guess you weren't creative enough to figure out that one either. (You remind me of when Bob_Murphy claims it's socialist to dictate the price of carbon emissions at $20/ton, but not socialist to dictate it at $0/ton.)
The same way property rights are.
Because of your demonstrated creativity problems, let me work out the solution for you here. If property rights in NPR reception could be delineated and enforced (like with satellite radio), you would have a better idea of the optimal level of spending thereon. The question you should be asking is, what ventures *would* happen, but aren't, because the relevant property rights don't exist or which people keep from existing.
Have you heard of the problem of the seen and the unseen? Can you muster enough creativity to see how it might be relevant here?
I wish you had more useful skills than guilty-by-association.
Published: October 23, 2008 9:40 AM
Jim Fedako
Person,
Interesting. Based on the animosity in your response, I assume that you are lashing out as if cornered – or, is animosity your idea of creativity? Regardless, as a homework assignment, review your response for obvious logical fallacies (hint: start with your heightened level of animosity and go from there).
That said:
When you write, “The free rider problem -- despite what your ignorance of the literature says -- is that it's possible to make everyone better of by having some people pay more, and some others produce more.” I assume that “having” means the use of force? So I can be better off by “having” to pay more. Interesting.
You still haven’t answered my questions, so I’ll repeat them (as if repetition will help):
1. How can you derive the Pareto optimal level of anything? Really, how can you? If you crack that nut, go after the calculation debate next.
Stating the obvious free market solution is a change in course. If, as you claim, free riders result in a good not being produced at the “Pareto maximum,” I ask this: What is the Pareto maximum? How would you derive it for comparison purposes? It’s a nice claim to make, but put some teeth behind it.
2. And, if the level could be identified, how can the level be delivered absent government coercion?
The answer is based on your response to 1, if you chose to actually respond.
Please don’t forget the rules of a debate: If you are going to put words in quotes and attribute them to me, make sure I actually wrote them. Otherwise, you create a seen/unseen problem.
By the way, a louder, more aggressive response just might prove your point. Of course, thanks for enlightening me.
Published: October 23, 2008 10:32 AM
newson
person says:
"Free riders introduce inefficiencies, but on net they're small."
why should that be? sure, they're annoying to those who would gladly make them payers, but why does that give rise to inefficiency?
Published: October 23, 2008 11:10 AM
Person
No meaningful response? Figures.
Published: October 23, 2008 12:52 PM
newson
to person:
to accept pareto optimality as a valid concept means denying one of the keys insights of austrian economics: that comparisons of interpersonal utility are impossible because of the infinite variety of human behaviours and personal motivations.
anyway, how large is "small"? itsy bitsy, or just a touch bigger than teeny weeny? just so as we can be more precise.
i think fedako's right, this is a slippery slope...
Published: October 23, 2008 7:58 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Pareto optimality is a siren luring one to crash on the rocks of limitations of knowledge and the fundamental constraints of praxeology. There is no point in pareto optimality when humans are involved. The actions of all people are directed to their most desired ends. As such only the individual can decide whether or not his actions were worth the effort ex post. As a third party we can not make a judgment. If an individual does not voluntarily alter his actions to improve the conditions of others around him, it is because he does not favor those ends. The only way to obtain pareto optimality in such a case would be to apply force. This is clearly a psychic loss to the individual coerced in such a manner. Thus in attempting to obtain pareto optimality by any means other than pursuasion, the state obtained must be non optimal for at least one actor involved. This means that attempts to obtain pareto optimality are relegated to the sterile world of theoretical economics and have no applicability in the real world with rational actors.
Published: October 23, 2008 11:00 PM