4 ms·

What happens when there's a drought and the million gallons of water that farmer ordered can't be delivered? What happens when speculators drive prices up beca

by Jochim 6y ago

What happens when there's a drought and the million gallons of water that farmer ordered can't be delivered? What happens when speculators drive prices up because they know the people that actually need/want that water have to pay or risk losing their crops. Water is important enough that it should be publicly owned and distributed. This is pretty much the only way it can be effectively managed and distributed, rather than hoarded and scalped as soon as the opportunity presents itself.

eru 6y ago
> What happens when there's a drought and the million gallons of water that farmer ordered can't be delivered? That would be specified in the contracts. Existing contracts for eg soy beans already have to take these possibilities into account. > What happens when speculators drive prices up because they know the people that actually need/want that water have to pay or risk losing their crops. If current future prices are clearly higher than what I expect spot prices to be in the future, I'd sell future contracts and make a killing. > Water is important enough that it should be publicly owned and distributed. This is pretty much the only way it can be effectively managed and distributed, rather than hoarded and scalped as soon as the opportunity presents itself. What makes you think that public ownership and distribution is so effective? And what are the limits of these benefits, so that they only apply to important goods? Why wouldn't we want even goods of lesser importance enjoy these benefits?
- Jochim 6y ago
  > What makes you think that public ownership and distribution is so effective? Its ability to address needs rather than wants. A free market does not distinguish between the need for people to drink and the need for a billionaire to fill his pool with freshwater in a drought. This can extend beyond non-survival needs to societal needs. Society "needs" educated workers who can contribute to the economy. Society "needs" you to be connected to other workers either physically or electronically. Public ownership allows us to address concerns that would not be appropriate to be driven primarily by profit motive. Typically we see this in the form of services rather than the direct transfer of physical goods. Most people believe communities in remote regions should have similar access to utility networks and transport, the ongoing cost of providing these typically outweighs the revenue that could be charged, so the state steps in. The fire service is a fairly universal example of a service that should not be driven by profit motive and we have good records of the damage that occurs when they are. The military would be another, it is not in society's best interest if your primary form of defense is willing to work for whoever will pay it the most. > And what are the limits of these benefits, so that they only apply to important goods? Why wouldn't we want even goods of lesser importance enjoy these benefits? Current governance can be inflexible, it usually requires taking everyone's viewpoint into account to minimise the risk of failure or of being viewed as misspending public funds. Our solution to this at the moment is to allow private enterprise to operate in the areas where the extraction of profit is likely to cause minimal harm. This increases choice but the downside is that it introduces a huge amount of inefficiency and waste.
  - eru 6y ago
    Thanks for the considered response. How does public ownership differentiate between needs and wants? As far as I can tell, there's something that poor people have even less than money: influence and connections. > The fire service is a fairly universal example of a service that should not be driven by profit motive and we have good records of the damage that occurs when they are. Could you point me to those records? As far as I can tell, Denmark does fairly well with privatized fire fighters. (And if memory serves right, the US, for mysterious reasons, has about twice as many firefighter per capita as other developed countries.) From a more theoretical perspective, would you think that a mandate for people to buy insurance against fires (and especially against liability for spreading fires) or alternatively posting a big bond to self-insure, and leaving the rest of the workings to the market should work as well? What do you think?
    - Jochim 6y ago
      > Thanks for the considered response. My pleasure! It's an interesting topic of discussion, and I think there's a lot of value in trying to understand where other people are coming from and what their motivations are. > Could you point me to those records? The well known documentary "Gangs of New York"[1]. More seriously, in early Rome fire brigades were often used as a tool to extort the compromised property from it's owner. Forgive me for quoting Wikipedia, but the article and quote is fairly well sourced[2]: > The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the firefighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground There are also reports of firefighting gangs in the new york times before the advent of professional fire services in the U.S.[3]: > Our reporters give an account of another incipient riot got up by firemen and runners last evening. For a time the brawl went on with great violence, and the rival factions or companies enjoyed the pleasure of trying to kill each other without let or hindrance, because—and here is the fact of main importance—"the Chief Engineer and his assistants had completely lost control of the men," The first professional fire brigades in the UK would leave your building to burn if you didn't have their particular company's mark on your building[4]: > If a building was on fire, several brigades would attend as quickly as possible. The different brigades would use the fire marks to work out if a building was insured by their parent company. If they didn't see their specific fire mark attached to the building, they would leave the property to burn. > As far as I can tell, Denmark does fairly well with privatized fire fighters. (And if memory serves right, the US, for mysterious reasons, has about twice as many firefighter per capita as other developed countries.) Privatised fire fighters in Denmark are still beholden to the local municipality, which in my opinion is different enough from a privatised "user pays" fire service that they aren't hugely comparable. The US is much less densely populated than Denmark and dealing with fires is a fairly time sensitive operation, I'd imagine that might explain part of the difference. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vBJ8cS08U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vBJ8cS08U [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting [3] https://lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archive/new-york-times-coverage-of-the-transition-to https://lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archive/new-york-times-coverage-... [4] https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/museum/history-and-stories/early-fire-brigades/ https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/museum/history-and-stories/ea...

