Water

[Esper]

I remember hearing someone say, years ago, that in the future water would be the new oil. Wars would be fought over it.

Looking at Syria, one of the major causes of the civil war was a years-long drought that drove prices of food up and forced cities to become overcrowded. In my home state of California we have an old, convoluted system for water rights which has been the focal point of many heated arguments about who should be allowed to have access to water and how we can preserve our groundwater so that it isn't depleted for future years. Now, today, I'm reading about a contamination of water in Corpus Christi, Texas where they say that no amount of filtering, boiling, or anything else you can do will make it safe. (And don't forget the lead problems in Flint, Michigan and other towns and cities). With climate change becoming increasingly unavoidable, the shift in weather patterns, the spread of deserts, the acidification of the oceans, and other changes to the weather are going to take away water from areas that have been able to rely on it in the past and where people already live. That could cause a lot more conflict. Add to that the pollution from mining runoff, oil spills, and so on which can disproportionally affect the poor and unprotected and you have not just concerns about contamination, but pollution sparking already growing levels of local and global inequality into violence.

Do you see water as the "new oil" for this century? Is water scarcity a concern we can manage? How could be manage it? Will people eventually go to war over water?

 

[Somewhere_]

im not well-versed into water technology or "what-if" economic scenarios if water became scarce, nor do I know a lot about how the current system works. But if I had to solve the issue, I guess here are some of my thoughts:

Well first, lets NOT sell off public water (lakes, rivers, etc) in a way that just monopolizes the source. Im looking at you, Nestle.

Second, water shouldn't be free. If we are going to have the state/state-sponsored businesses/corporations running our public water and lines, lets try and have fair pricing. Of course, this isn't easy without competition, which would be preferable.

Third, as water prices increase, the demand for alternatives will also increase. So investing in desalinated water might be a good thing to do. Invest in that technology to mass produce safe drinking water.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

How you think trade is the solution to every problem we face is beyond me. Especially because there's already monopolies on water sources. That doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds like a way to squeeze more money out of a gradually failing industry without ever actually focusing in on the problems - one of which being that people can't afford water.

Anyway, water isn't going to be the "new oil" simply because going to war over water is not a new concept. Civilizations have been going to war over water since the caveman days. Oil is the new water. The only reason there's been less violence over water in modern history is that it was readily available thanks to modern technology. With climate change making it harder and harder for us to get access to water and the current state of the water industry not helping it's not difficult to imagine history repeating itself.

The good news is that we do actually have a veritable fucktonne of water on the Earth. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water and the polar ice caps (what's left of them) are enormous sources of untapped fresh water. Hell, we even know what water is made out of so with the right technology we could even make it ourselves. If we want to be really excessive with these examples there's also vast amounts of fresh water (in the form of ice) in craters on the moon and on Mars.

The problem isn't that we don't have water, or at least know where to get it, it's that it currently costs an impossibly huge amount of money to do things like mass desalination and purification or harvesting from any of those sources I mentioned and - much like with the energy situation - companies are going to go where the money is even if it is no longer reasonable to do so.

Basically there's plenty we can do but to make these things happen we're going to need proper government funding, regulation and research into efficient technology. In the mean time the best we can do is share resources as best we can and try to cut down on meaningless water consumption. I'd also advocate collecting rainwater in personal tanks if it's possible.

 

[Somewhere_]

How you think trade is the solution to every problem we face is beyond me. Especially because there's already monopolies on water sources. That doesn't sound like a solution to me. It sounds like a way to squeeze more money out of a gradually failing industry without ever actually focusing in on the problems - one of which being that people can't afford water.

Spoiler:

Seriously though, what are you even arguing against here? I said I was against monopolization (what is currently occurring). I said we can't have free water because free water increases the demand for water. And that means more usage when we have scarcity. Water isn't only used for drinking. Its also used for non-essentials like domestic sprinkling systems.

I think trade is the solution here because water problems will be the result of tragedy of the commons with public ownership (without proper care) and misallocation of resources through monopolization.

Anyway, water isn't going to be the "new oil" simply because going to war over water is not a new concept. Civilizations have been going to war over water since the caveman days. Oil is the new water. The only reason there's been less violence over water in modern history is that it was readily available thanks to modern technology. With climate change making it harder and harder for us to get access to water and the current state of the water industry not helping it's not difficult to imagine history repeating itself.

