We need a new economics of water as a common good(nature.com)
nature.com
We need a new economics of water as a common good
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00800-z
235 comments
For a bit of context, Laos had been complaining China doing the same in the upstream.
Basically every nation in that area is acting in the most selfish way possible and distrusting each other.
Basically every nation in that area is acting in the most selfish way possible and distrusting each other.
Wdym?! That's precisely why they're daming up - to create a buffer for water security. If they didn't then they'd be at risk of shortage if China were to dump and then let it refill.
Hi there, I would love to hear more about your trip. I lived in Laos for a few months a decade ago, just outside of Vang Vieng. I think of the country often, and can only imagine just how much it has changed.
in fairness to Laos, the US is the worst global warmer on the planet, thus probably the worst contributor to harmful global warming-enhanced water events.
we also crushed Laos 50 years ago in a way that was before unknown to mankind:
we also crushed Laos 50 years ago in a way that was before unknown to mankind:
Operation Barrel Roll was a covert U.S. Air Force 2nd Air Division and U.S. Navy Task Force 77, interdiction and close air support campaign conducted in the Kingdom of Laos between 14 December 1964 and 29 March 1973 concurrent with the Vietnam War. The operation resulted in 260 million bombs being dropped on Laos, making Laos "the most heavily bombed nation in history".[1]
In Laos, the legacy of U.S. bombs continues to wreak havoc. Since 1964, more than 50,000 Lao have been killed or injured by U.S. bombs, 98 percent of them civilians. An estimated 30 percent of the bombs dropped on Laos failed to explode upon impact, and in the years since the bombing ended, 20,000 people have been killed or maimed by the estimated 80 million bombs left behind.
In 2016, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Laos. He pledged an additional $90 million in aid to remove unexploded ordnance on top of the $100 million that had been spent previously. The work of cleaning out unexploded bombs from the soil continues.Have you considered that Laos is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location? For one, it's the most heavily bombed nation in the world per capita (done by America during the Vietnam War)? [1]
It isn't easy to develop a country that is so severely set back by war. Especially without outside help and/or investment.
Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos
It isn't easy to develop a country that is so severely set back by war. Especially without outside help and/or investment.
Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos
Every place is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location.
> Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West.
This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.
This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.
Apparently, you disregarded the entire first part of my point which was that they were bombed so heavily that set them back decades. They need outside investment to jump start development. Just like Japan and Germany did after WW2.
You speak as if Thailand and Vietnam didn't hold important geopolitical values that the West and China want to exploit which makes them attractive to investments.
Those same countries still need to court outside investments to build out infrastructure and industries like recent efforts to move manufacturing to southeast Asia.
You speak as if Thailand and Vietnam didn't hold important geopolitical values that the West and China want to exploit which makes them attractive to investments.
Those same countries still need to court outside investments to build out infrastructure and industries like recent efforts to move manufacturing to southeast Asia.
I think we need to quit blaming the utter failure of communist systems and corruption on "American bombs" 50 years ago.
How long do the effects of warfare last, particularly in a poor country?
I'm not exactly a fan of authoritarian communism but the point you're trying to make here fails considering Vietnam, one of the countries used as a successful example, has the exact same governing system as Laos.
Also the point made that the main difference between which countries recover and which don't post-war is whether they receive economic investment doesn't seem to be relevant to communism or who exactly did the previous bombing at all.
Also the point made that the main difference between which countries recover and which don't post-war is whether they receive economic investment doesn't seem to be relevant to communism or who exactly did the previous bombing at all.
Beyond a doubt, political, economic, and military support (including access to major international markets), from from the wealthy countries of the world has a major impact on development, and opposition from the same can crush development. Since the Cold War, over 30 years ago, the great majority of wealth and power has been in the democratic, capitalist countries. Russia is a shell, and China only recently has enough money to become an economic force (though they've politically alienated most of their neighbors).
In particular, Thailand has long been tied to the US, and Vietnam is to a signiicant degree aligning with the US as protection from China. They also have other relationships, of course.
If the merits are so strong in your argument, why this tired sophistry of victimhood, and attacking the parent comment?
In particular, Thailand has long been tied to the US, and Vietnam is to a signiicant degree aligning with the US as protection from China. They also have other relationships, of course.
If the merits are so strong in your argument, why this tired sophistry of victimhood, and attacking the parent comment?
That’s one of their problems. But if you’ve visited the real problems are very apparent, and they start with their form of highly corrupt communism and hostility to the outside world. It’s not getting the attention from the west because the government is highly insular. Being the most efficient route to China and between Vietnam and Thailand makes it very strategically important, and China is probably more responsible for the state of Laos than anywhere else. It’s very much in their interest the west has no toe hold there, and that it stay effectively a vassal state dependent on their patronage.
Just one thing to note, I'm sure among many: if I lived in a place they got bombed so much by outsiders, I'd probably become insular and hostile to outsiders.
Not saying I think they should stay that way, but maybe just adding one perspective on why they might feel that way.
Not saying I think they should stay that way, but maybe just adding one perspective on why they might feel that way.
In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners. I spent most my time around Paxe which is very rural, but also around the most intense American involvement as well. It may be different further north near the capital but there was a lot less bombing and special forces counter insurgency. I think, while not justifying anything, it’s really important to note that the Chinese and north Vietnamese had invaded Laos and were actively destabilizing the government and led to its collapse, as well as invited the American bombing campaigns that were focused on north Vietnamese captured territories. It’s easy to lay the blame on the US, but it’s not like China wasn’t directly responsible for drawing Laos into that position by force through the north Vietnamese proxy. The US tried to keep the central government of Laos from collapsing while China actively subverted it and installed the government they have today. Prior to French colonialism China pillaged Laos ransacking and razing their cities repeatedly to the point of causing a significant labor shortage in Laos. France tried to solve this through forced migrations from Vietnam to Laos to repopulate the country, leading to further instability. So - it’s not just the bombing, it’s a major confluence of really shitty behavior by a lot of people over Laos primarily because of its strategic importance, but if I were to lay blame on an outsider for their problems, I would place it entirely on China. Laos has been a pawn in chinas ambition for hundreds of years and it has it under complete control and subjugation at this point in time. Finally I would note almost all the bombing happened in very sparsely populated areas. It’s not like Europe or Japan where it was a wholesale bombing of major population centers. There were no dresdens, no nagasakis, fire bombings of Tokyo - all of which happened to countries that have embraced the world outside them.
Thank you for your experience and perspective
> In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners.
We need to be cognizant that often they have little choice. We have all the power and money. The economic disparities, as I'm sure you noticed, are hard to concieve without witnessing them.
> In my time in Laos the people were incredibly welcoming and open to foreigners.
We need to be cognizant that often they have little choice. We have all the power and money. The economic disparities, as I'm sure you noticed, are hard to concieve without witnessing them.
It wasn’t about money or power. They were just extremely friendly people. In fact when I would get over charged for things the Laotian people would grow irate with the business operator because it was unfair.
I really appreciate you writing this and giving me not context to what happened—thank you.