by Jochim 6y ago

eru 6y ago

> What happens when there's a drought and the million gallons of water that farmer ordered can't be delivered? That would be specified in the contracts. Existing contracts for eg soy beans already have to take these possibilities into account. > What happens when speculators drive prices up because they know the people that actually need/want that water have to pay or risk losing their crops. If current future prices are clearly higher than what I expect spot prices to be in the future, I'd sell future contracts and make a killing. > Water is important enough that it should be publicly owned and distributed. This is pretty much the only way it can be effectively managed and distributed, rather than hoarded and scalped as soon as the opportunity presents itself. What makes you think that public ownership and distribution is so effective? And what are the limits of these benefits, so that they only apply to important goods? Why wouldn't we want even goods of lesser importance enjoy these benefits?

Jochim 6y ago
> What makes you think that public ownership and distribution is so effective? Its ability to address needs rather than wants. A free market does not distinguish between the need for people to drink and the need for a billionaire to fill his pool with freshwater in a drought. This can extend beyond non-survival needs to societal needs. Society "needs" educated workers who can contribute to the economy. Society "needs" you to be connected to other workers either physically or electronically. Public ownership allows us to address concerns that would not be appropriate to be driven primarily by profit motive. Typically we see this in the form of services rather than the direct transfer of physical goods. Most people believe communities in remote regions should have similar access to utility networks and transport, the ongoing cost of providing these typically outweighs the revenue that could be charged, so the state steps in. The fire service is a fairly universal example of a service that should not be driven by profit motive and we have good records of the damage that occurs when they are. The military would be another, it is not in society's best interest if your primary form of defense is willing to work for whoever will pay it the most. > And what are the limits of these benefits, so that they only apply to important goods? Why wouldn't we want even goods of lesser importance enjoy these benefits? Current governance can be inflexible, it usually requires taking everyone's viewpoint into account to minimise the risk of failure or of being viewed as misspending public funds. Our solution to this at the moment is to allow private enterprise to operate in the areas where the extraction of profit is likely to cause minimal harm. This increases choice but the downside is that it introduces a huge amount of inefficiency and waste.
- eru 6y ago
  Thanks for the considered response. How does public ownership differentiate between needs and wants? As far as I can tell, there's something that poor people have even less than money: influence and connections. > The fire service is a fairly universal example of a service that should not be driven by profit motive and we have good records of the damage that occurs when they are. Could you point me to those records? As far as I can tell, Denmark does fairly well with privatized fire fighters. (And if memory serves right, the US, for mysterious reasons, has about twice as many firefighter per capita as other developed countries.) From a more theoretical perspective, would you think that a mandate for people to buy insurance against fires (and especially against liability for spreading fires) or alternatively posting a big bond to self-insure, and leaving the rest of the workings to the market should work as well? What do you think?
  - Jochim 6y ago
    > Thanks for the considered response. My pleasure! It's an interesting topic of discussion, and I think there's a lot of value in trying to understand where other people are coming from and what their motivations are. > Could you point me to those records? The well known documentary "Gangs of New York"[1]. More seriously, in early Rome fire brigades were often used as a tool to extort the compromised property from it's owner. Forgive me for quoting Wikipedia, but the article and quote is fairly well sourced[2]: > The first ever Roman fire brigade was created by Marcus Licinius Crassus. He took advantage of the fact that Rome had no fire department, by creating his own brigade—500 men strong—which rushed to burning buildings at the first cry of alarm. Upon arriving at the scene, however, the firefighters did nothing while Crassus offered to buy the burning building from the distressed property owner, at a miserable price. If the owner agreed to sell the property, his men would put out the fire, if the owner refused, then they would simply let the structure burn to the ground There are also reports of firefighting gangs in the new york times before the advent of professional fire services in the U.S.[3]: > Our reporters give an account of another incipient riot got up by firemen and runners last evening. For a time the brawl went on with great violence, and the rival factions or companies enjoyed the pleasure of trying to kill each other without let or hindrance, because—and here is the fact of main importance—"the Chief Engineer and his assistants had completely lost control of the men," The first professional fire brigades in the UK would leave your building to burn if you didn't have their particular company's mark on your building[4]: > If a building was on fire, several brigades would attend as quickly as possible. The different brigades would use the fire marks to work out if a building was insured by their parent company. If they didn't see their specific fire mark attached to the building, they would leave the property to burn. > As far as I can tell, Denmark does fairly well with privatized fire fighters. (And if memory serves right, the US, for mysterious reasons, has about twice as many firefighter per capita as other developed countries.) Privatised fire fighters in Denmark are still beholden to the local municipality, which in my opinion is different enough from a privatised "user pays" fire service that they aren't hugely comparable. The US is much less densely populated than Denmark and dealing with fires is a fairly time sensitive operation, I'd imagine that might explain part of the difference. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vBJ8cS08U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-vBJ8cS08U [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting [3] https://lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archive/new-york-times-coverage-of-the-transition-to https://lostmuseum.cuny.edu/archive/new-york-times-coverage-... [4] https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/museum/history-and-stories/early-fire-brigades/ https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/museum/history-and-stories/ea...