> which is the same as giving a subsidy to peasants. Correct. It is a large subsidy to the peasants. > Instead, we should let the market decide, ie, let indu

> which is the same as giving a subsidy to peasants. Correct. It is a large subsidy to the peasants. > Instead, we should let the market decide, ie, let industry buy the water and leave the peasants without it. Yes, but with the money, which as earlier discussed is worth several times more than its value in subsistence agriculture. The person you were originally replying to was complaining that a 90% discount on the sale of water was essentially an extremely inefficient cash subsidy; the obvious solution is replacing it with an efficient cash subsidy. That's hardly humane. > What will the peasants do then? Why, they are free to move to the cities and become industry workers If that was a practical solution at the required scale, they'd have already done it. Hence why a subsidy is needed. > Did I get it wrong? It does look that way, yes.