| >"But it's exactly the model you're proposing when you suggest that private citizens might donate to the government if they really want public infrastructure to get funded! The ones who don't donate are paying $0/share, and the ones who do are paying $100/share, and they all get equal use of the infrastructure." Why do people donate nearly a billion dollars per year to American Heart Association (https://www.forbes.com/companies/american-heart-association/...) even though I won't, but I could still get the same benefit for free? Because my benefit is irrelevant to their decision... The only time it makes sense to care about someone else benefiting for free is if it means you are benefiting less for the same price. This concern about free riders is irrational. >"And if someone is offering them for $0/share, wouldn't you consider that when deciding whether or not to pay $100?" I'd take the free shares and then go ahead with the purchase for $100/share as well. Edit: Actually, best thing to do is take the free shares, then dump them on the market. Then use the original funds to buy more shares at a lower price. >"How are you going to pitch investors to pay to upgrade a water treatment plant, when they'll reap exactly the same gains from it as their neighbours who didn't contribute a dime?" Explain the benefits of the plant, telling them to see if they can get any of the neighbors to contribute too so it will be cheaper for them (nb: the price per person becomes more favorable, not the benefits). And anyway, you can always charge people for the water later so this example is not even very good... |