Japan and Germany were both bombed flat in WW2. Their recovery was based on turning to free markets.
And $173 billion (current equivalent) in aid, in Europe alone:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan>
Japan's recovery benefitted as well from US post-war assistance, though also from a deliberate government-led economic policy as well.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan>
Japan's recovery benefitted as well from US post-war assistance, though also from a deliberate government-led economic policy as well.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_economic_miracle>
Much larger MP sums were given to Britain and France than Germany, and only Germany had the miracle. From your link.
> only Germany had the miracle. From your link.
You're aware that there was no actual "miracle", right? It's just a name given to an economic boom, which France and Britain also experienced, under different names (golden age for the UK, trente glorieuses for France).
You're aware that there was no actual "miracle", right? It's just a name given to an economic boom, which France and Britain also experienced, under different names (golden age for the UK, trente glorieuses for France).
The German Miracle was far more than what happened in France and Britain.
Evidence? Aren't France and Britain also free market economies? And didn't Germany start from a lower point?
The miracle in France is called the Trente Glorieuses, "a thirty-year period of economic growth in France between 1945 and 1975, following the end of the Second World War":
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses>
Germany and Japan both benefitted by the fact that their extant infrastructure and owners were demolished, removed, and/or financially wiped out by the war and/or the ensuing occupation and denazification / deimperilisation (in Germany and Japan respectively), which removed ownership-based objections to new development and investment --- think NIMBYism, but on steroids.
There's an article I've mentioned and submitted to HN numerous times, Bernhard J. Stern's "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations" (1937). I'd first heard of it through Isaac Asimov who was a research assistant for Stern whilst a student at Columbia.
<https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag...>
As markdown: <https://rentry.co/szi3g>
The piece looks at the innate opposition to technological (and economic) innovations and advance largely from extant established interests, in the areas of transportation, communication, power, metals, textiles, agriculture, and construction.
Something I've noticed in looking at development is that greenfield projects* in which there is no extant political, social, and economic power structure to present an opposition move far faster than those with a well-developed set of independent agents. This is highly pronounced in transportation, where initial route deployment occurs through undeveloped lands. As the transportation itself induces further development, commerce, residences, industry, etc., those interests themselves impose high frictions and costs on further development.
To put it another way, simply following financial amounts hugely distorts understanding of the impact of assistance. Money spent in Germany and Japan (both physically, politically, and financially devastated by World War II) went far further than equivalent sums in either occupied but victorious regions (e.g., France) or unoccupied victors (e.g., UK).
It's interesting to note that high-speed rail (HSR) development has proceeded most rapidly in regions either strongly disrupted by WWII, or in which industrialisation is now occurring for the first time to any significant degree: Japan, France, Germany, and China most notably. HSR's failure-to-launch in the US is attributable in large part to resistance from regional airlines (SouthWest most notably for the proposed "Texas Triangle" routes), and high land costs and dense extant development (both East and West coast projects).
Single-factor explanations are of course limited. Italy (defeated and occupied) did not see the same post-war rebound as its Axis allies Germany and Japan did, though it did of course grow. The Eastern Bloc similarly lagged, likely for other reasons (though it also often saw a far more rapid initial response, see notably North and South Korea's respective development following the 1953 armistice, with the North greatly outpacing the South).
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses>
Germany and Japan both benefitted by the fact that their extant infrastructure and owners were demolished, removed, and/or financially wiped out by the war and/or the ensuing occupation and denazification / deimperilisation (in Germany and Japan respectively), which removed ownership-based objections to new development and investment --- think NIMBYism, but on steroids.
There's an article I've mentioned and submitted to HN numerous times, Bernhard J. Stern's "Resistances to the Adoption of Technological Innovations" (1937). I'd first heard of it through Isaac Asimov who was a research assistant for Stern whilst a student at Columbia.
<https://archive.org/details/technologicaltre1937unitrich/pag...>
As markdown: <https://rentry.co/szi3g>
The piece looks at the innate opposition to technological (and economic) innovations and advance largely from extant established interests, in the areas of transportation, communication, power, metals, textiles, agriculture, and construction.
Something I've noticed in looking at development is that greenfield projects* in which there is no extant political, social, and economic power structure to present an opposition move far faster than those with a well-developed set of independent agents. This is highly pronounced in transportation, where initial route deployment occurs through undeveloped lands. As the transportation itself induces further development, commerce, residences, industry, etc., those interests themselves impose high frictions and costs on further development.
To put it another way, simply following financial amounts hugely distorts understanding of the impact of assistance. Money spent in Germany and Japan (both physically, politically, and financially devastated by World War II) went far further than equivalent sums in either occupied but victorious regions (e.g., France) or unoccupied victors (e.g., UK).
It's interesting to note that high-speed rail (HSR) development has proceeded most rapidly in regions either strongly disrupted by WWII, or in which industrialisation is now occurring for the first time to any significant degree: Japan, France, Germany, and China most notably. HSR's failure-to-launch in the US is attributable in large part to resistance from regional airlines (SouthWest most notably for the proposed "Texas Triangle" routes), and high land costs and dense extant development (both East and West coast projects).
Single-factor explanations are of course limited. Italy (defeated and occupied) did not see the same post-war rebound as its Axis allies Germany and Japan did, though it did of course grow. The Eastern Bloc similarly lagged, likely for other reasons (though it also often saw a far more rapid initial response, see notably North and South Korea's respective development following the 1953 armistice, with the North greatly outpacing the South).
They were both administrated by the U.S./Western powers for quite some time were they not?
I'm pretty damn sure they weren't exactly given a choice.
I'm pretty damn sure they weren't exactly given a choice.
The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive.
Yes, the US administered Japan for a while, and along with the USSR, GB and F administered Germany. I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn.
The more recent attempts by the US to administer Iraq and Afghanistan were total failures. It would be interesting to see why those failed and the Japanese/German occupations were successful.
(Of course I know that the USSR didn't turn over the Soviet sector until 1989.)
Yes, the US administered Japan for a while, and along with the USSR, GB and F administered Germany. I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn.
The more recent attempts by the US to administer Iraq and Afghanistan were total failures. It would be interesting to see why those failed and the Japanese/German occupations were successful.
(Of course I know that the USSR didn't turn over the Soviet sector until 1989.)
Laos is smaller in area and still had more ordnance dropped on it than Germany. And Germany was a highly developed country before the war, despite heavy bombing, there was a lot of infrastructure remaining.
Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact.
The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered.
[1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm
Germany in the fifties and sixties was governed by Germany's center right party, CDU. But the CDU of the fifties was in many ways more "leftist" (a word best dropped from polite conversation) than today's center left SPD. Their 1947 policy conference was headlined as "overcoming capitalism and marxism"[1] and was quite left wing. It was pared down a few years later, but it's had a lasting impact.
The seventies brought political changes, but it doesn't seem accurate to describe them as a sharp left turn in terms of economics. It remained a free market social democracy, there was no discontinuity there. Foreign policy changes, and a sort of grudging reflection of the cultural changes of the sixties were much more important, or at least are more well remembered.
