3 ms·

I think that is the idea, but it doesn't work in practice because, well people. Really useful electronics are harder to get or have been hard to get, but yet if

I think that is the idea, but it doesn't work in practice because, well people. Really useful electronics are harder to get or have been hard to get, but yet if I wanted to buy my daughter a twerking llama toy, I'd have no issue with acquiring one of those. A little more meaningful example, we grow pistachios (a water intensive crop), in a place with limited access to water (desert areas of California) and have been doing that for years and years. Seems like if the market just naturally achieved efficiency, you'd grow water intensive crops in places that were not constrained on the resource.

carapace 5y ago
> Seems like if the market just naturally achieved efficiency, you'd grow water intensive crops in places that were not constrained on the resource. In this case the market is up against (arguably irrational) water rights and such, the market is far from free. > The planning and management of water in California is subject to a vast number of laws, regulations, management plans, and historic water rights. The state agency responsible for water planning is the California Department of Water Resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Planning_and_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Planning_a...
- rnk 5y ago
  What is already happening is private equity is buying up farms in the west to get their water, and cities are doing it too.
ajmurmann 5y ago
The electronics part might more showcase what we actually value as a society. In the case of things that need chips it also demonstrates how we are unable to plan. Car makers cancelled their chip orders when the pandemic hit. They have lots of skin in the game and know their own industry better than any politician would. Why would politicians get planning chip production better than they did? The water example is pretty bad, given that we don't charge the actual price of water to subsidize businesses. If we'd charge the real price (and ideally tax negative externalities) much farming would likely leave California.
- tcmart14 5y ago
  A comment I put for someone else that answers this. Because those who succeed in a market end up with the money to influence policy. That is why that is important. Policy affects markets which then affects policies. It is a concept in capitalism we are not going to get away from.
opo 5y ago
>...Seems like if the market just naturally achieved efficiency, you'd grow water intensive crops in places that were not constrained on the resource. What does preferential treatment by the government have to do with the market? If the farmers didn't get water at a heavily discounted price from the government, they likely wouldn't be able to grow such water intensive crops and the crops would be grown in places that were not contained on the resource. Heck, they even grow rice in CA!
- tcmart14 5y ago
  Because those who succeed in a market end up with the money to influence policy. That is why that is important. Policy affects markets which then affects policies. It is a concept in capitalism we are not going to get away from.
  - opo 5y ago
    >...It is a concept in capitalism Throughout all recorded history those who have been well connected with those in power have unfairly benefited from that. This isn't something that only came about in modern times. It is only in modern political systems with rule of law, property rights, recognition of inalienable rights, etc. where people feel that this kind of political favoritism is bad and work to limit it by constraining the power of those in power. Constraining the the rulers is done by limiting their power by written constitutions, political transparency, etc. One can certainly argue (and I would agree) that there is more political favoritism than there should be, but at least modern economic systems think it is a bad thing and people work to limit it.

carapace 5y ago

> Seems like if the market just naturally achieved efficiency, you'd grow water intensive crops in places that were not constrained on the resource. In this case the market is up against (arguably irrational) water rights and such, the market is far from free. > The planning and management of water in California is subject to a vast number of laws, regulations, management plans, and historic water rights. The state agency responsible for water planning is the California Department of Water Resources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Planning_and_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Planning_a...

rnk 5y ago
What is already happening is private equity is buying up farms in the west to get their water, and cities are doing it too.

ajmurmann 5y ago

The electronics part might more showcase what we actually value as a society. In the case of things that need chips it also demonstrates how we are unable to plan. Car makers cancelled their chip orders when the pandemic hit. They have lots of skin in the game and know their own industry better than any politician would. Why would politicians get planning chip production better than they did? The water example is pretty bad, given that we don't charge the actual price of water to subsidize businesses. If we'd charge the real price (and ideally tax negative externalities) much farming would likely leave California.

tcmart14 5y ago
A comment I put for someone else that answers this. Because those who succeed in a market end up with the money to influence policy. That is why that is important. Policy affects markets which then affects policies. It is a concept in capitalism we are not going to get away from.

opo 5y ago

>...Seems like if the market just naturally achieved efficiency, you'd grow water intensive crops in places that were not constrained on the resource. What does preferential treatment by the government have to do with the market? If the farmers didn't get water at a heavily discounted price from the government, they likely wouldn't be able to grow such water intensive crops and the crops would be grown in places that were not contained on the resource. Heck, they even grow rice in CA!

tcmart14 5y ago
Because those who succeed in a market end up with the money to influence policy. That is why that is important. Policy affects markets which then affects policies. It is a concept in capitalism we are not going to get away from.
- opo 5y ago
  >...It is a concept in capitalism Throughout all recorded history those who have been well connected with those in power have unfairly benefited from that. This isn't something that only came about in modern times. It is only in modern political systems with rule of law, property rights, recognition of inalienable rights, etc. where people feel that this kind of political favoritism is bad and work to limit it by constraining the power of those in power. Constraining the the rulers is done by limiting their power by written constitutions, political transparency, etc. One can certainly argue (and I would agree) that there is more political favoritism than there should be, but at least modern economic systems think it is a bad thing and people work to limit it.