The good news is that we do actually have a veritable ****tonne of water on the Earth. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered by water and the polar ice caps (what's left of them) are enormous sources of untapped fresh water. Hell, we even know what water is made out of so with the right technology we could even make it ourselves. If we want to be really excessive with these examples there's also vast amounts of fresh water (in the form of ice) in craters on the moon and on Mars.

The problem isn't that we don't have water, or at least know where to get it, it's that it currently costs an impossibly huge amount of money to do things like mass desalination and purification or harvesting from any of those sources I mentioned and - much like with the energy situation - companies are going to go where the money is even if it is no longer reasonable to do so.

Basically there's plenty we can do but to make these things happen we're going to need proper government funding, regulation and research into efficient technology. In the mean time the best we can do is share resources as best we can and try to cut down on meaningless water consumption. I'd also advocate collecting rainwater in personal tanks if it's possible.

I agree with pretty much everything here, except for regulation. Regulatory capture and massive corporations destroy the helpful intentions of regulation. I would rather see investments (yes, even government funding) go towards desalination and efficient technology like you mentioned.

 

[gimmepie]

Seriously though, what are you even arguing against here? I said I was against monopolization (what is currently occurring). I said we can't have free water because free water increases the demand for water. And that means more usage when we have scarcity. Water isn't only used for drinking. Its also used for non-essentials like domestic sprinkling systems.

I think trade is the solution here because water problems will be the result of tragedy of the commons with public ownership (without proper care) and misallocation of resources through monopolization.

Focusing on business is going to lead to monopolies not prevent them though. We need to make water access as cheap and accessible as possible. In all honesty water of all things should be free.

I agree with pretty much everything here, except for regulation. Regulatory capture and massive corporations destroy the helpful intentions of regulation. I would rather see investments (yes, even government funding) go towards desalination and efficient technology like you mentioned.

I'd like to think that regulation would include regulating corporations.

 

[Somewhere_]

Focusing on business is going to lead to monopolies not prevent them though. We need to make water access as cheap and accessible as possible. In all honesty water of all things should be free.

Supporting the status-quo, anything similar, or any publicly owned water is advocating for a monopoly. You can't be anti-market on the grounds of preventing monopolies whilst advocating for a monopoly.

How would focusing on business lead to monopolies? To be clear on my point, I advocate for privatization to public companies (not government owned, but stock) based on usage. Regardless on how effective this would be (we already dug ourselves a hole, and thus methods used to climb out begin tainted), I think it would be preferable to the already monopolized system.

Do you have any evidence or reasoning that artificially cheaper water would not lead to increased demand or consumption?

I'd like to think that regulation would include regulating corporations.

Regulate in what way? to simplify it, if you had to choose 1 or 2 regulations, what would you choose?

 

[Hands]

im not well-versed into water technology or "what-if" economic scenarios if water became scarce, nor do I know a lot about how the current system works. But if I had to solve the issue, I guess here are some of my thoughts:

Well first, lets NOT sell off public water (lakes, rivers, etc) in a way that just monopolizes the source. Im looking at you, Nestle.

Second, water shouldn't be free. If we are going to have the state/state-sponsored businesses/corporations running our public water and lines, lets try and have fair pricing. Of course, this isn't easy without competition, which would be preferable.

Third, as water prices increase, the demand for alternatives will also increase. So investing in desalinated water might be a good thing to do. Invest in that technology to mass produce safe drinking water.

Yeah, Nestle were little turds the way they acted.

I don't believe in paying for water as a commodity, rather, I see it as a taxation. Our taxes should help cover the cost of water. Imagine if instead of funding the terrible Saudi Regime or the oppressive Israeli Defence Force with American and British tax dollars we instead put that money into running safe, clean water for our respective peoples.

 

[gimmepie]

Supporting the status-quo, anything similar, or any publicly owned water is advocating for a monopoly. You can't be anti-market on the grounds of preventing monopolies whilst advocating for a monopoly.

Public ownership is not a monopoly because a (good/democratic) government exists to benefit the populace whilst corporations exist to be self serving. Public ownership is ownership by the people via government. It's totally different to a corporate monopoly.