[1] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahlener_Programm
> there was a lot of infrastructure remaining
Are you sure about that? Everything was destroyed, because the RAF and the USAAF bombed everything day and night for years. They quite literally tried to bomb Germany and Japan back into the stone age. About every city in Japan was firebombed to ashes.
And the German men were killed. Millions died of starvation after the war ended.
What was different with Germany (and Japan) was - free markets. You can see this starkly in the different fortunes of East and West Germany. The first was under communism, the second under free markets.
Free markets pretty much don't exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Laos. Adding money to unfree markets just disappears.
History shows us in country after country after country, free markets leads to prosperity, leftism leads to poverty.
Are you sure about that? Everything was destroyed, because the RAF and the USAAF bombed everything day and night for years. They quite literally tried to bomb Germany and Japan back into the stone age. About every city in Japan was firebombed to ashes.
And the German men were killed. Millions died of starvation after the war ended.
What was different with Germany (and Japan) was - free markets. You can see this starkly in the different fortunes of East and West Germany. The first was under communism, the second under free markets.
Free markets pretty much don't exist in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Laos. Adding money to unfree markets just disappears.
History shows us in country after country after country, free markets leads to prosperity, leftism leads to poverty.
Yes, I'm sure about that. Let's take a famous example, Dresden[1]: after the bombings, most industry was still standing (though not operating), 50+% of living quarters were left, 70% of retail was still operating; rudimentary civilian rail operations were resumed after two weeks, military rail operation resumed within days.
And while some areas were partially destroyed, once you move into the suburbs not to mention the rural areas, everything was left standing. And even where there was rubble, under the rubble were roads and within the rubble were bricks.
They may have tried to bomb Germany back to the stone age, but they couldn't; from what was recently posted here, they probably realized this, but they did try to bomb the population into submission[2], which also didn't work, it's just a war crime.
Millions of Germans did not die of starvation after the war, though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47, which was the harshest winter of the 20th century. I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing; but like I said, Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died.
Edit: Let me hasten to add that I don't want to minimize the impact bombing campaigns have on cities and countries. Tens of thousands of people died in Dresden. We still dig out unexploded ordnance where I live, 80 years after the fact. I'm just saying that a lot of infrastructure remained. Germany after the war probably had more infrastructure left standing than Laos did before the war.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden
[2] https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
And while some areas were partially destroyed, once you move into the suburbs not to mention the rural areas, everything was left standing. And even where there was rubble, under the rubble were roads and within the rubble were bricks.
They may have tried to bomb Germany back to the stone age, but they couldn't; from what was recently posted here, they probably realized this, but they did try to bomb the population into submission[2], which also didn't work, it's just a war crime.
Millions of Germans did not die of starvation after the war, though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47, which was the harshest winter of the 20th century. I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing; but like I said, Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died.
Edit: Let me hasten to add that I don't want to minimize the impact bombing campaigns have on cities and countries. Tens of thousands of people died in Dresden. We still dig out unexploded ordnance where I live, 80 years after the fact. I'm just saying that a lot of infrastructure remained. Germany after the war probably had more infrastructure left standing than Laos did before the war.
[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luftangriffe_auf_Dresden
[2] https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower...
> though hundreds of thousands died of starvation and exposure in 1946/47
"More than nine million Germans died as a result of Allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after the Second World War-a total far in excess of the figures actually reported."
> I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing
The free market thing started around 1950.
> Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died
The deaths were before 1950. As for libertarian utopia, I never said that. I said it was the free market that enabled Germany to rise from utter devastation to be the dominant economic power in Europe in just 20 years.
As for Dresden, it was a civilian target, not an industrial one. The US usually targeted industry. It also did not participate in the German Miracle, because it was in the Soviet sector.
Lastly, the German bombing of England was concentrated on London civilian targets, not industrial targets, and it didn't impact infrastructure and industry much. The Luftwaffe also could only reach a small fraction of England, most of the industry was safely out of range. The British went hungry during the war, but they didn't starve.
For reference, the series of Impact books gives a good overview of the effect of the bombing campaigns on Germany and Japan.
https://www.amazon.com/Impact-Forces-Confidential-Picture-Hi...
More:
"Bomber Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive" by Charles Messenger
"Gruesome Harvest" by Ralph Franklin Keeling
"Maximum Effort the B-29s against Japan" by Kevin Herbert
"Target Germany" US Army Air Force
A bit of caution: these are not nice books.
"More than nine million Germans died as a result of Allied starvation and expulsion policies in the first five years after the Second World War-a total far in excess of the figures actually reported."
-- "Crimes & Mercies" by James Bacque
> I'm not sure how that jives with your whole free market thing
The free market thing started around 1950.
> Germany in the fifties wasn't the libertarian utopia you make it out to be, so that's probably why people died
The deaths were before 1950. As for libertarian utopia, I never said that. I said it was the free market that enabled Germany to rise from utter devastation to be the dominant economic power in Europe in just 20 years.
As for Dresden, it was a civilian target, not an industrial one. The US usually targeted industry. It also did not participate in the German Miracle, because it was in the Soviet sector.
Lastly, the German bombing of England was concentrated on London civilian targets, not industrial targets, and it didn't impact infrastructure and industry much. The Luftwaffe also could only reach a small fraction of England, most of the industry was safely out of range. The British went hungry during the war, but they didn't starve.
For reference, the series of Impact books gives a good overview of the effect of the bombing campaigns on Germany and Japan.
https://www.amazon.com/Impact-Forces-Confidential-Picture-Hi...
More:
"Bomber Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive" by Charles Messenger
"Gruesome Harvest" by Ralph Franklin Keeling
"Maximum Effort the B-29s against Japan" by Kevin Herbert
"Target Germany" US Army Air Force
A bit of caution: these are not nice books.
You keep saying it, but no evidence.
> The US initially ruled Japan's economy via leftist academics. The economy remained flat, until the leftists were removed and the free market was allowed to revive.
Do you have any evidence of this stuff? Maybe it was flat because they were bombed to hell, untold number of dead (especially productive age males), etc etc. Who could possibly expect lots of economic activity in Japan immediately after the war?
Do you have any evidence of this stuff? Maybe it was flat because they were bombed to hell, untold number of dead (especially productive age males), etc etc. Who could possibly expect lots of economic activity in Japan immediately after the war?
[deleted]
>I don't know at what point they turned it over to the Germans, but Germany's government was a free market one until 1970, when they took a sharp left turn.
You are getting your history exactly backwards. Post war Germany was ordoliberal aka "sharp left" until the 70s and neoliberal aka "sharp right" after that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
You are getting your history exactly backwards. Post war Germany was ordoliberal aka "sharp left" until the 70s and neoliberal aka "sharp right" after that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
Is there any basis for pointing to free markets as opposed to every other factor? Other than free market fantasy?
