4 ms·

Capitalism isn't the issue. Not properly costing water is. Its the same thing with carbon.

chowells 4y ago
This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. It gets one surface level detail approximately correct: if water or carbon emissions cost more, businesses would work harder to reduce their use. Analysis depth level 1: Where are the prices coming from? What are the incentives for setting them the way they are currently set? What alteration of those incentives would politically-powerful capital holders accept? Analysis depth level 2: Is market allocation moral for resources that are needed both for everyone to survive and for a small group of people to become wealthier? How does that analysis change as survival for the non-wealthy becomes more difficult? You can go deeper, of course. Many have. But just thinking about a few of these questions leads to far more cogent commentary than "capitalism isn't the issue".
- breischl 4y ago
  >Where are the prices coming from? Ironically water prices are largely set by government bodies that created water projects (eg, Bureau of Reclamation which made most of the huge dams in the west, various California water boards). Much of it was knowingly, intentionally priced below the cost to deliver it for various political reasons. If you want to read an in-depth account of that, I suggest "Cadillac Desert". >"capitalism isn't the issue" In this case, it's _at most_ part of the problem. Government policies delivered artificially cheap water. Capitalism responded to that incentive. Of course people then fight to maintain those policies, so in that sense one could blame capitalism. >This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. Said the guy who has done no actual analysis, and instead just asked questions. I think we've reached a second peak of HN here.
  - chowells 4y ago
    > >This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. > Said the guy who has done no actual analysis, and instead just asked questions. I think we've reached a second peak of HN here. Ah, you've misunderstood the point of my post. It wasn't to argue against them. It was to point out that what they presented isn't an argument. For what it's worth, I don't even disagree with "capitalism isn't the issue". I think a big issue is, as my questions would lead you find if you kept exploring, that people mistake economic and political systems for moral ones. Capitalism isn't moral. Or immoral. It's amoral. As such, it's not a valid answer when raising moral questions. Capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is that people accept "capitalism" as an excuse for immoral behavior. My rhetorical goal is to get the person I replied to to expand their thinking. Spend less time quoting the Libertarian party and their conflation of profit and morality. Think about how systems interact with each other when applied broadly. Think about whether the systems in use are even appropriate for your goals. And above all, to remember that nothing ever has only one "the problem".
- blululu 4y ago
  This is a very uncharitable reading of the comment. Irrigation in the Central Valley could only be called Capitalist in so far is it concentrates resources into the hands of a greedy, wealthy few. But the irrigation does not follow anything close to a free market. The amount of tax payer support for irrigation projects that benefit the massive landholdings of some of the richest farms on earth is pretty shocking, and this leads to massively inefficient uses of water (growing cotton and beef for example). There is no market allocation here but I would be willing to bet that such an allocation would be more moral than the current distribution of resources that grows unprofitable crops while local towns are asked to ration.
mc32 4y ago
Exactly. See the Aral Sea for a non-capitalist version of the problem and results.

This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. It gets one surface level detail approximately correct: if water or carbon emissions cost more, businesses would work harder to reduce their use. Analysis depth level 1: Where are the prices coming from? What are the incentives for setting them the way they are currently set? What alteration of those incentives would politically-powerful capital holders accept? Analysis depth level 2: Is market allocation moral for resources that are needed both for everyone to survive and for a small group of people to become wealthier? How does that analysis change as survival for the non-wealthy becomes more difficult? You can go deeper, of course. Many have. But just thinking about a few of these questions leads to far more cogent commentary than "capitalism isn't the issue".

breischl 4y ago
>Where are the prices coming from? Ironically water prices are largely set by government bodies that created water projects (eg, Bureau of Reclamation which made most of the huge dams in the west, various California water boards). Much of it was knowingly, intentionally priced below the cost to deliver it for various political reasons. If you want to read an in-depth account of that, I suggest "Cadillac Desert". >"capitalism isn't the issue" In this case, it's _at most_ part of the problem. Government policies delivered artificially cheap water. Capitalism responded to that incentive. Of course people then fight to maintain those policies, so in that sense one could blame capitalism. >This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. Said the guy who has done no actual analysis, and instead just asked questions. I think we've reached a second peak of HN here.
- chowells 4y ago
  > >This analysis is so shallow it's practically Libertarian. > Said the guy who has done no actual analysis, and instead just asked questions. I think we've reached a second peak of HN here. Ah, you've misunderstood the point of my post. It wasn't to argue against them. It was to point out that what they presented isn't an argument. For what it's worth, I don't even disagree with "capitalism isn't the issue". I think a big issue is, as my questions would lead you find if you kept exploring, that people mistake economic and political systems for moral ones. Capitalism isn't moral. Or immoral. It's amoral. As such, it's not a valid answer when raising moral questions. Capitalism isn't the problem. The problem is that people accept "capitalism" as an excuse for immoral behavior. My rhetorical goal is to get the person I replied to to expand their thinking. Spend less time quoting the Libertarian party and their conflation of profit and morality. Think about how systems interact with each other when applied broadly. Think about whether the systems in use are even appropriate for your goals. And above all, to remember that nothing ever has only one "the problem".
blululu 4y ago
This is a very uncharitable reading of the comment. Irrigation in the Central Valley could only be called Capitalist in so far is it concentrates resources into the hands of a greedy, wealthy few. But the irrigation does not follow anything close to a free market. The amount of tax payer support for irrigation projects that benefit the massive landholdings of some of the richest farms on earth is pretty shocking, and this leads to massively inefficient uses of water (growing cotton and beef for example). There is no market allocation here but I would be willing to bet that such an allocation would be more moral than the current distribution of resources that grows unprofitable crops while local towns are asked to ration.

mc32 4y ago

Exactly. See the Aral Sea for a non-capitalist version of the problem and results.