How would focusing on business lead to monopolies? To be clear on my point, I advocate for privatization to public companies (not government owned, but stock) based on usage. Regardless on how effective this would be (we already dug ourselves a hole, and thus methods used to climb out begin tainted), I think it would be preferable to the already monopolized system.

I'm wondering if you have a different system to Australia because we have the system you're describing and it's created monopolies. There's pretty much only one water company in my state and the others aren't much better.

Do you have any evidence or reasoning that artificially cheaper water would not lead to increased demand or consumption?

Water is not the same as your basic commodity. We essentially only use it for a few things - important things but still a limited number of them. That number is barely fluctuating, hasn't for years and isn't about to. You're not going to be able to artificially create demand because it's already the most important resource on the planet.

If you look at this you can see that the insane demand for water is caused primarily by scarcity and population growth. There's already enormous demand for water that's only increasing. There's not enough to increase consumption and because of that you also cannot increase demand because it's already (as I just said) the single most important resource on Earth. The solution is to stop thinking about money at all.

Regulate in what way? to simplify it, if you had to choose 1 or 2 regulations, what would you choose?

Personally I quite like Hands' suggestion of publicly owned water + paying for it out of taxes. That would greatly increase the availability of water to the general public and allow for the government to better control where it's going and what it's being used for. So if I had to choose to regulations I'd say

1. Fully public ownership. Make the privatization of water illegal and dissolve water corporations/buy them out.

2. Impose caps on households/businesses to prevent using more water than is needed. Many countries - mine and yours included - are already doing this to some extent though.

 

[Somewhere_]

Public ownership is not a monopoly because a (good/democratic) government exists to benefit the populace whilst corporations exist to be self serving. Public ownership is ownership by the people via government. It's totally different to a corporate monopoly.

The supposed purpose of government or corporation does not make it a monopoly or not. The definition of a monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Nothing competes with government. That is literally the point of government is that we have government take over needs. Other than some private security or cameras, when was the last time you saw a competing police force or firefighters?

How is a government monopoly better than a corporate monopoly? In the former, you will have artificially low prices (bad) and the other you will have artificially high prices (bad). But at the very least with corporate monopolies, the pricing and distribution of water is not politicized. You do NOT want your precious water politicized.

I'm wondering if you have a different system to Australia because we have the system you're describing and it's created monopolies. There's pretty much only one water company in my state and the others aren't much better.

Its a state-granted monopoly. All water reservoirs (lakes, etc) are owned by the government. It does not begin owned by the corporation. The government either sells the land (you have described privatization in Australia) or otherwise to the corporation, where the water is heavily regulated- quality and price. This is nothing close to a corporate monopoly thorough any kind of market.

This source says there has been heavy privatization with multinationals buying out the smaller private owners. Also, no that is not through a free market scenario.
https://www.ecori.org/natural-resources/2011/5/9/who-owns-our-water.html

Water is not the same as your basic commodity. We essentially only use it for a few things - important things but still a limited number of them. That number is barely fluctuating, hasn't for years and isn't about to. You're not going to be able to artificially create demand because it's already the most important resource on the planet.

If you look at this you can see that the insane demand for water is caused primarily by scarcity and population growth. There's already enormous demand for water that's only increasing. There's not enough to increase consumption and because of that you also cannot increase demand because it's already (as I just said) the single most important resource on Earth. The solution is to stop thinking about money at all.

That means water has inelastic demand... so demand can't be lowered, but it can be raised. If water prices are low, that means agriculture and other industries become more profitable and the water will be used more and more. It also means that the average person will use more water through sprinting systems.

Personally I quite like Hands' suggestion of publicly owned water + paying for it out of taxes. That would greatly increase the availability of water to the general public and allow for the government to better control where it's going and what it's being used for. So if I had to choose to regulations I'd say

1. Fully public ownership. Make the privatization of water illegal and dissolve water corporations/buy them out.

2. Impose caps on households/businesses to prevent using more water than is needed. Many countries - mine and yours included - are already doing this to some extent though.

Got it. Im not going to argue against this because if we continue from what we said above it will lead to this. I just wanted to make sure I dont straw man you.