We occupied and ran the countries for a decade, and funded, rebuilt, and defended them. Most of all, they were first-world economies before the war; Germany was probably the world center of intellect and culture. And they retained all those skills (though many leading pre-war intellects moved to the US), just not the infrastructure.
It's a bit different for Laos!
We occupied and ran the countries for a decade, and funded, rebuilt, and defended them. Most of all, they were first-world economies before the war; Germany was probably the world center of intellect and culture. And they retained all those skills (though many leading pre-war intellects moved to the US), just not the infrastructure.
It's a bit different for Laos!
Meh.
I'm not going to count Japan and Germany since there is that little "Marshall Plan" detail that, at least as I understand it, may have had some small influence on their development. [end sarcasm]
No seriously, how can you make that statement and not mention the billions on billions of dollars they were given in aid? That's the height of intellectual dishonesty bro.
I'm not going to count Japan and Germany since there is that little "Marshall Plan" detail that, at least as I understand it, may have had some small influence on their development. [end sarcasm]
No seriously, how can you make that statement and not mention the billions on billions of dollars they were given in aid? That's the height of intellectual dishonesty bro.
Billions of dollars have been given in aid to Vietnam and similar as well. The Marshall plan isn't an outlier in size, most poor countries have been given more, the only special thing about the Marshall plan is that it was successful not that it was a large amount.
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Vietnam/foreign_aid/
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Vietnam/foreign_aid/
Fun fact: the Marshall Plan was about $150 billion in today's money, for all of Europe. It was nice, but let's not overstate the significance. The U.S. spent $145 billion on nation building (that doesn't count the war effort) in Afghanistan and accomplished fuck-all.
Because far more billions in MP were given to Britain and France, who did not have an economic miracle. Britain was also far far less devastated than Germany was.
You might also consider the hundreds of billions spent trying to develop Iraq and Afghanistan, to little visible effect.
You might also consider the hundreds of billions spent trying to develop Iraq and Afghanistan, to little visible effect.
"billions on billions of dollars" can be squandered in their totality by corrupt elites and not be of any use to the nation at all. Just look at all the superwealthy authoritarians in Africa.
And you do not even have to look at Africa and squandered aid. Russia has enormous revenues from its natural resources, but the money ends up in yet more oligarch yachts and gigantic Putinopolises on the Black Sea coast, while random Russian soldiers loot toilet bowls and the Russian army is so decrepit that it cannot capture a city somewhat larger than Bangor, Maine after several months of battle.
I mean, the last effect is actually beneficial to us, but still, it nicely illustrates the point about billions being to no use if they are stolen.
And you do not even have to look at Africa and squandered aid. Russia has enormous revenues from its natural resources, but the money ends up in yet more oligarch yachts and gigantic Putinopolises on the Black Sea coast, while random Russian soldiers loot toilet bowls and the Russian army is so decrepit that it cannot capture a city somewhat larger than Bangor, Maine after several months of battle.
I mean, the last effect is actually beneficial to us, but still, it nicely illustrates the point about billions being to no use if they are stolen.
For anyone interested in water and economics, this Econtalk episode is unexpectedly fascinating.
https://www.econtalk.org/david-zetland-on-water/
What blew my mind was how different water economics is from place to place. Availability of water (and the intersection of that with other unexpected factors, like crime) have a huge impact on day to day living. I was surprised by some of the vicious cycles (for example, water 'brown outs' - providing water for limited hours of the day - actually drives up consumption, since people get more than they need and store it for later use, often at great expense). Somewhat analogous to other 'runs' we see, e.g. banking.
It's one of my favourite Econtalk episodes. Highly recommend.
https://www.econtalk.org/david-zetland-on-water/
What blew my mind was how different water economics is from place to place. Availability of water (and the intersection of that with other unexpected factors, like crime) have a huge impact on day to day living. I was surprised by some of the vicious cycles (for example, water 'brown outs' - providing water for limited hours of the day - actually drives up consumption, since people get more than they need and store it for later use, often at great expense). Somewhat analogous to other 'runs' we see, e.g. banking.
It's one of my favourite Econtalk episodes. Highly recommend.
My favorite extreme example of the ways in which water defines society is the Himba people [1] in northern Namibia. They live in one of the driest deserts in the world and water is so scarce that bathing with water is a social faux pas. Instead of bathing they cover their skin with otjize paste made of animal fat and red ochre which acts as a cleanser, protects them from the heat, and repels insects. When they hunt the men gather the liquid they need for the day by digging up tubers similar to cassava that contain a lot of fiber and moisture, while the women herd their livestock around watering holes until the dry season where they make a b-line for areas with high ground water to dig small wells.
Among other adaptations, they hunt not by driving their pray to exhaustion or by using heavy weapons like spears, but by digging up beetle larva infected by parasitic Lebistina larva which produces a very concentrated toxin that they use with very thin bows and arrows to bring down pray (which they have to chase down anyway).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himba_people
Among other adaptations, they hunt not by driving their pray to exhaustion or by using heavy weapons like spears, but by digging up beetle larva infected by parasitic Lebistina larva which produces a very concentrated toxin that they use with very thin bows and arrows to bring down pray (which they have to chase down anyway).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himba_people
The toxin doesn't taint the meat?
No, it has to enter the blood stream and it's metabolized or denatured by the time they eat the meat.
They do have to be careful when making the toxin, however, since enough can enter through a cut in the skin to kill an adult.
They do have to be careful when making the toxin, however, since enough can enter through a cut in the skin to kill an adult.
One interesting experience I had was going to the Middle East. It was the first time I'd ever dealt with water restrictions or even considered my water consumption, which didn't just baffle the Jordanians but also a lot of the other Americans.
I'm from Michigan. Fresh water is so accessible that even restricting its use for environmental purposes just isn't a thing. If we ever run out, the world is already on fire.
I'm from Michigan. Fresh water is so accessible that even restricting its use for environmental purposes just isn't a thing. If we ever run out, the world is already on fire.
Entire societies are only 6 continuous hours of complete water denial away from collapse.
That's just wild to me. Even if our infrastructure collapsed tomorrow, we could all probably get our water needs met. I live within walking distance to a sizeable river - I'd be annoyed if I couldn't buy water anymore but that's about it.
I wonder how things would go if the whole population of your state suddenly needed to dip all their water out of the rivers and lakes?
Back of napkin math suggests that the water in the lake would sustain drinking, hygiene, and daily bathing for all current MI residents for over 10,000 years, so probably fine.
I wasn't thinking so much about the quantity as the anarchic crowds that'd be competing for access to it (and churning up mud, etc...) if it no longer comes through the pipes. I'm not so sure things would be "fine".
They are already taking their water from rivers and lakes, where else would they get it?
You might be over estimating how potable local rivers/streams are without professional treatment.
I know how to treat water and have the supplies I'd need to do it.
You and I may, but I’m skeptical that “we could all” do so. Even a hacked together sand/charcoal filter only goes so far when we’re talking about populations.
Econtalk is a podcast i keep coming back to. Russ Roberts does a great job bringing on a varied group of people. And his interview style is pretty refreshing. He asks questions like a novice would with “Wait, why is it like that?”.
