Calirofrnia has about 1 years worth of water left

[Lonestar]

Correct

Water is a fairly inelastic demand. There's some wiggle in California's case because so much of it goes to agriculture, but as the article indicates surface water allocations have already been slashed north of 80% for agriculture, and emptying out the aquifer in order to let the "invisible hand" decide is incredible short sighted.

[Hauldren Collider]

You're both unbelievably retarded. The price would rise and more people would enter the water business. If you leave the price unchanged, that actually would encourage draining the whole aquifer, and there would be less water for everyone. Lonestar, you have the situation entirely backwards. Donegeal, you're accusing me of being "horrible" when in fact the Kentonio Krew are the ones proposing ****ing the poor, despite being too unintelligent to recognize it.

[Lonestar]

You're both unbelievably retarded. The price would rise and more people would enter the water business. .

I love how you're sitting here acting as if The price isn't rising anyway, and that I'm advocating price controls.

I guess they don't teach reading comprehension at CMU?

[Hauldren Collider]

You guys have the idea of price and scarcity totally backwards. Price is a function of scarcity. Keeping the price low does nothing to solve the fundamental problem, i.e. drought. Letting the price accurately represent scarcity encourages people to *solve* that scarcity and this is the most basic, most fundamental, most empirically provable economic law in existence this is like elementary school level ****.

edit: The price isn't rising anyway because of government rules about water that already exist. It's not like it's an actual market to begin with.

[Hauldren Collider]

I want to add by the way that it's not like anyone's going to die of dehydration because there isn't enough water in California. They aren't going to start requiring nickels at water fountains, ever. The price of water going up could only possibly affect bulk users: Farmers and suburban lawn-havers. Hardly the sorts of people who need state welfare, for christ's sake.

I swear to god there are people on this board who will advocate government control of every single good and service humanity produces. I bet you could prod Kentonio into saying that we need government subsidized luxury cars

[Lonestar]

You guys have the idea of price and scarcity totally backwards. Price is a function of scarcity. Keeping the price low does nothing to solve the fundamental problem, i.e. drought. Letting the price accurately represent scarcity encourages people to *solve* that scarcity and this is the most basic, most fundamental, most empirically provable economic law in existence this is like elementary school level **** why are you so retarded.

I love how you said it's the most basic, fundamental law and ignoring that some commodities are inelastic no matter what. Water is one of them. You will literally fall over dead without it in 3 days.

As I said, because so much of water in California goes to Ag use, there's somewhat more wiggle room there, but given that surface water allocations for Ag use has been slashed by 80%(according to the article), it sounds to me that we're already starting to hit the wall where it seriously affects residential users.

edit: The price isn't rising anyway because of government rules about water that already exist. It's not like it's an actual market to begin with.

If "the actual market" solved the problem 100 years ago, projects like the LA aqueduct would never have came to pass. What makes it "market" more able to solve it now than then?

[Donegeal]

HC, you are an inhuman assbag. I'm done with you.

[Hauldren Collider]

I feel the same way buddy

edit: To expound on this, only an inhuman assbag could support policies guaranteed to prolong shortage of essential goods and the consequent suffering.

[onejayhawk]

We should let the market fix the problem.

That would cause an outcry. Rich people should not be able to get more than everyone else!

What I want to know is why they have these people in a desert to begin with?

J

[Hauldren Collider]

Lonestar, water is plenty elastic. You already said the farms are using a substantial percent of the water. That's all elastic. The human body doesn't need that much water to survive. Anyone with a dehumidifier in their house probably makes enough water from the air to drink and survive. Most water use is not for drinking, it's for things like watering lawns, running dishwashers, or taking showers. There are so many ways you could conserve it if the price went up. Christ.

[regexcellent]

Please don't drink the water coming out of your dehumidifier.

Most water use is from farming. If we grow fewer cranberries this year, well...people will eat fewer cranberries. Oh well. Better yet, fewer people will water their lawns.

If the price rises it'll make desalination more economical.

[Lonestar]

Lonestar, water is plenty elastic. You already said the farms are using a substantial percent of the water. That's all elastic.

I said that water has more wiggle room in this case, I also said that Ag allocations of water use have already been cut by rather substantial percentages. IOW, we're probably closing in on the end of what elasticity water has in CA.

The human body doesn't need that much water to survive. Anyone with a dehumidifier in their house probably makes enough water from the air to drink and survive.

[Citation needed]

Most water use is not for drinking, it's for things like watering lawns, running dishwashers, or taking showers. There are so many ways you could conserve it if the price went up. Christ.

I love how you just flat out ignored the comment about why, if "the market" solved things it didn't do so 100 years ago?

> Implying major crop shortages won't cause a ripple effect with all foods.

> Implying everyone in the country can eat even a modest (for example) 10% increase in the cost of food over the course of a year

> Implying giant desalination plants can be brought into service quickly through private means

> Implying it'll be safe and cheap to get rid of the brine through market means

> Implying the California grid has the juice to power these additional plants.

etc.

[kentonio]

Most water use is from farming. If we grow fewer cranberries this year, well...people will eat fewer cranberries. Oh well. Better yet, fewer people will water their lawns.

What bizarre world did you two grow up in where the price of food and water don't have very real impacts on peoples lives? Seriously, is this another one of your incredibly poor taste trolls? Because I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone could be quite as out of touch, callous and downright ****ing stupid as you're both being.

[kentonio]

You guys have the idea of price and scarcity totally backwards. Price is a function of scarcity. Keeping the price low does nothing to solve the fundamental problem, i.e. drought. Letting the price accurately represent scarcity encourages people to *solve* that scarcity and this is the most basic, most fundamental, most empirically provable economic law in existence this is like elementary school level ****.

Incidentally, you seem to have chosen to ignore the real world example I provided you where..

The global speculative frenzy sparked riots in more than thirty countries and drove the number of the world’s “food insecure” to more than a billion. In 2008, for the first time since such statistics have been kept, the proportion of the world’s population without enough to eat ratcheted upward. The ranks of the hungry had increased by 250 million in a single year, the most abysmal increase in all of human history.

As this appears to piss all over your utopian visions of the free market solving all problems, would you care to comment?

[DaShi]

I said that water has more wiggle room in this case, I also said that Ag allocations of water use have already been cut by rather substantial percentages. IOW, we're probably closing in on the end of what elasticity water has in CA.



[Citation needed]




I love how you just flat out ignored the comment about why, if "the market" solved things it didn't do so 100 years ago?

> Implying major crop shortages won't cause a ripple effect with all foods.

> Implying everyone in the country can eat even a modest (for example) 10% increase in the cost of food over the course of a year

> Implying giant desalination plants can be brought into service quickly through private means

> Implying it'll be safe and cheap to get rid of the brine through market means

> Implying the California grid has the juice to power these additional plants.

etc.

Dude, when in the history of the world did drought ever have severe economic repercussions?