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

41–50 of 50 posts

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

#41

Post by pyre »

lzw wrote: post #38
pyre wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with everything except: > But governmental regulation, selectively applied, can also be at > least a partial solution, to the extent it can help keep market > predators from doing A, B, and C above. I would postulate that this is probably nigh impossible due to the human nature of the legistators/regulators themselves. In other words, it's impossible to prevent market predators for using government to their b…

Right, in reality, government regulation is the cheapest way to make he public pay for the costs while keeping the profits. However, those who propose government regulation seem to not perceive government as anything other than an objective benevolent force, and when they are presented with evidence of government being corrupt, they blame the corporations for corrupting them.

Obviously the government does not 'become corrupt' because of the corporations, but for the most part the corporations are the people with the deepest pockets to lobby legislators/regulators. The more money there is to be made by being a stooge for a specific industry (or single corporation) the more likely there is that at least one legislator/regulator will become their champion.

I postulate that if there were less (or no) corporate lobbying of legislators/regulators, then there would be significantly less corruption. Blaming the corporations for corrupting the government, while naive, isn't that far from the mark.

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

#42

Post by stretchwithme »

srean wrote: post #20
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…

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…

I believe free markets are competitive and hobbled markets are not and non-voluntary government is monopolistic.

When our activities impose costs on others, that should be remedied. If my making a buck creates a nickel's worth of pollution damage to you, I should be made to pay that nickel.

That doesn't make a market less free, as one has the right to be free of the pollution of others too. A "free" market recognizes the rights of all involved.

And it actually makes markets more efficient. If I am making a buck and it costs you $5 in pollution, an efficient market sends me a clear signal to stop.

But it seems to me that government is more in the business of shifting benefits to some for political purposes and shifting costs to its opponents. And that is not helping protect anybody's rights.

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

#43

Post by prodigal_erik »

stretchwithme wrote: post #18
Someone wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 t…

The underlying problem with putting water on the world market is that the market value of your labor might be less than foreigners value the water you need to stay alive and fed and healthy. Strange that we don't view it as we do organ smuggling, because the moral calculus (others have the means and now the incentive to outbid you on your own continued survival) is almost the same.

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

#44

Post by rdtsc »

stretchwithme wrote: post #35
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privatization usually does not translate in to 'the people that use the resource will own it', it usually translates in to 'big-corp' in 'some other country' now owns a resource you depend on and will make you pay through the nose for it. If the situation were such that each of us gets to be responsible for their little chunk of the planet then I wouldn't have a problem with it, in practice that is not how it works.…

you go first. More can be done with less and that sort of improvement is happening all of the time. freedom and innovation is the solution, not limiting people's freedom when I see tiny, populated, resource-poor, rich countries, its clear to me that trade and the rule of law are the solution to a great many problems many insist are unsolvable in other places that lack freedom The situation you describe where deals ar…

I think you both failed to make a distinction between resources necessary for life and optional resources.

When it comes to water, healthcare, minimum daily amount of food, leaving that up to the market (especially one where monopolies form over time, and I believe monopolies will form in any "free" market over time) is tantamount to a country abusing their own population and shows a disregard for human life.

When it comes to designer clothes, jewelry, eating out, entertainment, sure let the market work its "magic". When it comes to peoples' lives, the market will not put their interests first and a "free" market will end up producing lots of suffering for lots of people.

Also it is worth pointing out that a centrally planned economy is also not an option. The answer if probably somewhere in the middle.

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

#45

Post by srean »

stretchwithme wrote: post #42
srean wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I believe free markets are competitive and hobbled markets are not and non-voluntary government is monopolistic. When our activities impose costs on others, that should be remedied. If my making a buck creates a nickel's worth of pollution damage to you, I should be made to pay that nickel. That doesn't make a market less free, as one has the right to be free of the pollution of others too. A "free" market recognizes…

Apart from your first sentence, I completely agree with everything you said. My disagreement with your first is a partial one. What you describe is an ideal almost mythical free market. In such a market your arguments would hold true, if it existed.

The key here is as you said "I should be made to pay that nickel". Unfortunately free market forces alone will not make you do that. It will be in your interest to hold on to that nickel. It is here the free market proponents invoke goodness of human kind or some other force or argument external to the free market principles.