He had a pro-market view but lets his guests state their views before politely saying “i disagree for this reason”, then moving on.
The 16+ years of archives are great to go back and listen to especially the interviews about the financial crisis of 2008. He talks to some heavy hitters in the finance industry and it’s fascinating to hear their different views.
He had a pro-market view but lets his guests state their views before politely saying “i disagree for this reason”, then moving on.
The 16+ years of archives are great to go back and listen to especially the interviews about the financial crisis of 2008. He talks to some heavy hitters in the finance industry and it’s fascinating to hear their different views.
Nestle uses appx zero water. 58M gallons, according to this article, which is equivalent to about 181 acre feet.
Agriculture measures their water in Millions of acre feet! (MAF) They use dozens of MAF per year.
Nestles use is not so much as a rounding error. And the water they bottle is used for it’s highest imaginable purpose - drinking.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/27/california-n...
Agriculture measures their water in Millions of acre feet! (MAF) They use dozens of MAF per year.
Nestles use is not so much as a rounding error. And the water they bottle is used for it’s highest imaginable purpose - drinking.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/27/california-n...
Good thing one of those is required for civilization, ye, life itself to function, and the other is wrapping water in a plastic container. Certainly agriculture must use water more efficiently, but let’s not compare apples to oranges.
Yes, let's not compare drinking water directly per droplet needed. To wasting billions of gallons of water to grow some almonds in dry California for economic reasons
You have made a strawman where I said growing almonds was a great idea or something - it isn’t and should be stopped, but let’s not sit here and act like Nestle is anything but a dreg scraping parasite. Farming practices in the US should change, and all water bottling should be banned permanently.
> and all water bottling should be banned permanently.
There has been an issue with the municipal water supply where I live for the past 2 months.
It started with the entire town of ~2k people getting some sort of gastro virus within 2 days. The pharmacy was sold out of everything imaginable, most stores were short staffed, etc.
Then the third day the muni posted on Facebook that they were going to be performing "maintenance" on the system. They then shut off the water for 2 days.
Here we are 2 months later and are still dealing with pressure, color, turbidity, odor issues. They have not provided any additional information beyond "maintenance".
I suppose I could import a sufficient whole house water filtration system and import the replacement filters for eternity. Even then, nobody knows exactly what the issue is with the water, so I'd be grasping at straws or purchasing the most expensive possible system that treats every known potential issue.
So, yeah, we're drinking bottled water for now until there's consensus that the municipal water supply is safe to drink again.
There has been an issue with the municipal water supply where I live for the past 2 months.
It started with the entire town of ~2k people getting some sort of gastro virus within 2 days. The pharmacy was sold out of everything imaginable, most stores were short staffed, etc.
Then the third day the muni posted on Facebook that they were going to be performing "maintenance" on the system. They then shut off the water for 2 days.
Here we are 2 months later and are still dealing with pressure, color, turbidity, odor issues. They have not provided any additional information beyond "maintenance".
I suppose I could import a sufficient whole house water filtration system and import the replacement filters for eternity. Even then, nobody knows exactly what the issue is with the water, so I'd be grasping at straws or purchasing the most expensive possible system that treats every known potential issue.
So, yeah, we're drinking bottled water for now until there's consensus that the municipal water supply is safe to drink again.
I think there's a middle ground here. they should be bringing in large jugs of bottled water for you folks.
We don't need small plastic bottles for everyday use.
I mean, sure. We buy 6-liter jugs of water and then drink out of cups and water bottles. We're not animals ;)
It’s not a straw man at all. It is the definition of distraction to even be discussing an edge case of water consumption. You can completely eliminate all bottled water and it will not make a dent whatsoever in any problem that matters.
Yes… it is a strawman, you just keep responding to something I never said. I mentioned regulating farming’s use of water in each of these posts. I simply am not going to sit here and act like bottling water is somehow “”ok”” according to some posters here; it is a complete waste of resources and a source of pollution and micro plastics.
> I simply am not going to sit here and act like bottling water is somehow “”ok””
Bottling water is okay! People need to drink water, bottling water doesn’t use that much water, and convenience is good! We should recycle the plastic but that’s a separate issue altogether.
More proof that the biggest threat to the environmental movement is environmentalists.
Bottling water is okay! People need to drink water, bottling water doesn’t use that much water, and convenience is good! We should recycle the plastic but that’s a separate issue altogether.
More proof that the biggest threat to the environmental movement is environmentalists.
Bottled water is great as long as you ignore the major problems with bottled water!!!!!!
Next time your are a foreman trying to run a construction site efficiently you might appreciate being able to buy a case of bottled water for $5.
They don't have reusable bottle waters or thermos where you live ?
Not everyone is a tech bro with fancy metal water bottles
Oh, please.
This has got to be the most stupid comment and counter-argument I read this week.
1. Metal water bottles and thermos have been around for way longer than tech bro.
2. Metal water bottles and thermos have been used by every kind of workers for more than half a century. Even fancy ones.
3. Thermos and water bottles are way cheaper than plastic bottles pack. Starts at ~$8 at wallmart https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/stainless-steel-water-bottle. So, no, it's not some fancy tech bro elite shit.
Now, bottled water has its use but if you are running a construction site you know damn well you have better and cheaper options (towable water bowsers, citerns, tanks, etc.).
This has got to be the most stupid comment and counter-argument I read this week.
1. Metal water bottles and thermos have been around for way longer than tech bro.
2. Metal water bottles and thermos have been used by every kind of workers for more than half a century. Even fancy ones.
3. Thermos and water bottles are way cheaper than plastic bottles pack. Starts at ~$8 at wallmart https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/stainless-steel-water-bottle. So, no, it's not some fancy tech bro elite shit.
Now, bottled water has its use but if you are running a construction site you know damn well you have better and cheaper options (towable water bowsers, citerns, tanks, etc.).
Agriculture uses about 80-85% of California's water, yet when there's a drought environmentalists point at lawns and swimming pools as the culprit.
In fact, ag water in the US is super low compared to residential rates, which is why CA grows almonds and lettuce.
Farms may be required, but their inefficiency and waste are not necessary at all. Very few industries become more efficient without cost pressures.
Is bottled water wasteful? Compared to what? Do you dislike it because it's commercial? Farms aren't commercial? is your belief in something's utility to society is how we should judge human activity?
In fact, ag water in the US is super low compared to residential rates, which is why CA grows almonds and lettuce.
Farms may be required, but their inefficiency and waste are not necessary at all. Very few industries become more efficient without cost pressures.
Is bottled water wasteful? Compared to what? Do you dislike it because it's commercial? Farms aren't commercial? is your belief in something's utility to society is how we should judge human activity?
In metric units: 58 million gallons = 0.22 gigalitres. 1 million acre-feet = 1233 gigalitres.
We're looking at about 4 orders of magnitude difference between Nestle's extraction and agriculture.
We're looking at about 4 orders of magnitude difference between Nestle's extraction and agriculture.
