3 ms·
The point I'm trying to make is that if there would be drinking water shortage in LA and the government wouldn't subsidize agriculture, almond production in Cal
by xiphias2 4y ago
The point I'm trying to make is that if there would be drinking water shortage in LA and the government wouldn't subsidize agriculture, almond production in California would probably get bankrupt, the farmers would move to another state that is more suitable for water intensitive farming, and the market would just solve the issue. Regulations can be beneficial, but harmful as well.
In the current case gas prices are high anyways, and Bitcoin miners are dynamic resources in containers that can move easily, so I guess they will just create another wave of demand for solar panel + battery pack installations (just like Blockstream did with Tesla solar+batteries, and what's going on in Texas in the last few years with solar overprovisioning). I'm in favor of this law, just not the title.
- uniqueuid 4y agoI have absolutely no objection, all correct points. One additional factor to consider is the time frame of regulation / market reactions: In some cases catastrophic short-term events may harm people. Even though market reactions would offer medium-term solutions, that may still be a case in favor of regulation. But we're approaching a textbook-length argument here and I'm not really an expert on infrastructure regulation, so I'll leave it at this :)
- ianai 4y agoMore probably, they would change which crops they grow. Is there any evidence that farmers enjoy the ability to pick up and move to other land? I seem to recall these land plots staying in the family for hundreds of years.