5 ms·

So you're saying subject a fundamental basic need for human life and existence to capitalism? That's an absolutely terrifying proposition.

jefftk 7y ago
Do you think it's a problem that food is priced?
- michaelscott 7y ago
  If I disagree with the price of a potato, I can buy rice. Food is price elastic in so far as I have options in what food to buy for what purpose. That said, indeed in my country and a number of others there are certain food stuffs which may not be legally taxed via VAT as they are considered necessary for daily survival. Water is completely price inelastic economically. There is no alternative to it and it is essential to the persistence of life. Should it be priced? If it requires labour or other external factors that bear cost, sure. Should its price be tweaked as an economic lever? Even if that worked (it wouldn't for something inelastic like water anyway) I would still say no. Using water's price as a disincentive can only possibly work in non-essential use cases, which doesn't seem to be the case in this Australian example.
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    This exactly.
  - nshepperd 7y ago
    Demand for drinking water is inelastic. That's a tiny fraction of a fraction of usage. The majority of fresh water is used for farming, as coolants, solvents, reagents in industrial processes. These uses certainly do have alternatives, whether switching to alternative crops, developing more efficient manufacturing methods, building desalination plants. If that happened there would be more water available for essential use cases like drinking.
    - michaelscott 7y ago
      Absolutely, this is the ideal. All the examples you mentioned are what I would class in my previous comment as non-essential use cases (as in there are alternatives). Certain alternatives such as desalination and water reclamation in industrial processes don't change the elasticity of water economically; it's still required. They just increase the amount available in the pool (excuse the pun) and even then these too bear cost for implementation and maintenance and would not be provided free (which makes sense).
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
  You can literally grow food in your backyard. It's a renewable resource. You can't `create water` in your backyard. Freshwater is effectively a non-renewable resource. So the supply is limited but the demand is infinite, which makes capitalistic rules not apply. So if you attempted to apply capitalism, you would get horrible exploitative results.
  - jefftk 7y ago
    You can definitely make fresh water: desalination. You can do it with just electricity or heat, though reverse osmosis is more efficient. It's not even that expensive: all the water you can drink, for pennies a day.
    - nickthemagicman 7y ago
      Interesting that you think desalination is 'making' water. When I wash food I brought back from the grocery store did I just 'make' food?
      - jefftk 7y ago
        It makes "fresh water" out of undrinkable water. There are enormous amounts of the latter.
      - nickthemagicman 7y ago
        Enormous amounts for people on the coasts. Should the people inland pay a premium on water just because they can't afford to live on the coast? I personally don't think so which is why a capitalism driven water supply is a terrible idea.
nshepperd 7y ago
Water is already subject to capitalism, both in the sense that you literally pay money for it (more than industry does, note), and in the sense that wasteful and profligate use of it due to lack of appreciation of its value (because its price is too low) directly damages water security, putting this "fundamental basic need" at risk.
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
  Water is not subject to capitalism. It's managed by policy, There's no profit motive. It is not priced too low, it is priced so that EVERYONE has access to water. Water security is not damaged. Government manages things better than capitalism does. For example the telecommunication monopolies..Capitalism can't get the INTERNET right and you want to apply that to water? Also see American the boondoggle healthcare system.... Resources having the properties of infinite demand but limited supply do not follow the normal rules of capitalism and should be regulated by policy instead. Not everything fits into the rules of capitalism, and the fact that you believe it's the solution for our most precious resource is terrifying.

jefftk 7y ago

Do you think it's a problem that food is priced?

michaelscott 7y ago
If I disagree with the price of a potato, I can buy rice. Food is price elastic in so far as I have options in what food to buy for what purpose. That said, indeed in my country and a number of others there are certain food stuffs which may not be legally taxed via VAT as they are considered necessary for daily survival. Water is completely price inelastic economically. There is no alternative to it and it is essential to the persistence of life. Should it be priced? If it requires labour or other external factors that bear cost, sure. Should its price be tweaked as an economic lever? Even if that worked (it wouldn't for something inelastic like water anyway) I would still say no. Using water's price as a disincentive can only possibly work in non-essential use cases, which doesn't seem to be the case in this Australian example.
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
  This exactly.
- nshepperd 7y ago
  Demand for drinking water is inelastic. That's a tiny fraction of a fraction of usage. The majority of fresh water is used for farming, as coolants, solvents, reagents in industrial processes. These uses certainly do have alternatives, whether switching to alternative crops, developing more efficient manufacturing methods, building desalination plants. If that happened there would be more water available for essential use cases like drinking.
  - michaelscott 7y ago
    Absolutely, this is the ideal. All the examples you mentioned are what I would class in my previous comment as non-essential use cases (as in there are alternatives). Certain alternatives such as desalination and water reclamation in industrial processes don't change the elasticity of water economically; it's still required. They just increase the amount available in the pool (excuse the pun) and even then these too bear cost for implementation and maintenance and would not be provided free (which makes sense).
nickthemagicman 7y ago
You can literally grow food in your backyard. It's a renewable resource. You can't `create water` in your backyard. Freshwater is effectively a non-renewable resource. So the supply is limited but the demand is infinite, which makes capitalistic rules not apply. So if you attempted to apply capitalism, you would get horrible exploitative results.
- jefftk 7y ago
  You can definitely make fresh water: desalination. You can do it with just electricity or heat, though reverse osmosis is more efficient. It's not even that expensive: all the water you can drink, for pennies a day.
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    Interesting that you think desalination is 'making' water. When I wash food I brought back from the grocery store did I just 'make' food?
    - jefftk 7y ago
      It makes "fresh water" out of undrinkable water. There are enormous amounts of the latter.
    - nickthemagicman 7y ago
      Enormous amounts for people on the coasts. Should the people inland pay a premium on water just because they can't afford to live on the coast? I personally don't think so which is why a capitalism driven water supply is a terrible idea.

nshepperd 7y ago

Water is already subject to capitalism, both in the sense that you literally pay money for it (more than industry does, note), and in the sense that wasteful and profligate use of it due to lack of appreciation of its value (because its price is too low) directly damages water security, putting this "fundamental basic need" at risk.

nickthemagicman 7y ago
Water is not subject to capitalism. It's managed by policy, There's no profit motive. It is not priced too low, it is priced so that EVERYONE has access to water. Water security is not damaged. Government manages things better than capitalism does. For example the telecommunication monopolies..Capitalism can't get the INTERNET right and you want to apply that to water? Also see American the boondoggle healthcare system.... Resources having the properties of infinite demand but limited supply do not follow the normal rules of capitalism and should be regulated by policy instead. Not everything fits into the rules of capitalism, and the fact that you believe it's the solution for our most precious resource is terrifying.