 

[Esper]

Education would be one way to lessen consumption. I remember hearing about how some officials here in drought-stricken California were looking to programs that Australia implemented in the past about getting people there to understand the need to not waste water and how that campaign actually materialized into a country that doesn't waste water lavishly. But gimmepie can correct me if my impression about this is wrong.

And desalinization is a good idea on the whole, but it's expensive and really better as a backup plan in times of need. To rely on desal for you normal water use (as opposed to short term emergencies) year after year isn't sustainable. The salt you pull out of the water just gets dumped back into the ocean, making it more salty and rougher on the desal process as well as being pretty bad for the local environment.

 

[gimmepie]

The supposed purpose of government or corporation does not make it a monopoly or not. The definition of a monopoly is "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." Nothing competes with government. That is literally the point of government is that we have government take over needs. Other than some private security or cameras, when was the last time you saw a competing police force or firefighters?

Sole government ownership is not a monopoly because it means the resource is owned by the people by proxy. As opposed to a corporation which owns its resources itself. That's why it's called public ownership.

How is a government monopoly better than a corporate monopoly? In the former, you will have artificially low prices (bad) and the other you will have artificially high prices (bad). But at the very least with corporate monopolies, the pricing and distribution of water is not politicized. You do NOT want your precious water politicized.

There is a reason that police and fire departments are government run. It makes it a lot fairer by preventing exclusionary practices or businesses that create harmful policies based on profit. It's for that reason that government ownership of vital resources/emergency services is a good thing. It creates a much wider range of access to the resource and water of all things is something everyone needs fair access to.

Its a state-granted monopoly. All water reservoirs (lakes, etc) are owned by the government. It does not begin owned by the corporation. The government either sells the land (you have described privatization in Australia) or otherwise to the corporation, where the water is heavily regulated- quality and price. This is nothing close to a corporate monopoly thorough any kind of market.

Well privitisation is the devil, but we've had that discussion a million times so there's no need to get too heavily into that right now xD. It sounds like you're lucky enough to have a slightly better system in place than we do as the water industry here is very much corporate. That regulation and government control ensures much more equitable access.

This source says there has been heavy privatization with multinationals buying out the smaller private owners. Also, no that is not through a free market scenario.
https://www.ecori.org/natural-resources/2011/5/9/who-owns-our-water.html

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? This is a very bad thing. Privatization of resources is how corporate monopolies start.

That means water has inelastic demand... so demand can't be lowered, but it can be raised. If water prices are low, that means agriculture and other industries become more profitable and the water will be used more and more. It also means that the average person will use more water through sprinting systems.

Yes, the demand is always there and cannot fall particularly low. Unfortunately because water is such a necessity and that demand is always going to be high, people can charge whatever they want basically - and they do - which only gets worse when big corproations basically take over the entire market. This needs to be regulated to make sure low socio-economic areas (or even countries) still have the water access they need.

You're basically saying that by making water more expensive it will be used less but the people who abuse the resource the most can afford to do so even if prices go up. Meanwhile farmers struggling with drought or people with a low socio-economic status have their access to water even more restricted than it already is.

Education would be one way to lessen consumption. I remember hearing about how some officials here in drought-stricken California were looking to programs that Australia implemented in the past about getting people there to understand the need to not waste water and how that campaign actually materialized into a country that doesn't waste water lavishly. But gimmepie can correct me if my impression about this is wrong.

It's hard to say for sure since I've never lived in other countries but there's definitely been fairly good education and regulation here when it comes to water conservation - ad campaigns, school discussion and also hefty fines for overusing water. I'd say we're probably more aware of water issues than a lot of other first world nations but there's always room for improvement. Pools for example, use a lot of water but swimming is a massively popular pastime/sport here because of our insane summers.

 

[Somewhere_]

Sole government ownership is not a monopoly because it means the resource is owned by the people by proxy. As opposed to a corporation which owns its resources itself. That's why it's called public ownership.

Dude i literally pasted in the definition of a monopoly and the government fits the bill. There are no other competitors in the industry. The fact that everyone people pays in doesnt mean that it isn't a monopoly. And considering taxes are mandatory, that just makes government even more of a monopoly.

