Talk:Merit good/Archives/2012

This Article Sucks Because

Half of it is about the author's opinion on education. This belongs on the Education article. The seat belt example sounds perfect. The article can mirror the other Goods articles in explaning briefly what it is, who first thought of it (if applicable), and then a good example. Consumers weren't demanding seat belts, so the auto industry didn't offer them (that they fought them tooth and nail after numerous safety studies is another topic). The government stepped in, and every car-buying consumer buys them now. Dikke poes 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It also is very wordy. One not educated in economics would have a hard time with this.

The last sentence of paragraph three is biased. Democracy may or may not be a good thing in these different policy contexts. But there shouldn't be a bias toward telling governments what they SHOULD do. napaxton, 23.50 29 Dec 2009, EST

Deleted 4th paragraph

The 4th paragraph (below) of the article was deleted:

Education should provide a number of external benefits that might not be taken into account by the free market. These include raising incomes and productivity. When economists and government ministers talk about productivity they are referring to how productive labour is. But productivity is also about other inputs into production. So, for example, a company could increase productivity by investing in new capital machinery which embodies the latest technological progress, and which reduces the number of workers required to produce the same amount of output. For current and future generations, an increase in the occupational mobility of the labour force which should help to reduce unemployment Officially the unemployed are people who are registered with the government as willing and able to work at the going wage rate but who cannot find suitable employment despite an active search for work. and therefore reduce welfare spending.

The paragraph violates WP:NPOV, WP:VER, WP:NOR policies in connection with merit goods:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; The paragraph is written from a point of view. (This could be fixed by appropriate rephrasing.)
• Wikipedia:Verifiability: The paragraph lacks citation. Moreover, it makes no mention of merit goods.
• Wikipedia:No original research: Even if a citation could be found for the paragraph, there is nothing the paragraph that would connect it with merit goods. So, it would seems to be original research. The burden of proof (by appropriate citation) is on someone who would include this paragraph. --Thomasmeeks 18:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Added to this article

I've written a new introduction for this article because the whole (theoretical) concept of Merit good hasn't been explained properly. It would probably be a good idea to start splitting it into sections (I'm not too good with commands, so someone else would have to do it). It would also be good to add in a demand and supply diagram which shows social and private benefit (i do have one, but I'm afraid it's rather crudely drawn on MS Paint!). As a final comment, the article seems to have too much irrelevant info as well as confusing quotes (which are a bit outdated).

Public Good?

How is a merit good different than a public good? It sounds like a merit good is a special case of a public good. If there is a difference, then this article ought to explain that difference. --Ghtx (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Public goods are non-excludable and non-divisible. Merit goods could be either or both. napaxton (not really a reg. user) 23.45 29 December 2009, EST