공공재는 돈 내지 말라는 의미가 아니란다. 븅딱아 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 

하나같이 공공재 개념이 뭔지도 모르고 나대니까 어버버 떠는거지 ㅋㅋㅋ

답좀해 개새야

븅신 니가 제시한 논문도 안읽어 봤냐 

ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

이제 슬슬 주특기 괴변시전하냐 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

내가 제시한 논문 읽어보면 도로가 공공재로 보이니? ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

하여간 븅신 새끼들은 자료 던져주면 그 자리로 죄다 아닥이여 ㅋㅋㅋ

가만 보니까 넌 그 논문이 뭘 말하는 줄도 모르던데?

ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

이색휘 영어도 못읽는데 가져왔구나

남의 걸 퍼오니 줄그어놓은거만 알고 나머지 부분은 읽지도 않아 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

이미 나머지도 다 적혀 있는데 너네들 한마디도 자료에는 반박 못하고 귀신같이 아닥하던데? ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

To conclude, infrastructure does not satisfy the definition of a pure public good, nor does it necessarily have any of the attributes of a public good. Instead, infrastructure creates benefits to society and the economy (positive externalities) beyond just the private returns that come from its ownership, much in the same manner as education or health care. And given the monopoly-like characteristics of infrastructure, which can lead to pricing which is in excess of what would be reached in a competitive market, there is arguably a role for government to play in participating in the market for, and ownership of, infrastructure.

In theory, there are benefits to private-sector involvement in the designing, building, financing, operating, and maintaining of infrastructure for public use. However, in practice, these benefits have generally fallen short of expectations. Hence, the jury remains out on whether PPPs are actually effective in reaching their stated goals and delivering value for money to taxpayers.

Regarding the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the case for its existence is even less clear than that of PPPs. Is it meant to help increase infrastructure spending in Canada? Sure, but to fill a gap we don’t know with certainty exists. Is it meant to support a financing need? Well, no. Is it meant to increase the overall benefits, or positive externalities, that come from infrastructure investment? Absolutely. But then the question becomes: How will the CIB do this by increasing private ownership of infrastructure assets characterized by near-monopoly pricing power? This question remains unanswered. Does this rule out a role for the CIB? No, but it certainly begs the questions: Why the CIB? Why now? And, why the rush?

Roads are the more commonly misused example of a public good, but we can apply the same logic to transit. First, most transit operations in the US already use a method of exclusion: the turnstyle. Second, we can see that non-rivalrousness is simply a function of over-supply in the case of the subway car that isn’t full to capacity.

븅신 유료도로의 예시를 가져와서

무료도로에 적용시키니 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

돈을 지불하는 도로의 예시잖아

어휴 이븅딱

무료도로를 민간에 참여시키거나 대중교통처럼 만들 수 있냐 븅딱아 ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

아 니 눈에는 도로가 공공재다고 해석이 되나 보네? ㅋㅋㅋㅋ

요봐 무슨 뜻인지 모르잖아.
그러니 같잖은 붙여넣기나 하고 있지.

Roads are the more commonly misused example of a public good,

빤히 적혀 있는데 해석이 안되니?

심지어 원글은 더 길어ㅋㅋㅋ 븅딱 새끼들 ㅋㅋㅋ

킥킥킥~ 똥을 싼다. 저게 출처가 어디고
우리나라 실정과 법율에 맞다고 생각하냐?
이 수준이니 2찍하고 있지.

쭈~욱~ 보니 무슨 팩트도 아니고 캐나다 어디 연구기관에서
내놓은 일종의 주관적 주장이네.
솔직히 말해봐, 너 인터넷에서 검색해 아무거나 막 끌어와 붙여넣기 했지?

그러니까 니가 예시를 들어서 설명 해봐라고.