America's greatest leader just declared his candidacy...

[Kasz216]

Squilliam said:

Kasz216 said:

Like I said, was in a hurry.

It's pretty simple though isn't it?  101 classes teach via broad strokes.  As such, when it comes to individual arguements, 101 knowledge is completely useless because broad strokes are extremly impercise.

Often times in those broad strokes what they teach are in fact... blantantly untrue.   For example in the case of Psychology, Frued and Maslow's theories are basically completely wrong.

What you learn in a textbook is far different then what you learn if you read their direct writings or had the chance to talk to them.

In the case of Public Goods.

Public Goods are just a overly broad term that nobody agrees with.   In reality there is basically nothing that actually is a public good by the definition of public goods.

Every "public good" has it's exceptions and none are agreed opon as public goods. 

The level of precision required depends on what work is actually being done. Being too precise can be inefficient and can cause people to get bogged down in minutae details which would otherwise be indistinguishable from noise. If you define the best answer as the most efficient answer in that the least effort is required to get a desired outcome then you would not expect a government to be precise in order to act at the maximum possible efficiency. Even if exceptions exist, dealing with the exceptions on a case by case basis can be more inefficient than simply accepting the existance of exceptions.

Unless you are specifically talking about these exceptions?  Which you know... we are.  Though I would note that Public Goods are filled with nothing but exceptions. 

It doesn't help that Manus specifically brought up the main example that disproves the theory of roads as a public good needed to be provided by the government.

Then backtracked and tried to cover his ass by referencing an "Econ 101" book after having discussed the specifics and realized the specifics don't back him up.

 

It would be the same as if he said "Maslow said that you needed to fill the hierarchy of needs in order".  Followed by me pointing out a case where Maslow specifically didn't say that.

Followed by him backtracking and quoting out of a Psych 101 book.