Also, to clarify. Taxes are mandatory. But taxation is NOT theft. And I do think taxes are justified. I can provide a longer explanation of my stance on taxation in a VM cause thats not really relevant in this discussion.

There is a reason that police and fire departments are government run. It makes it a lot fairer by preventing exclusionary practices or businesses that create harmful policies based on profit. It's for that reason that government ownership of vital resources/emergency services is a good thing. It creates a much wider range of access to the resource and water of all things is something everyone needs fair access to.

Well the reason they run is because the people demand it. Considering people vote to keep those services while also being capitalists that do not believe in financial equality (such as me), its not just because its fair. While some - like you - may vote because you think its fair, thats not the reason. The reason is that the people thought and still think its a necessity.

Im avoiding the philosophical argument for fairness because its not really fit for the thread unless you want to make a philosophical argument about access to water.

I look at government services more at an economic standpoint. I think government's role is to reduce unsolicited and imposed costs upon society, and when government begins to impose greater costs than it fixes, then a reform is necessary.

For example, suppose there is $100 worth of property crime this year and potentially $1000 over the next 10 years. The police need to operate to reduce this cost upon society, and if it begins to cost more than the crime, then its bad and needs reform. (i know there is other loss with death and there is social value, but you get the idea i think) I know those numbers dont make sense, but I'm just trying to get the idea across.

Well privitisation is the devil, but we've had that discussion a million times so there's no need to get too heavily into that right now xD. It sounds like you're lucky enough to have a slightly better system in place than we do as the water industry here is very much corporate. That regulation and government control ensures much more equitable access.

If private ownership is the devil, public ownership is hell, all its demons, Cerberus, and Hades.
tbh that was a pretty crap "comeback" I'm trying to work on them, k?

Can you link to me explaining how the Australian system was created? and how it is currently? I would like to see how these monopolies were created because most of the team the market is conflated with regulations that aren't "seen" so to speak.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? This is a very bad thing. Privatization of resources is how corporate monopolies start.

Evidence please. There has never been a monopoly in a free market. (there also hasn't ever been a free market, so provide reasoning or look at vestiges of a free market or something).

Here is a good article: https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

Yes, the demand is always there and cannot fall particularly low. Unfortunately because water is such a necessity and that demand is always going to be high, people can charge whatever they want basically - and they do - which only gets worse when big corproations basically take over the entire market. This needs to be regulated to make sure low socio-economic areas (or even countries) still have the water access they need.

You're basically saying that by making water more expensive it will be used less but the people who abuse the resource the most can afford to do so even if prices go up. Meanwhile farmers struggling with drought or people with a low socio-economic status have their access to water even more restricted than it already is.

Again, they are charging whatever they want because there is a monopoly and no competition.

You are forgetting there are other uses of water other than drinking. Most water is used in agriculture and other industries, but in terms of the average person, sprinkling (according to your source is actually 10% overall among everything), washing machines, showers, sinks, toilets, etc. use water. An increase in water prices will mean the demand for alternatives will increase and more water efficient utilities.

 

[gimmepie]

Dude i literally pasted in the definition of a monopoly and the government fits the bill. There are no other competitors in the industry. The fact that everyone people pays in doesnt mean that it isn't a monopoly. And considering taxes are mandatory, that just makes government even more of a monopoly.

I have to disagree still but there's really no point in arguing the semantics on that one. It doesn't really add to the discussion at this point.

Also, to clarify. Taxes are mandatory. But taxation is NOT theft. And I do think taxes are justified. I can provide a longer explanation of my stance on taxation in a VM cause thats not really relevant in this discussion.

Glad you've come around somewhat :P

I look at government services more at an economic standpoint. I think government's role is to reduce unsolicited and imposed costs upon society, and when government begins to impose greater costs than it fixes, then a reform is necessary.

This is why you're perspective is so misguided I think. You look at things in a very narrow scope but there's a lot more to governance than making money.

Can you link to me explaining how the Australian system was created? and how it is currently? I would like to see how these monopolies were created because most of the team the market is conflated with regulations that aren't "seen" so to speak.

Privitisation is basically what happened. I'm not an expert in the history but the general gist is that the government sold resources to private companies, smaller companies were absorbed by larger ones and so forth. Capitalism at work. I'll see if I can dig up a good source for you a bit later.

