3 ms·

> You need so little water for drinking that it's essentially free or close to free. Yeah, that's developed-world life talking. Markets absolutely work at dis

> You need so little water for drinking that it's essentially free or close to free. Yeah, that's developed-world life talking. Markets absolutely work at dissuading growing almonds in the desert. Until there's too much wealth disparity, and Peter is willing to pay more than Paul has in total for desert-grown almonds. Either Paul steals the water or he dies, and thieves aren't popular. Of course there's another form of currency - votes. I can't really say they're universally distributed, because FPTP screws up the purchasing power of a vote. But I'd give good odds on a very strong correlation between a functioning democracy and cheap water.

eru 6y ago
Do you have an example of a place that has both a reasonably free trade in water and where poor people can't afford water to drink? > Markets absolutely work at dissuading growing almonds in the desert. Until there's too much wealth disparity, and Peter is willing to pay more than Paul has in total for desert-grown almonds. Either Paul steals the water or he dies, and thieves aren't popular. Eh, unlikely. Peter will just get his almonds from the cheapest supplier, who is unlikely to be growing in a desert. There's nothing special about water in the scenario you are describing. Plenty of other commodities are traded on markets, and more developed markets have meant better and more secure supply for everyone, especially poor people. > Of course there's another form of currency - votes. I can't really say they're universally distributed, because FPTP screws up the purchasing power of a vote. But I'd give good odds on a very strong correlation between a functioning democracy and cheap water. Only some countries use FPTP. In any case, there's a strong correlation between any attributes generally seen as desirable. Figuring out causation is harder. Btw, you know what poor people lack even more than money: influence and connections. I wouldn't look to politics to improving their lot.
- yodelshady 6y ago
  I don't really care if you think it's unlikely. People dying of thirst where water-intensive, non-essential industries operate is empirically happening, now. It has happened in the past and will do so in future. Btw, poor people lacking influence is not consistent with how quite a lot of European nobles died or the vast array of modern working practices that are suboptimal from a capitalist's point of view. I'll leave the debate there since I've no interest in arguing a fictional universe.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    > Btw, poor people lacking influence is not consistent with how quite a lot of European nobles died I believe people dying (noble or otherwise) is the recurring historical singularity we're trying to avoid; so we can both acknowledge that the poor can violently and quite temporarily gain political advantage while recognizing that during non-singular time periods (which is most of time) the converse is generally true.
  - eru 6y ago
    Which European nobles do you have in mind? Europeans generally didn't kill off their nobles much. (Mostly the French Revolution and the Russian October Revolution come to mind.)
Dylan16807 6y ago
> Yeah, that's developed-world life talking. Sure, but this is water in California. > Until there's too much wealth disparity, and Peter is willing to pay more than Paul has in total for desert-grown almonds. You're not going to have so much demand for thousand dollar almonds that it makes a significant impact.

eru 6y ago

Do you have an example of a place that has both a reasonably free trade in water and where poor people can't afford water to drink? > Markets absolutely work at dissuading growing almonds in the desert. Until there's too much wealth disparity, and Peter is willing to pay more than Paul has in total for desert-grown almonds. Either Paul steals the water or he dies, and thieves aren't popular. Eh, unlikely. Peter will just get his almonds from the cheapest supplier, who is unlikely to be growing in a desert. There's nothing special about water in the scenario you are describing. Plenty of other commodities are traded on markets, and more developed markets have meant better and more secure supply for everyone, especially poor people. > Of course there's another form of currency - votes. I can't really say they're universally distributed, because FPTP screws up the purchasing power of a vote. But I'd give good odds on a very strong correlation between a functioning democracy and cheap water. Only some countries use FPTP. In any case, there's a strong correlation between any attributes generally seen as desirable. Figuring out causation is harder. Btw, you know what poor people lack even more than money: influence and connections. I wouldn't look to politics to improving their lot.

yodelshady 6y ago
I don't really care if you think it's unlikely. People dying of thirst where water-intensive, non-essential industries operate is empirically happening, now. It has happened in the past and will do so in future. Btw, poor people lacking influence is not consistent with how quite a lot of European nobles died or the vast array of modern working practices that are suboptimal from a capitalist's point of view. I'll leave the debate there since I've no interest in arguing a fictional universe.
- dnautics 6y ago
  > Btw, poor people lacking influence is not consistent with how quite a lot of European nobles died I believe people dying (noble or otherwise) is the recurring historical singularity we're trying to avoid; so we can both acknowledge that the poor can violently and quite temporarily gain political advantage while recognizing that during non-singular time periods (which is most of time) the converse is generally true.
- eru 6y ago
  Which European nobles do you have in mind? Europeans generally didn't kill off their nobles much. (Mostly the French Revolution and the Russian October Revolution come to mind.)

Dylan16807 6y ago

> Yeah, that's developed-world life talking. Sure, but this is water in California. > Until there's too much wealth disparity, and Peter is willing to pay more than Paul has in total for desert-grown almonds. You're not going to have so much demand for thousand dollar almonds that it makes a significant impact.