4 ms·

You're taking it for granted that a market-based system isn't going to work. Why? Utah farmers get their water almost for free, while city residents pay close

You're taking it for granted that a market-based system isn't going to work. Why? Utah farmers get their water almost for free, while city residents pay closer to its marginal delivery cost. This isn't wise public policy choice made by 21st century philosopher-legislators, but simply the path-dependent product of an anachronistic 19th-century framework of "water rights" plus 100+ years of lobbying. It doesn't help that the state senate (like all state senates) is designed to over-represent rural areas. Second-order solutions like rationing beef might be morally laudable, I just don't think they're really in play until you address the main structural failures, which almost everyone agrees on.

pbronez 5y ago
Agree. Markets and prices are super useful tools, but they must be constructed thoughtfully and maintained rigorously. Property rights must be refactored to allow price discovery. Regulators must price in externalities by force of law. Corruption must be minimized. Above all, you need an effective government at the core. Markets are fantastic for helping large groups of people make locally optimal decisions within global constraints, but you have to be able to establish those global constraints effectively. Water rights, climate impact, employment structures, supply chain resilience… none of that stuff is inherently baked into prices, and governments won’t fix those problems unless they’re solution-focused with low levels of corruption.
gumby 5y ago
> It doesn't help that the state senate (like all state senates) is designed to over-represent rural areas. I don’t think this has been true since Reynolds v. Sims almost 60 years ago. Since then state senates have been pretty pointless (just small equivalents of the lower houses) and really should be abolished. In California, for example, it’s just a mechanism for assembly members who want to stick around beyond their term limits to have a chance at another couple of terms. As I understand the problems of term limits I probably shouldn’t complain.
- nohuck13 5y ago
  Huh. You're absolutely right. Learned something today :)

pbronez 5y ago

Agree. Markets and prices are super useful tools, but they must be constructed thoughtfully and maintained rigorously. Property rights must be refactored to allow price discovery. Regulators must price in externalities by force of law. Corruption must be minimized. Above all, you need an effective government at the core. Markets are fantastic for helping large groups of people make locally optimal decisions within global constraints, but you have to be able to establish those global constraints effectively. Water rights, climate impact, employment structures, supply chain resilience… none of that stuff is inherently baked into prices, and governments won’t fix those problems unless they’re solution-focused with low levels of corruption.

gumby 5y ago

> It doesn't help that the state senate (like all state senates) is designed to over-represent rural areas. I don’t think this has been true since Reynolds v. Sims almost 60 years ago. Since then state senates have been pretty pointless (just small equivalents of the lower houses) and really should be abolished. In California, for example, it’s just a mechanism for assembly members who want to stick around beyond their term limits to have a chance at another couple of terms. As I understand the problems of term limits I probably shouldn’t complain.

nohuck13 5y ago
Huh. You're absolutely right. Learned something today :)