4 ms·

>much more profitable to sell the rights than to put that water to productive use But this is exactly what selling the rights does: passes the rights on to som

>much more profitable to sell the rights than to put that water to productive use But this is exactly what selling the rights does: passes the rights on to someone who can put the water to better use.

trhway 12y ago
if somebody can use it better why would you get assigned rights to the shared state resource like water in the first place? It is not like the water is collected on your land or pumped from your well (such cases would have at least some logic behind it)
- webnrrd2k 12y ago
  I'd guess that the rights were assigned in the past, and they made sense then. In the present there are different, better uses for the water, but the rights have not been reassigned.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Because the state generally arbitrates what the 'best' use of a shared resource is sub-optimally, usually according to politics, rather than economics. Hence when the state allocates water you get a situation where crops that would be grown at a loss when paying for water, like rice and almonds, are given severely discounted access to water to encourage misallocation of water from profitable uses to unprofitable ones. In a market economy when someone does something stupid, like thinking it's a good idea to grow rice in a desert the market responds by making their business unprofitable. In a political economy when someone does something stupid, everyone else goes without so that morons can grow rice and almonds in deserts. Therefore almond farmers being somewhat non-moronic will sell their water rights to people who need to take showers rather than grow almonds because they are at least intelligent enough to understand that more money is better than less money. For an example see, any centrally planned economy, ever.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    > For an example see, any centrally planned economy, ever. We're pretty centrally planned here in Denmark, and it works well. :) The key is to centrally plan infrastructure, but not everything. Electricity, healthcare, heating, oil/gas production, transport, education, and other basic infrastructure is mainly centrally planned, but plenty of the economy isn't. Things are also not always centrally operated (transit is usually bid out to private companies to operate), but infrastructure, energy, and other common resources are generally centrally planned. I think overall this produces results that are less chaotic and short-term-profit-maximizing, and more sensible. Central planners can also use market mechanisms where appropriate, so planning and markets aren't exclusive. For example, the university system is 100% public and generally rationally planned, but there are also market mechanisms within it that reallocate funds based on various metrics, such as tying # of admissions slots in various fields to employment outcomes. I don't think it's perfect, but I strongly suspect a laissez-faire market would produce worse outcomes. (You do, of course, also need a functioning civil society, so that the planning isn't abysmally stupid, but that is basically a prerequisite for democracy to work at all.)
    - spullara 12y ago
      The key is to have a country 2x the size of Massachusetts (one of the smallest states in the US) — Denmark is the 133rd largest country. Using a country of your size with a population only 2/3rds NYC to argue for global planned economies is incredibly disingenuous. A more apt comparison would be China or the former USSR.
      - redacted 12y ago
        Disregarding the EU is also disingenuous. Rather than consider the USA as a single monolith and comparing to a single European nation like Denmark, compare to the equivalent monolith (the EU has 46% of the area, 158% of the population, and 103% GDP of the USA). Most EU countries have heavy central planning for all the things _delirium mentioned, probably all EU countries if you use the USA as a baseline.
- fragmede 12y ago
  > It is not like the water is collected on your land You jest, but people have gone to jail for collecting water on their own land. http://offgridsurvival.com/rainwaterillegal/ http://offgridsurvival.com/rainwaterillegal/
  - baq 12y ago
    if done on large scale, collecting water instead of letting it cycle naturally is extremely dangerous for the environment.
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      A perfectly valid point, of course.

trhway 12y ago

if somebody can use it better why would you get assigned rights to the shared state resource like water in the first place? It is not like the water is collected on your land or pumped from your well (such cases would have at least some logic behind it)

webnrrd2k 12y ago
I'd guess that the rights were assigned in the past, and they made sense then. In the present there are different, better uses for the water, but the rights have not been reassigned.
fleitz 12y ago
Because the state generally arbitrates what the 'best' use of a shared resource is sub-optimally, usually according to politics, rather than economics. Hence when the state allocates water you get a situation where crops that would be grown at a loss when paying for water, like rice and almonds, are given severely discounted access to water to encourage misallocation of water from profitable uses to unprofitable ones. In a market economy when someone does something stupid, like thinking it's a good idea to grow rice in a desert the market responds by making their business unprofitable. In a political economy when someone does something stupid, everyone else goes without so that morons can grow rice and almonds in deserts. Therefore almond farmers being somewhat non-moronic will sell their water rights to people who need to take showers rather than grow almonds because they are at least intelligent enough to understand that more money is better than less money. For an example see, any centrally planned economy, ever.
- _delirium 12y ago
  > For an example see, any centrally planned economy, ever. We're pretty centrally planned here in Denmark, and it works well. :) The key is to centrally plan infrastructure, but not everything. Electricity, healthcare, heating, oil/gas production, transport, education, and other basic infrastructure is mainly centrally planned, but plenty of the economy isn't. Things are also not always centrally operated (transit is usually bid out to private companies to operate), but infrastructure, energy, and other common resources are generally centrally planned. I think overall this produces results that are less chaotic and short-term-profit-maximizing, and more sensible. Central planners can also use market mechanisms where appropriate, so planning and markets aren't exclusive. For example, the university system is 100% public and generally rationally planned, but there are also market mechanisms within it that reallocate funds based on various metrics, such as tying # of admissions slots in various fields to employment outcomes. I don't think it's perfect, but I strongly suspect a laissez-faire market would produce worse outcomes. (You do, of course, also need a functioning civil society, so that the planning isn't abysmally stupid, but that is basically a prerequisite for democracy to work at all.)
  - spullara 12y ago
    The key is to have a country 2x the size of Massachusetts (one of the smallest states in the US) — Denmark is the 133rd largest country. Using a country of your size with a population only 2/3rds NYC to argue for global planned economies is incredibly disingenuous. A more apt comparison would be China or the former USSR.
    - redacted 12y ago
      Disregarding the EU is also disingenuous. Rather than consider the USA as a single monolith and comparing to a single European nation like Denmark, compare to the equivalent monolith (the EU has 46% of the area, 158% of the population, and 103% GDP of the USA). Most EU countries have heavy central planning for all the things _delirium mentioned, probably all EU countries if you use the USA as a baseline.
fragmede 12y ago
> It is not like the water is collected on your land You jest, but people have gone to jail for collecting water on their own land. http://offgridsurvival.com/rainwaterillegal/ http://offgridsurvival.com/rainwaterillegal/
- baq 12y ago
  if done on large scale, collecting water instead of letting it cycle naturally is extremely dangerous for the environment.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    A perfectly valid point, of course.