But surely this is not at all against standard economic assumptions about preferences. I suppose the poor prefer Cadillacs and steaks to Chevettes and Kraft dinner but their revealed preferences show that they prefer cheap or no cars and cheap foods. Those in areas with few public services are there because they "prefer" to have less since they cannot afford more. Preferences as people would ordinarly understand them have nothing to do with the matter..
--- Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In today's NYT, economist Robert Frank writes: > > economist Charles M. > Tiebout explained in a seminal paper published in > 1956, an important > advantage of providing public services at the local > level is that this > enables us to better achieve our desired mix of > public and private > consumption. > > >People who like lots of parkland, well-maintained > roads, large police > forces and good schools can thus gather in high-tax > communities that > provide these amenities, while others can choose > low-tax communities > and spend more of their income on private > consumption. < > > I'm far from being an expert on this stuff, but this > seems totally > off-base even by neoclassical standards. It's not a > matter of > preferences. Almost everyone wants "lots of > parkland, well-maintained > roads, large police forces and good schools." The > rich people clump > together in towns and villages (like the ones near > where I grew up in > Illinois, where Donnie "Brasco" Rumsfeld was > congresscritter) because > they can live with their own kind -- and they can > exclude others from > the benefits. (In Kenilworth, Il, where I believe > Rumsky lived, it was > the Scottish.) > -- > Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual > freedom in the presence > of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles >
