5 ms·

This is a terrible analogy, the water in this case is paid for by the consumer.

by cbg0 11y ago

Symmetry 11y ago
Often people feel morally obliged to avoid doing something for the common good. But as soon you charge a fee people will assume that that fee reflects the social cost and maybe start doing it a lot more. http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what... Either don't charge money for something and use suasion to get people to use too much or charge enough that you're happy that they use as much as they can afford.
- landryraccoon 11y ago
  > charge enough that you're happy that they use as much as they can afford. Market rates for water, which is what you are describing, sound great.
oconnore 11y ago
You also pay for the lollipops. The key is that it's a finite resource with a relatively (3 stage, or whatever) flat rate. The price structure is not dynamic enough to account for the fact that at some point the value of the last drop of water approaches infinity.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  The lollipops are a built-in charge with an assumption of only taking a couple. If you take ten and explicitly pay a dollar, everyone is happy. The water in California has a limited supply, yes, but the use is plenty elastic. If it was all worth a moderate price per gallon, there wouldn't be such an issue. The elasticity and constant inflow mean that a price asymptote is just not going to happen.
gambiting 11y ago
A better example would be if a person came into a supermarket in the morning and bought all bread and milk so no one else would have any. It's legal,but most stores would probably have a policy against it.
s73v3r 11y ago
And we're in a drought. I don't care if they paid for the water, it is completely selfish for them to think they should be able to use anywhere near that amount of water.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Imagine it this way. Pretend all the water is being sold, no water rights, and the government is free to do whatever it wants within reason. The government needs a certain amount of money to keep up infrastructure and maybe to subsidize households. It sells this guy 1300 gallons an hour at a high price, and uses that money to not sell a farm 8000 gallons an hour of discount water. Now you have less water being used, and you send the rich purchaser a thank you letter. If you charge for externalities, then buying more is not a bad thing. If you overcharge for externalities, it can even be a good thing. So the question is not "is he using a lot of water", the question is what he's paying for, and whether externalities are being offset. The price in California is probably too low today, but that could easily be changed.

This is a terrible analogy, the water in this case is paid for by the consumer.

by cbg0 11y ago

This is a terrible analogy, the water in this case is paid for by the consumer.

Often people feel morally obliged to avoid doing something for the common good. But as soon you charge a fee people will assume that that fee reflects the social cost and maybe start doing it a lot more. http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what-they-do/ http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-what... Either don't charge money for something and use suasion to get people to use too much or charge enough that you're happy that they use as much as they can afford.

landryraccoon 11y ago
> charge enough that you're happy that they use as much as they can afford. Market rates for water, which is what you are describing, sound great.

oconnore 11y ago

You also pay for the lollipops. The key is that it's a finite resource with a relatively (3 stage, or whatever) flat rate. The price structure is not dynamic enough to account for the fact that at some point the value of the last drop of water approaches infinity.

Dylan16807 11y ago
The lollipops are a built-in charge with an assumption of only taking a couple. If you take ten and explicitly pay a dollar, everyone is happy. The water in California has a limited supply, yes, but the use is plenty elastic. If it was all worth a moderate price per gallon, there wouldn't be such an issue. The elasticity and constant inflow mean that a price asymptote is just not going to happen.

gambiting 11y ago

A better example would be if a person came into a supermarket in the morning and bought all bread and milk so no one else would have any. It's legal,but most stores would probably have a policy against it.

s73v3r 11y ago

And we're in a drought. I don't care if they paid for the water, it is completely selfish for them to think they should be able to use anywhere near that amount of water.

Dylan16807 11y ago
Imagine it this way. Pretend all the water is being sold, no water rights, and the government is free to do whatever it wants within reason. The government needs a certain amount of money to keep up infrastructure and maybe to subsidize households. It sells this guy 1300 gallons an hour at a high price, and uses that money to not sell a farm 8000 gallons an hour of discount water. Now you have less water being used, and you send the rich purchaser a thank you letter. If you charge for externalities, then buying more is not a bad thing. If you overcharge for externalities, it can even be a good thing. So the question is not "is he using a lot of water", the question is what he's paying for, and whether externalities are being offset. The price in California is probably too low today, but that could easily be changed.