Evidence please. There has never been a monopoly in a free market. (there also hasn't ever been a free market, so provide reasoning or look at vestiges of a free market or something).

If you don't believe there's ever been a free market then it's literally impossible to refute your stance even if I'm correct.

You are forgetting there are other uses of water other than drinking. Most water is used in agriculture and other industries, but in terms of the average person, sprinkling (according to your source is actually 10% overall among everything), washing machines, showers, sinks, toilets, etc. use water. An increase in water prices will mean the demand for alternatives will increase and more water efficient utilities.

At what point have I spoken only about drinking water? The poor use water for more than just drinking too. If you increase water prices you're screwing over those of lower socio-economic status by making it even harder for them to access a resource they can already barely afford - trust me on that one I've been through it.


Anyway, speaking of monopolies, I'd like to here more people weigh in because we're basically taking over this thread.

 

[Somewhere_]

I have to disagree still but there's really no point in arguing the semantics on that one. It doesn't really add to the discussion at this point.

What is there to disagree? Its literally the definition. Its like if I said I'm Caucasian and you said that I'm Hispanic, and because I look Hispanic, I am Hispanic despite me actually being Caucasian.

Glad you've come around somewhat :P

Now its your turn xD

This is why you're perspective is so misguided I think. You look at things in a very narrow scope but there's a lot more to governance than making money.

The purpose of government is not to profit. Its supposed to benefit the people by lowering their costs. I think you agree with me here- I just portray the idea differently and look at it at a slightly different lens.

I mean, if crime wasnt a cost to society, then we wouldnt need government. We have government as the result of low trust and scarcity combined. And if the government no longer lowers costs by preventing/stopping crime, providing justice, or protecting us from natural or foreign threats, then it has no business being government and it needs reform.

Do you see what I'm saying? We agree here on the purpose of government. I just think your solutions are counterproductive to this purpose, and likewise, you think mine are counterproductive. We can apply this from police to firefighting to welfare.

Privitisation is basically what happened. I'm not an expert in the history but the general gist is that the government sold resources to private companies, smaller companies were absorbed by larger ones and so forth. Capitalism at work. I'll see if I can dig up a good source for you a bit later.

Privatization does not always mean free market. Im advocating for a free market. Capitalism is just an economic system with private ownership of capital, which includes even leftist economics (Keynesianism and maybe even Mercantilism). Cronyism is also Capitalism.

So basically capitalism does not always mean free market.

If you don't believe there's ever been a free market then it's literally impossible to refute your stance even if I'm correct.

No its not. Admittedly, the "free markets dont exist in the proper capacity" statement is often used as a cop-out in debates by proponents of free markets.

I was using differently- to help you not straw man. It means you need to look at vestiges of capitalism. Where can the same arguments against free markets be applied to the status quo? OR use reasoning and theory, and "a priori" it. The latter would be easier because it doesnt require as much research.

This is also use by socialists that say "but thats not my version of socialism" or thats not "true socialism." It just means that I argue differently or apply the same concepts.

At what point have I spoken only about drinking water? The poor use water for more than just drinking too. If you increase water prices you're screwing over those of lower socio-economic status by making it even harder for them to access a resource they can already barely afford - trust me on that one I've been through it.

People raising prices screw the lower class over only if its artificial (artificial monopoly; regulations creating more power over price, etc).

Its scarcity that is the issue. I agree- we need affordable water. I dont want people dying of malnutrition, and want to do everything I can to help. I think putting the government in charge of the water is the wrong way to go about it for the following reasons:

-If you can't trust a market to handle water, how can you trust the government? What makes the government more transparent than the voluntary market where there are more checks and balances?

-Public ownership is the tragedy of the commons. Artificially low prices increase demand meaning the resources is overused. If caps on usage are set, then the government is telling the citizens how much water they can and can't consume, which is a severe restriction on freedom AND puts the lives or livelihoods of the people in the hands of the government.

-Public ownership is inefficient because it is monopolistic. There is no incentive to be efficient. Unproductive workers aren't fired. Bureaucracy grows like crazy and often the funds needed aren't actually put into the necessary place.