1- Nature article is about need for innovation in governance, not a slapfight about water rights.
2a- wrt Nestlé vs almonds, two wrongs don't make a right.
2b- One effort to fight one injustice does not in any way reflect any position whatsoever on other injustices. Perhaps the Nestlé fraças is an opening salvo in a larger war; low hanging fruit to establish precedence for future battles.
3- California Water Resource Board addressed a sternly worded memo to Nestlé, asking them to please stop using 25x more water than they're entitled to. I'm certain that if almond growers did the same they'd also receive a sternly worded memo.
4- A keen observer may wonder if hurtful memos are sufficient for curtailing abuses. Perhaps bigger sticks are required. For some bluesky thinking on that topic, please read the Nature article referenced in point no 1.
2a- wrt Nestlé vs almonds, two wrongs don't make a right.
2b- One effort to fight one injustice does not in any way reflect any position whatsoever on other injustices. Perhaps the Nestlé fraças is an opening salvo in a larger war; low hanging fruit to establish precedence for future battles.
3- California Water Resource Board addressed a sternly worded memo to Nestlé, asking them to please stop using 25x more water than they're entitled to. I'm certain that if almond growers did the same they'd also receive a sternly worded memo.
4- A keen observer may wonder if hurtful memos are sufficient for curtailing abuses. Perhaps bigger sticks are required. For some bluesky thinking on that topic, please read the Nature article referenced in point no 1.
An absurd comparison. Agriculture is an essential facet of civilization, and that water directly produces food.
> Yet public ownership undervalues water, in that one person’s access does not limit another’s, even though water is a finite resource. This promotes excessive, unsustainable and inequitable use. And it discourages private investment. In 2015, private-sector investment in water globally accounted for less than 5% of the total funds allocated to telecommunications, energy, transport and other basic services
(emphasis mine)
And that is supposed to be a problem ?
(emphasis mine)
And that is supposed to be a problem ?
I think you missed the point.
It's overly wordly but it's basically saying "water is so cheap that the private market as no incentive to invest it in to improve the efficiency of its use"
Same argument people make about fossil fuels - it's so cheap (often due to subsidies) that the private sector doesn't invest in alternative)
It's overly wordly but it's basically saying "water is so cheap that the private market as no incentive to invest it in to improve the efficiency of its use"
Same argument people make about fossil fuels - it's so cheap (often due to subsidies) that the private sector doesn't invest in alternative)
where is the evidence that private investment is capable of solving the upcoming water crises?
What happens in 50 years, when aquifiers under middle east and much of the midsest USA runs out?
There is no private investment that can save them.
What happens in 50 years, when aquifiers under middle east and much of the midsest USA runs out?
There is no private investment that can save them.
Desalination technology? More efficient use of water for agriculture? New technology for water purification and waste water treatment?
There are a ton of ways private investment can help make water use more efficient. But if water prices are artificially low, that investment will never happen.
Israel has 10M people and gets 50% of its water from desalination - 75% of drinking water. It also reclaims 90% of agricultural waste water.
It's absolutely possible for countries to solve many of their water issues with new technology.
There are a ton of ways private investment can help make water use more efficient. But if water prices are artificially low, that investment will never happen.
Israel has 10M people and gets 50% of its water from desalination - 75% of drinking water. It also reclaims 90% of agricultural waste water.
It's absolutely possible for countries to solve many of their water issues with new technology.
All of those examples are marginal or irrelevant
Shortage of water does not mean you have nothing to drink - drinking water is a tiny fraction of water use, only the poorest run out of drinking water. It's a solved problem in rich countries.
What you don't get is that water shortage = famine.
The problem is agriculture. Desalination is far too expensive to use for irrigation, irrigation requires insane quantities of water.
Agriculture is so cost sensitive, and the amounts of water they need are so vast, that most crops are not irrigated even when water is free - the cost of fuel that you'd have to use to pump water from a nearby river to a field is too high.
You know what would make a difference? Water infrastructure, like giant pipelines from north of Canada to dry areas of US, like we have for oil. Giant reservoirs to store flood water.
You know who builds them? Governments.
Shortage of water does not mean you have nothing to drink - drinking water is a tiny fraction of water use, only the poorest run out of drinking water. It's a solved problem in rich countries.
What you don't get is that water shortage = famine.
The problem is agriculture. Desalination is far too expensive to use for irrigation, irrigation requires insane quantities of water.
Agriculture is so cost sensitive, and the amounts of water they need are so vast, that most crops are not irrigated even when water is free - the cost of fuel that you'd have to use to pump water from a nearby river to a field is too high.
You know what would make a difference? Water infrastructure, like giant pipelines from north of Canada to dry areas of US, like we have for oil. Giant reservoirs to store flood water.
You know who builds them? Governments.
What you don't get is that water shortage = famine.
Did you intentionally ignore my comment about water conserving agriculture innovations? Drip irrigation, reuse of waste water?
You act like private industry hasn't already innovated in those spaces.
They have.
Did you intentionally ignore my comment about water conserving agriculture innovations? Drip irrigation, reuse of waste water?
You act like private industry hasn't already innovated in those spaces.
They have.
Israel's water company appears to be owned entirely by the government.
That seems to be an argument that you should be demanding more of your officials rather than that you should leave vital infrastructure in the hands of someone whose sole motive is to squeeze the most money out of it.
That seems to be an argument that you should be demanding more of your officials rather than that you should leave vital infrastructure in the hands of someone whose sole motive is to squeeze the most money out of it.
There are many, many private firms doing research into water conservation in Israel. Israel's national water company does it own research, but also adopts that from private firms.
Make sense now?
Make sense now?
> where is the evidence that private investment is capable of solving the upcoming water crises?
You can follow the links in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_trading
You can follow the links in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_trading
Private investment in firms that create water use optimization will help mitigate water use issues. That includes water treatment, including industrial and commercial technology to reduce water usage.
The suggestion is that water is very underpriced, meaning corporations have no incentive to try and retain more or reduce their usage (not that this isn't in large part due to corporate or farm interests lobbying).
If water were gold, no one would let it run into the ocean.
If water were gold, no one would let it run into the ocean.
Yes, very true, but I think instead of "corporations" it would be better to think about three kinds of water users: agriculture, residential, and industrial.
In the American West, water is underpriced for farming (80% of usage) due to senior water rights.
Not sure about industry in general, but some users like semiconductor fabs do recycle water. It looks like they're going to recycle more. [1] Cities are starting to recycle too. These are water users who can pay for relatively expensive water. San Diego is doing more than most cities here.
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/fabs-cut-back-water-use
In the American West, water is underpriced for farming (80% of usage) due to senior water rights.
Not sure about industry in general, but some users like semiconductor fabs do recycle water. It looks like they're going to recycle more. [1] Cities are starting to recycle too. These are water users who can pay for relatively expensive water. San Diego is doing more than most cities here.
