I'm not arguing that trade can't work, I'm arguing that a market in water would be a magnet for abuse and exploitation. The problem I often have with these sort

I'm not arguing that trade can't work, I'm arguing that a market in water would be a magnet for abuse and exploitation. The problem I often have with these sorts of economic debates is that economists tend to see politics as an after-thought, something that will "take care of itself" and can assumed away or ignored. The devil is in the details, and economists hate details. I don't recall where I heard it, but one of my favorite quotes is that economics takes as its domain the set of solved political problems. Based on a quick search it was Abba Lerner. Galbraith has a similar quote about this issue. Saying that trade in water will get it to where it needs to be implies that there are no political issues involved. Will every politician really just sit back and tolerate net outflows of precious water? Doubtful. What about "bubbles" in a hypothetical water market? Even if you assume that the government usually causes market bubbles by meddling, they still happen. Is there any reason to believe they would not happen in a market for water? A housing or tech stock bubble is unfortunate, a water bubble could be devastating. My point is that a formal, large-scale commodity market for water could, and probably would, be manipulated beyond recognition as a means to achieve political aims and personal enrichment (of the less-than-savory kind). This is not an economic problem. The efficiency of markets is completely irrelevant if the actual, existing markets themselves are inefficient. The problem, it seems to me, is a political one, and it has not been solved.