Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The race to buy up the world's water

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 50 posts

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#11

Post by stretchwithme »

tbrownaw wrote: post #10
stretchwithme wrote: post #5

The market is the only mechanism that can allocate scarce resources equitably. And the only alternative is politics. In California, those with influence have secured water for agriculture at below market rates, water delivered with infrastructure built by taxpayer dollars. When people can get a resource for less than the cost of delivering it, they use it with less discretion. And the prices of the things they produc…

> The market is the only mechanism that can allocate scarce resources equitably. The market allocates according to ability/willingness to pay. This is perfectly fine in general, but doesn't work so well when "ability" enters the picture for something considered a necessity.

That's true of everything.

I'd much rather pay for what I need from a competitive marketplace that is constantly driving down the cost of everything than leave it up to monopolistic government to hand out the privilege of drinking water.

The market works damn well for the vast majority of things with which government has not blessed with its involvement.

Water is no different than most things. In fact, it falls out of the sky in a lot of places.

Places where its difficult to obtain water usually have plenty of government managing the privileges.

The free market is people peacefully trading with each other. Most government is coercion. I don't see how more of it is a solution.

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#12

Post by lurchpop »

stretchwithme wrote: post #5

The market is the only mechanism that can allocate scarce resources equitably. And the only alternative is politics. In California, those with influence have secured water for agriculture at below market rates, water delivered with infrastructure built by taxpayer dollars. When people can get a resource for less than the cost of delivering it, they use it with less discretion. And the prices of the things they produc…

Not entirely true if you're talking about a poor area whose market can't bear a price which makes supplying them profitable.

The article also mentions that conservation is forced disproportionately on the poor given the examples of Cal in the 80s.

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#14

Post by brunt »

Psyonic wrote: post #7
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you find a reference to the case you mention? Sounds worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Cochabamba_protests

I prefer to read about it from Maddox.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=quantum_of_p...

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#16

Post by ars »

Do your part to conserve water: Use plastic, not paper. Don't recycle. If you have a septic system replace it with a sewer. Do not buy local, but from wherever is able to most efficiently grow the crop.

Making paper uses tons of water. So does washing the plastic for recycling. Water is far more precious than energy/oil right now.

A septic system wastes all it's water, but a sewer system recycles almost all of it.

Growing things locally can use more water than if you plant things in the area they grow in best.

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#17

Post by Someone »

stretchwithme wrote: post #11
tbrownaw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market is the only mechanism that can allocate scarce resources equitably. The market allocates according to ability/willingness to pay. This is perfectly fine in general, but doesn't work so well when "ability" enters the picture for something considered a necessity.

That's true of everything. I'd much rather pay for what I need from a competitive marketplace that is constantly driving down the cost of everything than leave it up to monopolistic government to hand out the privilege of drinking water. The market works damn well for the vast majority of things with which government has not blessed with its involvement. Water is no different than most things. In fact, it falls out o…

"water is no different than most things" is precisely what this article (and the UN; the right to water and sanitation was added to the human rights awhile ago) disagrees with. Would you apply the same logic to oxygen instead of water?

Even accepting that water is no different than say cars, I disagree with the peacefulness of the free market. The free market is all about competition. In this case, competition drives the groundwater table down fast (a couple of meters a year, in some places), and forces everybody to play the game of drilling ever deeper holes.

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#18

Post by stretchwithme »

Someone wrote: post #17
stretchwithme wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true of everything. I'd much rather pay for what I need from a competitive marketplace that is constantly driving down the cost of everything than leave it up to monopolistic government to hand out the privilege of drinking water. The market works damn well for the vast majority of things with which government has not blessed with its involvement. Water is no different than most things. In fact, it falls out o…

"water is no different than most things" is precisely what this article (and the UN; the right to water and sanitation was added to the human rights awhile ago) disagrees with. Would you apply the same logic to oxygen instead of water? Even accepting that water is no different than say cars, I disagree with the peacefulness of the free market. The free market is all about competition. In this case, competition drives…

I meant with regard to the fact that ability to pay determines whether you can buy something. Obviously everyone needs water to live, just as they need food, housing, transportation, recreation, sex and many other things to live which require you have something to trade.

Can you tell me a place where the free market rules where can't get the clean water you need to live for far less than an hour's worth of labor at the lowest paid job?

I can think of plenty where the use of force rules where its not even possible to get any clean water at all.

The UN's problem is hardly with countries where people are allowed to trade and keep what they earn.

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#19

Post by code_duck »

Of course, this is why insiders such as Dick Cheney have been investing heavily, personally, in water and encouraging water privatization as governmental policy worldwide. Not so recently, more like 6-8 years ago. It's the next resource to rake the working people of the world over the coals for.

Re: The race to buy up the world's water

#20

Post by srean »

stretchwithme wrote: post #11
tbrownaw wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The market is the only mechanism that can allocate scarce resources equitably. The market allocates according to ability/willingness to pay. This is perfectly fine in general, but doesn't work so well when "ability" enters the picture for something considered a necessity.

That's true of everything. I'd much rather pay for what I need from a competitive marketplace that is constantly driving down the cost of everything than leave it up to monopolistic government to hand out the privilege of drinking water. The market works damn well for the vast majority of things with which government has not blessed with its involvement. Water is no different than most things. In fact, it falls out o…

Your comment seems to make the case that markets are competitive whereas governments are monopolistic. I feel reluctant to buy into that without an authoritative statistical study. My experience, though anecdotal, does not lean in that direction significantly enough.

On the other hand scholars[1] have argued that much of the first world have made the bulk of their progress in very protectionist environments and have opened their markets selectively when it was to their advantage. I havent seen those arguments debunked effectively. The notion of "free"ness of current markets is also debatable given that it is guarded strongly by international politics.

Mathematically speaking, I do not recollect that free markets guarantee equity as has been claimed in some comments here. They do guarantee an equilibrium, which however need not be a good/desirable one.(Think traffic flow without signals).

I am not against free markets, I think thats perhaps the best option available, but as long as it remains easy to externalize costs, it will continue to remain broken. Because what you are paying is only part of the cost and someone else is being forced to pick up the tab.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang

Post reply on HN