Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Unnecessary war

Public economics in a nutshell

Ok folks. Here's the single best paragraph on our current system of public economics...

Nevertheless, the classic solution to the problem of underprovision of public goods has been government funding - through compulsory taxation - and government production of the good or service in question. Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is. When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money? There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so, but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship. - Patricia Kennett, Governance, globalization and public policy

Let me break this down for you...

Although this may substantially alleviate the problem of numerous free-riders that refuse to pay for the benefits they receive, it should be noted that the policy process does not provide any very plausible method for determining what the optimal or best level of provision of a public good actually is.

The optimal supply of national defense IS all our true preferences (aka "demand") for national defense.

When it is impossible to observe what individuals are willing to give up in order to get the public good, how can policymakers access how urgently they really want more or less of it, given the other possible uses of their money?

This is the opportunity cost concept. You have a limited amount of money. The more money you would give to national defense...the less money you would have to give to public healthcare. Therefore, how you would divide your limited money between the two public goods would reveal your true preferences...aka "demand"...for the two public goods.

There is a whole economic literature dealing with the willingness-to-pay methods and contingent valuation techniques to try and divine such preference in the absence of a market price doing so,

Many economists have tried to figure out ways to "divine" your true preferences for public goods. Why?

but even the most optimistic proponents of such devices tend to concede that public goods will still most likely be underprovided or overprovided under government stewardship.

Because without our true preferences (aka "demand") for public goods...it's likely that the government will underprovide or overprovide them.

So what is an "unnecessary" war? It's simply when we spend far more money on a war than the public truly values the war.

But maybe I'm simply cherry picking sources that match my own preferences? Here's a passage by a Nobel Prize winning economist...

Whereas the income received for providing a private good conveys information about the demand for that good, taxes collected under the threat of coercion say little about the demand for a public good or service. Payment of taxes indicates only that taxpayers prefer paying taxes to going to jail. Little or no information is revealed about user preferences for goods procured with tax-supported expenditures. As a consequence, the organization of collective consumption units will need to create alternative mechanisms to prices for articulating and aggregating demands into collective choices reflecting individuals' preferences for a quantity and/or quality of public goods or services. - Vincent Ostrom, Elinor Ostrom, Public Goods and Public Choices

...and here's another passage by another Nobel Prize winning economist...

General-fund financing is analogous to a market situation where the individual is forced to purchase a bundle of goods, with the mix among the various components determined independently of his own preferences. The specific tie-in sale is similar to general-fund financing, that is, nonearmarking. - James M. Buchanan

They are all saying the same thing. The current supply of public goods does not reflect your true preferences (aka "demand") for public good. In other words...public goods are not efficiently allocated...we're spending too much money on less priorities and not enough money on greater priorities. The disparity is government waste.

Here are a bunch of high quality and relevant passages on the subject of User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation and User:Xerographica/Opportunity cost. Does it match your true preferences to spend your limited time thoroughly reading them over? How could I possibly "divine" that? How could anybody possibly "divine" that? We can only know your true preferences AFTER you've considered the opportunity costs and made your decision.

But if you're going to make a decision on whether or not the concept of a war being necessary or not is a notable topic...then please do the readers a huge favor by actually informing yourself so that you might actually make an informed decision. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

This ... essay ... has nothing to do with whether the article should exist or what it should contain, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this piece (e.g., a talk page about a discussion) itself appropriate for Wikipedia?--S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. RfCs have talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]