"While we fundamentally reject the philosophy that comes with the "use it or lose it" approach…"

The "use it or lose it" structure in the provision of public goods is a flawed approach. Instead of rewarding efficient production, providers of public goods are encouraged to be "takers." But then CEO's are criticized of being "takers" in the production of private goods; taking as much as they can get their board of directors to approve in salaries, bonuses and stock options.

...

Another way to investigate this question might be to ask whether individuals that follow their group's code of conduct are more or less content with their lives. Codes vary greatly. A good standing member of Hezbollah maybe involved in activity that is not valued in an Amish community in Iowa. Members that follow the code receive positive recognition and hence are happy. Members that push the intent of their group's rules, like collecting benefits far beyond what they need, risk...

I think there is a whole host of activities and interactions that contribute to our well-being that do not feature in the GDP. Products that are priced out in a marketplace with currency are easy to track; just follow the money. The numbers provide for easy comparisons and calculations. But what about activities that occur within groups, especially in a market downturn? Maybe a recent college grad opts to take care of her sister’s toddlers in exchange for a place to stay, or co-workers...

Bernice - Sorry for the confusion. I saw “socialized” and “central management” in close proximity and assumed you meant in decision making not funding. I agree that the administration of the public goods that are shared nationally, such as national defense (the most commonly used textbook example of a public good) and national parks, should be administer at a national level.

But the National Parks were initiated by private citizens. Galen Clark and John Muir are credited for...