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/fabs-cut-back-water-use
corporations and people, US obsession with gigantic green lawns everywhere is an example
Private-sector investment would include such things as water treatment plants, desalination plants, and evaporation control…
...for those that own it, certainly. What about everyone else?
What’s the problem? With more investment, there is more clean fresh water, which is (directly or indirectly) good for all. The more water a golf course can recycle or reclaim, the less drinking water it siphons.
Let's not forget the often-overlooked strategies of infiltration (recharging aquifers vs the typical drainage/hardscape paradigm) and the restoration and preservation of wetlands (which buffer and purify water).
Exactly, I would prefer it if we decommodified water use with and regulate use base on sustainability needs. It would have prevented all these water companies like Nestle from stealing the water from various regions.
Where is nestle "stealing the water from various regions"? I'm sure they've been involved in water rights disputes, as has any large water consumer, but I'm skeptical that "stealing" is the most objective description or that they're even a large consumer compared to ag.
There have a number of scandals involving Nestlé, such as:
- https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-01-20/environ... and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-figh...
- https://www.mashed.com/717227/nestles-water-controversy-expl...
- https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/michigan...
- https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2022-01-20/environ... and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/29/the-figh...
- https://www.mashed.com/717227/nestles-water-controversy-expl...
- https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/michigan...
Sounds like the key issue is that local officials grossly underprice water they have. Strange given California just came out of yet another drought…
Not just California.
Here's an example from Canada - https://esemag.com/water/nestle-sells-canadian-bottled-water...
We can assume that Nestlé executives are sitting in Switzerland dreaming up where in the world they extract the most water from, put in a bottle, and reselling to the communities (and further afield) that they took the water from.
Here's an example from Canada - https://esemag.com/water/nestle-sells-canadian-bottled-water...
We can assume that Nestlé executives are sitting in Switzerland dreaming up where in the world they extract the most water from, put in a bottle, and reselling to the communities (and further afield) that they took the water from.
>We can assume that Nestlé executives are sitting in Switzerland dreaming up where in the world they extract the most water from, put in a bottle, and reselling to the communities (and further afield) that they took the water from.
What's the problem with that? It sounds exactly like what the water utility does, except with plastic bottles rather than pipes.
What's the problem with that? It sounds exactly like what the water utility does, except with plastic bottles rather than pipes.
perhaps not a problem one some people's mind, but certainly a material difference:
utilities prioritize the welfare of the citizens who reside in an vote for the (local/regional/national) political apparatus VS exploiting resources with the aim of maximizing profit for shareholders
one benefit that private water companies like Perrier / Fiji Water / Nestlé et al provide to society is that they "distribute" water to locations where there's less. Or at least that what it seems like.
However, on the one hand very little of the water consumed this way is by people who do not have access to local water. Two; they try as much as possible to underpay the "community" from whence they extract the water, so that should be made more fair.
utilities prioritize the welfare of the citizens who reside in an vote for the (local/regional/national) political apparatus VS exploiting resources with the aim of maximizing profit for shareholders
one benefit that private water companies like Perrier / Fiji Water / Nestlé et al provide to society is that they "distribute" water to locations where there's less. Or at least that what it seems like.
However, on the one hand very little of the water consumed this way is by people who do not have access to local water. Two; they try as much as possible to underpay the "community" from whence they extract the water, so that should be made more fair.
>utilities prioritize the welfare of the citizens who reside in an vote for the (local/regional/national) political apparatus VS exploiting resources with the aim of maximizing profit for shareholders
How is this any different than any other industries that consume water (eg. farms or factories) and use that to make money? At least with nestle water, it's not a premium product so in all likelihood it isn't getting shipped across the world like Perrier is.
How is this any different than any other industries that consume water (eg. farms or factories) and use that to make money? At least with nestle water, it's not a premium product so in all likelihood it isn't getting shipped across the world like Perrier is.
Incentive. Farms and factories require water as an input to fulfil some other purpose. They have no incentive to extract more water than they need for their processes, increasing the price incentivises them to reduce their consumption. In contrast, a bottled water company's revenue directly correlates with how much water they can extract. Increasing the price does not encourage a reduction in consumption since consumption is tied to revenue. In fact, if margins tighten due to price increases we might expect to see production increase, with the aim of maintaining the rate of profit.
Even without being shipped across the world, in most places, bottled water is still hugely wasteful. Multiple facilities, haulage, plastic, stores, and refrigeration to deliver something that is directly piped into almost every building.
Even without being shipped across the world, in most places, bottled water is still hugely wasteful. Multiple facilities, haulage, plastic, stores, and refrigeration to deliver something that is directly piped into almost every building.
> utilities prioritize the welfare of the citizens who reside in an vote
Not according to the rate increases in my bills. More like padding their pensions and political apparatus.
Not according to the rate increases in my bills. More like padding their pensions and political apparatus.
Really?
How much is your water bill per gallon of water? Now how much would that amount of water cost you purchased from an organization like Nestle?
For all the people here who like to trumpet their advanced intelligence, there are certainly a lot of triple-o stooopid statements made.
How much is your water bill per gallon of water? Now how much would that amount of water cost you purchased from an organization like Nestle?
For all the people here who like to trumpet their advanced intelligence, there are certainly a lot of triple-o stooopid statements made.
> except with plastic bottles rather than pipes
That alone is a big problem. And water utilities aren't run for profit. Or if they are, they're heavily regulated.
That alone is a big problem. And water utilities aren't run for profit. Or if they are, they're heavily regulated.
>That alone is a big problem
That doesn't seem to be what everyone is mad about though, judging by the comment chain.
>And water utilities aren't run for profit. Or if they are, they're heavily regulated.
I'd be sympathetic to this argument if nestle was the sole provider of water in an area, but they're not. In a hypothetical universe where nestle has a monopoly on bottled water distribution and is abusing it by charging $2/bottle or whatever, the damage would be limited because people could just... use their own bottles. Also, given that bottled water "is a big problem", should we really care that consumers can't get them for cheap?
That doesn't seem to be what everyone is mad about though, judging by the comment chain.
>And water utilities aren't run for profit. Or if they are, they're heavily regulated.
I'd be sympathetic to this argument if nestle was the sole provider of water in an area, but they're not. In a hypothetical universe where nestle has a monopoly on bottled water distribution and is abusing it by charging $2/bottle or whatever, the damage would be limited because people could just... use their own bottles. Also, given that bottled water "is a big problem", should we really care that consumers can't get them for cheap?
Yes, the profit motive is missing. That is a big problem.
I too take a long drink of my tap water and think to myself "It's a shame some prick isn't getting rich because I'm thirsty and his great-grandfather built a pipe".
Pricks getting rich doesn't have to do much with the profit motive.
Government agencies often don't have a profit motive, but some pricks are still getting rich from the corruption.
Government agencies often don't have a profit motive, but some pricks are still getting rich from the corruption.
Then you need a better government. You can't tolerate a corrupt government and hope that the market will fix it. It's a fast lane to national decline.
> put in a bottle, and reselling
Isn't is the actual business they do? What's wrong with it?
Isn't is the actual business they do? What's wrong with it?
