Here at Home-Economics, we argue that there are two motivations behind every transaction. People trade to benefit the public interest, such as funding flood insurance relief at the federal level. On the other hand, people are motivated to trade for the benefit of themselves—the purchase of a private residence to house a family. A blended purchase is easily seen at a fundraiser when a guest pays an inflated price for TimberWolves tickets, obtaining the private benefit of going to a basketball game while the surcharge is kept by the non-profit.
Goods traded in private markets have certain traits and are taxed and supervised by a governing body. Non-profits and governments provide many public goods and services that are not taxed nor subject to the same level of oversight. But what about private companies that provide public goods? This seems to be at the crux of the recent kerfuffle over Google.
The issue at hand is the Google search function. Clients do not pay to use it. Clients can use any other search engine and have them appear as the default web page. The search page is access to an environment. Just as the air conditioning in the mall is paid to make the shopping experience of mall shoppers more enjoyable is an enhancement to a public space, a high-functioning search is an enhanced entrance to the internet. They are both public goods to the groups of people who access their spaces.
What would be a beneficial review of a public good? Is it available to the greater group without impediments? Google search- yes to all those who have access to the internet. (Efforts are underway to make it available to residents in rural Minnesota). Is the search function supported voluntarily with some degree of additional financial support? Yes, there has been substantial investment in R&D for the benefit of the consumer. Is it providing a beneficial service? Yes- Without a doubt.
Not all public activities can meet these thresholds with the same confidence level.
Home Economics 