-Public ownership falls to the economic calculation issue. Value is subjective and determined by millions of people, organizations, producers, etc in the market. This ensures a product isn't overproduced or underproduced. And that production is economically efficient. Finally, market signals (Supply/Demand) help distributors and producers know where a product or service is most needed. All of these necessary factors are totally taken away by public ownership and guarantee the government service will not be economical and create a net loss to society. A society that produces less wealth.

This extends to everything. How much is the proper amount to pay workers? How much to charge for water? How much do we pay people to upkeep water cleaning facilities? Etc. Its impossible to know the right amount.

-Public ownership creates high time-preference rates. Taxation, borrowing, or inflation are needed to pay for public property and services. These policies increase time-preference rates. Low time-preference rates are paramount to growing an economy. For reference, low time-preference rates encourage saving and investing. High time preference rates encourage spending, which means short-term growth rather than long-term growth.

-An extension off the previous point: Public ownership feeds off the productivity of the private sector. This discourages productivity and incentivizes unproductively because the resources is instead provided by government in an unproductive, non-wealth producing, and economically inefficient way.

*i think you know this and you probably dont even care, but when i ask if you understand I'm not being condescending. I just say that because i suck at explaining things and I'm a dumbass.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

Capitalists and "supporters of the free market" always like to make statements like these and talk a lot about economic theories but so little of it actually applies in practice. You live in a hyper-capitalist country and whilst you can argue that you don't have a true free market, you have one of the least regulated markets in the western world (I'm pretty sure on that one anyway) and nobody has a market completely devoid of regulation (thank God).

What's this getting you? Massive class divide and inequity of access to resources.

Let's put this into a completely unregulated market situation. Companies A, B and C all have access to a clean water source (although company A has a bigger one). Company A sells more water for a cheaper price and thus massively out competes B and C who cannot afford to drop their prices as a result of less sales and less water. Company A can then buy out B and C, although they already have something of a monopoly anyway this secures it. Company A then have complete control of the water market and can subsequently raise their prices to be even higher than Company B and company C had. Nobody can do anything about it though and they can just keep on raising that price until only the rich elite have any access to water. This is obviously simplified, but is more or less what you get with an unregulated market and (to a slightly lesser extent) in any capitalist society too. You can show me as many diagrams as you like, but this is what happens in practice and this is why countries in Scandinavia have less class divide/fairer access to resources/better quality of life than the US and why an economic disaster like Cuba has near perfect literacy and excellent health care whilst the US is abysmal in both regards and we aren't much better.

With public ownership the government can ensure that water is affordable and fairly distributed and ultimately the power over that resource rests with the people as they are the ones who determine who is in government, their needs and wants influence government policy ad they can even for parties and join the government themselves. Unless you're rich and powerful enough to buy a large stake of a business or something, you don't have that privilege if the water is owned privately.

Essential resources, especially water, need to be highly regulated and publicly controlled otherwise you end up with all kinds of problems. It's as simple as that. Again though, you and I can argue about this back and forth and never get anywhere, I would like to hear more from other people too.

 

[Somewhere_]

Capitalists and "supporters of the free market" always like to make statements like these and talk a lot about economic theories but so little of it actually applies in practice.

All of these theories are widely accepted by various schools of economics. And are prevent to have true applications.

So actually debate the points. Dont cop out by saying they dont apply in practice without providing evidence. They are 100% legitimate.

You live in a hyper-capitalist country and whilst you can argue that you don't have a true free market, you have one of the least regulated markets in the western world (I'm pretty sure on that one anyway) and nobody has a market completely devoid of regulation (thank God).

What a blatantly false statement. The US is not a hyper-capitalist country by any means.

