4 ms·

I'd put it slightly differently: it's time to start implementing policies based on ideology that is itself grounded in reality. Taxpayer funded infrastructure

I'd put it slightly differently: it's time to start implementing policies based on ideology that is itself grounded in reality. Taxpayer funded infrastructure is socialism, and is a species of the problem discussed in the second article I linked. Edited: perhaps I should clarify the above since I'm getting downvoted into oblivion (without argumentation, but that's another issue). Essentially, the issue with existing policies is that they aren't based on ideology, or that they are but the ideology itself is wrong. That is, coercing taxpayers to pay for infrastructure is not only morally wrong, it causes price distortions, moral hazards and malinvestment that all contribute to the 'water shortage' that people are worried about. The correct solution is to entirely deregulate the production and provision of water, and let the free market determine the real price.

api 12y ago
Things like water distribution are natural monopolies. Or are you suggesting that we have several independent water vendors built completely separate water pipeline infrastructures?
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  From http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly (with emphasis added): "Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconvenience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., digging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total costs. It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to "justify" franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process."

api 12y ago

Things like water distribution are natural monopolies. Or are you suggesting that we have several independent water vendors built completely separate water pipeline infrastructures?

duncan_bayne 12y ago
From http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly (with emphasis added): "Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconvenience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., digging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total costs. It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to "justify" franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process."