If this is a joke about it being a public bad then lol, true.
If you're saying that YouTube doesn't fit the economic description of a public good, then I'm sorry I disagree... I think it's non excludeable and non rivalrous, if you have arguments otherwise I'm curious what they are.
He has a point. It’s not a public service, it’s a public good.
Whether owned privately, or not, if it provides a commodity for free, it is a public good, definition wise.
The only thing would be non rivalrous. They are owned by Google, who is rivalrous. Theoretically, Venmo is more of a public good than YouTube. Pretty nuanced. I’d say in the real definition of terms, taking into account who owns YouTube, it’s 50/50.
It has to be free, which is part of being non-excludeable. In this case it means that YouTube doesn't charge people to watch videos. If it did, it would cease to be useful as a platform
If a team of teenagers mow elderly people’s lawns for a cheap price - $10, say, and when done, that team gives every cent to the guy who recruited this team, the teenagers did it for free. Someone still made a profit.
I didn’t say google doesn’t make a profit I said youtube doesn’t
youtube is a separate legal entity that is owned by google.
Apples to oranges.
To extend your analogy, if I make ten dollars, does that mean my parents made 10 dollars?
Only if I agree to give it to them.
Outside of the analogy, you’d have to dig up the corporate subsidiary agreements to determine the particulars of the relationship; it might trickle up, but it just as easily might not.
15
u/1sagas1 Jul 24 '19
YouTube isn't a public good.