-The US is rated 16th in the world for economic freedom according to this (which has taken into account other measurements and is the most recent one I could find). The US has also been dropping in economic freedom for years. https://www.freetheworld.com/2015/economic-freedom-of-the-world-2015.pdf

-As you can see here, just in the past 20 years or so, total regulations (there have been even more since 2010) have reached over 1,000,000 with thousands upon thousands of pages in the Federal Registry (81,000 pages, 31% of which are not regulatory). These regulation have cost the US economy about $38 trillion in GDP (currently 16 trillion, would be 54 trillion). This means the average household income would go from $53,000 to $277,000.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...rson-stacked-total-pages-regulations-2015-ar/
https://www4.ncsu.edu/~jjseater/regulationandgrowth.pdf

-The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the free world at 39% https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...s-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-free-world/

-The federal government gives billions of dollars in corporate subsidies
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...winners-in-each-state/?utm_term=.1cdc5b39d8ac

-In just 2011, 1 trillion was given in state and federal welfare programs.
https://www.reference.com/government-politics/much-money-goes-welfare-168b16897ff3cb5e

-Not to mention we have a large, central bank called the Federal Reserve that sets artificial interest rates. We have a massive crony banking apparatus. Oh, and this industry is the most regulated industry in the US.

-And these are just some examples. I can go on and on and on. The US is NOT hyper-capitalist.

What's this getting you? Massive class divide and inequity of access to resources.

Of course there will be inequity of access to resources because some will be more successful than others or make better decisions.

Explain the massive class divide. How it happens and actually give me some evidence.

If we want to continue in this direction, we can but its kind of a bunny trail.

Let's put this into a completely unregulated market situation. Companies A, B and C all have access to a clean water source (although company A has a bigger one). Company A sells more water for a cheaper price and thus massively out competes B and C who cannot afford to drop their prices as a result of less sales and less water. Company A can then buy out B and C, although they already have something of a monopoly anyway this secures it. Company A then have complete control of the water market and can subsequently raise their prices to be even higher than Company B and company C had. Nobody can do anything about it though and they can just keep on raising that price until only the rich elite have any access to water. This is obviously simplified, but is more or less what you get with an unregulated market and (to a slightly lesser extent) in any capitalist society too. You can show me as many diagrams as you like, but this is what happens in practice and this is why countries in Scandinavia have less class divide/fairer access to resources/better quality of life than the US and why an economic disaster like Cuba has near perfect literacy and excellent health care whilst the US is abysmal in both regards and we aren't much better.

I already gave you a source debunking this. Did you read it?

With public ownership the government can ensure that water is affordable and fairly distributed and ultimately the power over that resource rests with the people as they are the ones who determine who is in government, their needs and wants influence government policy ad they can even for parties and join the government themselves. Unless you're rich and powerful enough to buy a large stake of a business or something, you don't have that privilege if the water is owned privately.

How will you do this without rational economic calculation? How does voting equate economic calculation? Btw I provided explanation of this point in the above post.

I would really like you to go through those 5 or 6 points.

I also have a question for you: Do you trust government?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

The Mad Max series has predicted this water issue for the past few decades, and knowing the internet culture and their answers on which fictional universe they wish to live in, this is only going to please those who wish to live in the post-apocalyptic world of Mad Max and not everyone else. What we need is to find a way to create artificial rain, since they're formed from evaporated water, in places where there's not much rain (meaning limited water supply) such as Syria. A problem with this solution, however, would be environmentalists and their mindset on how anything artificial is considered wrong and dangerous.

 

[Kanzler]

-Public ownership is inefficient because it is monopolistic. There is no incentive to be efficient. Unproductive workers aren't fired. Bureaucracy grows like crazy and often the funds needed aren't actually put into the necessary place.

Sure there is incentive to be efficient - if you have an inefficient and bloated public company, that can make for a political scandal. Like do you think if a bureaucratically bloated public company makes the front pages, that journalists, politicians, and voters won't react to it?

 

[Somewhere_]

Sure there is incentive to be efficient - if you have an inefficient and bloated public company, that can make for a political scandal. Like do you think if a bureaucratically bloated public company makes the front pages, that journalists, politicians, and voters won't react to it?

A public company is "a company whose shares are traded freely on a stock exchange." A public company is not government run. Sure, its regulated, taxed, and the government may own shares, but its not run by the government (unless they own enough shares I guess).

Are you talking about government services and publicly owned property?

 

[Kanzler]

A public company is "a company whose shares are traded freely on a stock exchange." A public company is not government run. Sure, its regulated, taxed, and the government may own shares, but its not run by the government (unless they own enough shares I guess).

Are you talking about government services and publicly owned property?

Yes, I suppose that's true, but come on, I'm obviously talking about publicly owned enterprises.