3 ms·

Yes, we can see that in the American West where most water is used by agriculture. Exporting food can be seen as a more practical alternative to exporting water

Yes, we can see that in the American West where most water is used by agriculture. Exporting food can be seen as a more practical alternative to exporting water. When there's a drought, maybe don't export quite so much? Water rights are complicated, so water is far from freely-traded commodity, but over time, cities do pay more, and that means they tend to get their way. There's a saying that water flows uphill towards money. Local abundance is traditional: fruit and vegetables in season. It's still true for people with big gardens, when it's not worth their while to sell it.

eru 2y ago
> Local abundance is traditional: fruit and vegetables in season. It's still true for people with big gardens, when it's not worth their while to sell it. Yes, that was basically my point: participating in modern economies tends to smooth out local abundance. [0] That's good overall! Less waste, more innovation. But, of course, there are certain specific things lost to be nostalgic about. You are also right that water as an input is subject to lots and lots of distortions. And that leads to wasting of water, especially expensive in places where water is actually scarce. > Yes, we can see that in the American West where most water is used by agriculture. Exporting food can be seen as a more practical alternative to exporting water. When there's a drought, maybe don't export quite so much? When water has a proper market clearing price, that's exactly what happens. [0] Home production in a garden is a good example here, because it's usually not for participating in the wider market economy.
- skybrian 2y ago
  Yes, agreed. To continue, though, I think it's not just nostalgia; people who benefit from local abundance can lose something from more efficiency. AirBnB is another example. There are benefits to living in a desirable location and they're often free for the residents. If the neighbors are, effectively, selling off those amenities, it benefits them and their customers, but not you. And that's why some communities place restrictions. I believe the Coase theorem suggests that paying off the neighbors would be somehow efficient, if a deal can be reached. It can be difficult to agree on a price, though.
  - eru 2y ago
    > AirBnB is another example. There are benefits to living in a desirable location and they're often free for the residents. To be more precise, they are baked into land values / rent. > I believe the Coase theorem suggests that paying off the neighbors would be somehow efficient, if a deal can be reached. It can be difficult to agree on a price, though. Yes, transaction costs always kill you.

eru 2y ago

> Local abundance is traditional: fruit and vegetables in season. It's still true for people with big gardens, when it's not worth their while to sell it. Yes, that was basically my point: participating in modern economies tends to smooth out local abundance. [0] That's good overall! Less waste, more innovation. But, of course, there are certain specific things lost to be nostalgic about. You are also right that water as an input is subject to lots and lots of distortions. And that leads to wasting of water, especially expensive in places where water is actually scarce. > Yes, we can see that in the American West where most water is used by agriculture. Exporting food can be seen as a more practical alternative to exporting water. When there's a drought, maybe don't export quite so much? When water has a proper market clearing price, that's exactly what happens. [0] Home production in a garden is a good example here, because it's usually not for participating in the wider market economy.

skybrian 2y ago
Yes, agreed. To continue, though, I think it's not just nostalgia; people who benefit from local abundance can lose something from more efficiency. AirBnB is another example. There are benefits to living in a desirable location and they're often free for the residents. If the neighbors are, effectively, selling off those amenities, it benefits them and their customers, but not you. And that's why some communities place restrictions. I believe the Coase theorem suggests that paying off the neighbors would be somehow efficient, if a deal can be reached. It can be difficult to agree on a price, though.
- eru 2y ago
  > AirBnB is another example. There are benefits to living in a desirable location and they're often free for the residents. To be more precise, they are baked into land values / rent. > I believe the Coase theorem suggests that paying off the neighbors would be somehow efficient, if a deal can be reached. It can be difficult to agree on a price, though. Yes, transaction costs always kill you.