3 ms·

Even when those resources could be bought by someone who will waste them? We're not talking about something like gold here, we're talking about a resource that

by hauget 11y ago

Even when those resources could be bought by someone who will waste them? We're not talking about something like gold here, we're talking about a resource that is essential for human life. Would you really want someone who's wealthier than you to buy all the water around you just because they can?

geebee 11y ago
No, I certainly wouldn't! Still, the drought is on my mind, and while I recognize the need to conserve, I am frustrated by my government's response to the problem so far. So far, we've been responding to the crisis in a way that doesn't really allow people to make good trade-offs. For instance, I went to my parents house in a nice warm place, after a week in the fog, and my kids kind of wanted to play in the inflatable pool. My parents were bummed but asked us not to, because they're under mandates to cut back. To feel better, we all went out for california raised beef burgers and gorged on walnuts. Several dozen inflatable pools of sheer deliciousness, all externalized. Just kidding (sort of) about that last part, but this is the frustrating thing. Nobody is saying we can't use any water, we just can't use unlimited amounts of it. If someone goes vegan, avoids other water-heavy food sources, and doesn't wash his or her car, well, is it so bad that they might water a small patch of lawn or fill up the inflatable pool now and then? This is what is so nice about markets, when people have to pay what something actually costs, they are unlikely to use as much of it. Except, of course, you can now and then end up in a situation where someone rich buys "all" the water. One way to handle this is tiered rates, where it's cheap for the first bit, and perhaps very expensive after that. http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168 http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168 Looks like the first 4 units (1 unit = 748 gallons per month) is $5.45, so once you get the tap flowing (sunk cost), I'd say that drinking water is "free". Even showers are pretty cheap. The problem is that it doesn't go up by much. After those first 4, it's only $7.31. Still pretty cheap for something that we are supposedly in desperate need of. I suppose we could just crank up that second tier - in theory, that would keep showers, drinking water, and so forth affordable, while properly pricing the use of water to produce burgers, walnuts, swimming pools, lush gardens, golf courses, and clean cars. Now that I think of it, rich people already consume more of that sort of thing anyway...
- hauget 11y ago
  Tier option sounds smart. I think we have a similar system in place in Germany.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Unfortunately tiered rates in California have been ruled illegal. A bunch of anti-government people got a ballot measure passed which mandates that government services must be priced in line with their costs. Not a terrible idea in thought, but doesn't really help with situations like this.
  - estebank 11y ago
    Honest question: shouldn't the cost of replenishing the aquifers be considered as part of the cost of water? In other words, internalize the cost of externalized costs of water consumption. Also, it is my understanding that there're already two different rates for water in California depending on whether you get in a tap in your house or you use it to water a field by the acre-foot. I'm guessing that legally it is something different than tiered rates, but it barely makes sense. This post is known to the State of California to cause cancer.
tomjen3 11y ago
That is the beauty of the market: you do stupid things like that and you aren't rich enough to do so much longer. If it was regulated and you used your buddy connections to appropriate all the water usage rights then you still have your buddy connections once you have taken my water.
- hauget 11y ago
  There has to be a balance between government regulation/oversight and market forces. Just look at what happened with Wallstreet. You think no intervention at all would have been a good idea there? It's not about disallowing the other guy from doing stupid things and not being rich anymore, it's about not allowing someone to waste precious resources essential for human life, so as to not make it harder for others in need to have access (at accessible and fair prices) to said resources in the future.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  Not unless the cost of water is super, super expensive. Which it won't be.

by hauget 11y ago

geebee 11y ago

No, I certainly wouldn't! Still, the drought is on my mind, and while I recognize the need to conserve, I am frustrated by my government's response to the problem so far. So far, we've been responding to the crisis in a way that doesn't really allow people to make good trade-offs. For instance, I went to my parents house in a nice warm place, after a week in the fog, and my kids kind of wanted to play in the inflatable pool. My parents were bummed but asked us not to, because they're under mandates to cut back. To feel better, we all went out for california raised beef burgers and gorged on walnuts. Several dozen inflatable pools of sheer deliciousness, all externalized. Just kidding (sort of) about that last part, but this is the frustrating thing. Nobody is saying we can't use any water, we just can't use unlimited amounts of it. If someone goes vegan, avoids other water-heavy food sources, and doesn't wash his or her car, well, is it so bad that they might water a small patch of lawn or fill up the inflatable pool now and then? This is what is so nice about markets, when people have to pay what something actually costs, they are unlikely to use as much of it. Except, of course, you can now and then end up in a situation where someone rich buys "all" the water. One way to handle this is tiered rates, where it's cheap for the first bit, and perhaps very expensive after that. http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168 http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168 Looks like the first 4 units (1 unit = 748 gallons per month) is $5.45, so once you get the tap flowing (sunk cost), I'd say that drinking water is "free". Even showers are pretty cheap. The problem is that it doesn't go up by much. After those first 4, it's only $7.31. Still pretty cheap for something that we are supposedly in desperate need of. I suppose we could just crank up that second tier - in theory, that would keep showers, drinking water, and so forth affordable, while properly pricing the use of water to produce burgers, walnuts, swimming pools, lush gardens, golf courses, and clean cars. Now that I think of it, rich people already consume more of that sort of thing anyway...

hauget 11y ago
Tier option sounds smart. I think we have a similar system in place in Germany.
s73v3r 11y ago
Unfortunately tiered rates in California have been ruled illegal. A bunch of anti-government people got a ballot measure passed which mandates that government services must be priced in line with their costs. Not a terrible idea in thought, but doesn't really help with situations like this.
- estebank 11y ago
  Honest question: shouldn't the cost of replenishing the aquifers be considered as part of the cost of water? In other words, internalize the cost of externalized costs of water consumption. Also, it is my understanding that there're already two different rates for water in California depending on whether you get in a tap in your house or you use it to water a field by the acre-foot. I'm guessing that legally it is something different than tiered rates, but it barely makes sense. This post is known to the State of California to cause cancer.

tomjen3 11y ago

That is the beauty of the market: you do stupid things like that and you aren't rich enough to do so much longer. If it was regulated and you used your buddy connections to appropriate all the water usage rights then you still have your buddy connections once you have taken my water.

hauget 11y ago
There has to be a balance between government regulation/oversight and market forces. Just look at what happened with Wallstreet. You think no intervention at all would have been a good idea there? It's not about disallowing the other guy from doing stupid things and not being rich anymore, it's about not allowing someone to waste precious resources essential for human life, so as to not make it harder for others in need to have access (at accessible and fair prices) to said resources in the future.
s73v3r 11y ago
Not unless the cost of water is super, super expensive. Which it won't be.