Another problem with the practice of free market is that corporations are typically structured to maximize, not the total value out of a resource, but the rate, i.e. the value extracted per unit time. It makes perfect sense for them because for several reasons (and also by way of force) they can keep the acquisition cost of a substitute resource very low.

Governments arent ideal either. But a (democratic) government is shaped by the amount of active interest a voter takes. So the control over it is much more direct in comparison.

Sans the two major loop-holes, free market is a damn good system.

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

#46

Post by jacquesm »

rdtsc wrote: post #44
stretchwithme wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you go first. More can be done with less and that sort of improvement is happening all of the time. freedom and innovation is the solution, not limiting people's freedom when I see tiny, populated, resource-poor, rich countries, its clear to me that trade and the rule of law are the solution to a great many problems many insist are unsolvable in other places that lack freedom The situation you describe where deals ar…

I think you both failed to make a distinction between resources necessary for life and optional resources. When it comes to water, healthcare, minimum daily amount of food, leaving that up to the market (especially one where monopolies form over time, and I believe monopolies will form in any "free" market over time) is tantamount to a country abusing their own population and shows a disregard for human life. When it…

Sorry if it came across like that, I thought we were discussing water, which is pretty much the example of resources necessary for life (the others being air and staple foods).

Trinkets and cell phone subscriptions are a different matter. (and in the case of cell phone subscriptions you could even wonder if the market is doing its work or not).

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

#47

Post by rdtsc »

jacquesm wrote: post #46
rdtsc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you both failed to make a distinction between resources necessary for life and optional resources. When it comes to water, healthcare, minimum daily amount of food, leaving that up to the market (especially one where monopolies form over time, and I believe monopolies will form in any "free" market over time) is tantamount to a country abusing their own population and shows a disregard for human life. When it…

Sorry if it came across like that, I thought we were discussing water, which is pretty much the example of resources necessary for life (the others being air and staple foods). Trinkets and cell phone subscriptions are a different matter. (and in the case of cell phone subscriptions you could even wonder if the market is doing its work or not).

Oops didn't mean to derail the topic. You made a good point with which I agree. I just wanted to add how in one case government intervention is needed while in the other case it would be detrimental (think international tariffs on specific models and types of cars, etc.)

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

#48

Post by lzw »

pyre wrote: post #41
lzw wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, in reality, government regulation is the cheapest way to make he public pay for the costs while keeping the profits. However, those who propose government regulation seem to not perceive government as anything other than an objective benevolent force, and when they are presented with evidence of government being corrupt, they blame the corporations for corrupting them.

Obviously the government does not 'become corrupt' because of the corporations, but for the most part the corporations are the people with the deepest pockets to lobby legislators/regulators. The more money there is to be made by being a stooge for a specific industry (or single corporation) the more likely there is that at least one legislator/regulator will become their champion. I postulate that if there were less…

An entity who uses violence to extract wealth from people is not corrupted by other entities bribing them for relief.

The very essence of government is corruption. It is simply the mafia with an indoctrination program that teaches kids to believe that it isn't evil.

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

#49

Post by regularfry »

lzw wrote: post #48
pyre wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously the government does not 'become corrupt' because of the corporations, but for the most part the corporations are the people with the deepest pockets to lobby legislators/regulators. The more money there is to be made by being a stooge for a specific industry (or single corporation) the more likely there is that at least one legislator/regulator will become their champion. I postulate that if there were less…

An entity who uses violence to extract wealth from people is not corrupted by other entities bribing them for relief. The very essence of government is corruption. It is simply the mafia with an indoctrination program that teaches kids to believe that it isn't evil.

The essence of a free market relies on the enforcement of property and contract laws, which requires government enforcement. The alternative is local fiefdoms run by robber barons, and we know that doesn't work.

Government is the worst way of regulating and enforcing a free market, except for everything else that's been tried.

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

#50

Post by regularfry »

olegkikin wrote: post #37

Isn't it easier and cheaper to desalinate ocean water using solar energy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_desalination

Desalination in general is expensive, and requires (obviously) that you've got coastline handy. I don't think solar desalination is a general answer, simply because of the energy densities involved.

The physics behind solar desalination means that you need at least 10m^2 of solar collection per household, just to heat the water if you're hoping to sustain people in this way alone, so while it might be part of a bigger solution in some parts of the world, it'll never be a solution in its own right.

Post reply on HN