3 ms·

>Where are the prices coming from? Ironically water prices are largely set by government bodies that created water projects (eg, Bureau of Reclamation which ma

>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".

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".