In places with reliable supply of potable water - most of the developed world - the business provides no real value. And plenty of harm in the form of plastic pollution.
Bottled water should be a niche business. In the same category as surplus MREs or heavy-duty construction radios.
Bottled water should be a niche business. In the same category as surplus MREs or heavy-duty construction radios.
> In places with reliable supply of potable water - most of the developed world - the business provides no real value.
That's for paying consumers to decide.
That's for paying consumers to decide.
> What's wrong with it?
nothing in an of itself, but if you look at the strategies that Nestlé employ around the world to gain access to water while cynically damaging communities, it is hard to be on their side.
nothing in an of itself, but if you look at the strategies that Nestlé employ around the world to gain access to water while cynically damaging communities, it is hard to be on their side.
Government has murdered people for resources. I trust nestle more than I trust Feeble Joe.
Haaaa, ha ha ha ha ha ha...
Like corporations have never ever murdered people for resources. Google United Fruit and find out where the term "banana republic" came from.
Like corporations have never ever murdered people for resources. Google United Fruit and find out where the term "banana republic" came from.
Nestlé is the company that bribed hospitals in poor countries to tell new mothers that their artificial milk was better than breast milk.
Once they had been on the bottled milk they can't go back to breast milk so when they leave the hospital the mothers are forced to buy the artificial milk.
Many of them can't afford it so the babies starve to death.
This is what the corporation you trust has done. Literally killing babies for profit.
Once they had been on the bottled milk they can't go back to breast milk so when they leave the hospital the mothers are forced to buy the artificial milk.
Many of them can't afford it so the babies starve to death.
This is what the corporation you trust has done. Literally killing babies for profit.
None of those seem to be what a normal person would consider "scandals". Those are either environmentalists objecting to bottled water in a general sense, or the last one which is Michigan's government considering limiting water being used for bottled water.
Where’s the objectivity in letting well financed private power “own” natural resources.
There is no being objective when the conversation starts in such an intentionally spread artificial obligation to consider. Their claims of ownership are not backed by immutable physical evidence but mutable spoken social norms.
Your skepticism alone is insufficient objection to curtail conversation that may rustle Jimmie’s but otherwise does no quantitative damage; it’s not as if mere conversation magically alters the status quo. Rest assured Nestle will be ok tomorrow.
There is no being objective when the conversation starts in such an intentionally spread artificial obligation to consider. Their claims of ownership are not backed by immutable physical evidence but mutable spoken social norms.
Your skepticism alone is insufficient objection to curtail conversation that may rustle Jimmie’s but otherwise does no quantitative damage; it’s not as if mere conversation magically alters the status quo. Rest assured Nestle will be ok tomorrow.
That something isn't accessible to the methods of physical science doesn't mean it has no objective reality. (The methods of physical science themselves are not objects of physical science.)
In any case, that doesn't mean that the liberal notion of private property escapes criticism. Indeed, that is very much the problem. According to the liberal view, radically individualist and absolutist as it is, property is first and foremost private; the common good is conceived of as something resulting from the voluntary cession of private property.
But this is backwards and this notion is not at all the traditional view of property. According to the traditional view, human beings are social animals, not atomized individuals, and this means there there exists a common good. Furthermore, private property exists for the sake of the common good. That private property exist at all is because it enables the common good. It enables human beings to pursue the good; its absence would frustrate it by introducing conflict, an unjust distribution of goods, and so on.
This imposes a limit on private ownership because if private ownership exists for the sake of the common good, then it cannot be the case that the private ownership of something is harmful to the common good. If I bought up all the arable land in the world and in this way prevented the possibility of farming and food production, I would indeed be harming the common good. Water is similar.
In any case, that doesn't mean that the liberal notion of private property escapes criticism. Indeed, that is very much the problem. According to the liberal view, radically individualist and absolutist as it is, property is first and foremost private; the common good is conceived of as something resulting from the voluntary cession of private property.
But this is backwards and this notion is not at all the traditional view of property. According to the traditional view, human beings are social animals, not atomized individuals, and this means there there exists a common good. Furthermore, private property exists for the sake of the common good. That private property exist at all is because it enables the common good. It enables human beings to pursue the good; its absence would frustrate it by introducing conflict, an unjust distribution of goods, and so on.
This imposes a limit on private ownership because if private ownership exists for the sake of the common good, then it cannot be the case that the private ownership of something is harmful to the common good. If I bought up all the arable land in the world and in this way prevented the possibility of farming and food production, I would indeed be harming the common good. Water is similar.
>This imposes a limit on private ownership because if private ownership exists for the sake of the common good, then it cannot be the case that the private ownership of something is harmful to the common good. If I bought up all the arable land in the world and in this way prevented the possibility of farming and food production, I would indeed be harming the common good. Water is similar.
But nobody is actually buying up land so nobody can grow food, nor is nestle buying up water so nobody can drink it. In fact they're doing the opposite. They're taking water from the ground and selling it so people can access it. I don't see how this is any different than a farmer growing food from the ground and selling it to people.
But nobody is actually buying up land so nobody can grow food, nor is nestle buying up water so nobody can drink it. In fact they're doing the opposite. They're taking water from the ground and selling it so people can access it. I don't see how this is any different than a farmer growing food from the ground and selling it to people.
Simple: The real world is not made up out of things which are independent, but everything is connected one way or another. If a private company has control over water they want to grow and maximize profits. First consequence is clearly that prices will go up, even more so if there is clear demand for that, and secondly they will slurp as much as they can out of the ground. Unfortunately, the water in the ground is not infinite, it is a shared resource and needs time to get replenished. It is part of this "common good". So you have to start regulating, and also controlling the regulation of how much at most a company can draw water out of the ground. Same goes for polluting water (not just by dumping dirty water, but think fracking and other such things) etc.
Same goes for land use. Agriculture is a main driving factor of mass extinction (yes, we are in the midst of a biosphere mass extinction event) because they ignore the common good, and other land uses bring their share of problems with it.
Same goes for land use. Agriculture is a main driving factor of mass extinction (yes, we are in the midst of a biosphere mass extinction event) because they ignore the common good, and other land uses bring their share of problems with it.
Sink a well on your land. Problem solved. Tons of water down there.
not if tens of thousands does the same all around you.
Mexico city and probably a hundred others are looking at the effects of that.
Mexico city and probably a hundred others are looking at the effects of that.
BurningFrog(3)
Underinvestment in water is a really big deal, we need that stuff to live.
I don't think privatization is the way to do it though.
I don't think privatization is the way to do it though.
No no you don't understand, people won't drink water without a profit motive. We should do oxygen next.
Why should the tax payers have to fund water investments instead of rich corporations?
Private investment is the cause of having many things we value in abundance like food.
no. basically they're shilling for nestle water scandal type of operations.
edit: to those who down-voted me,
can you provide a reason why having more private profit driven investments on water is a good thing that we should aim for?
yes companies should not be allowed to hog a social good, and using an economics-style revalorisation will lead to the same dubious shenanigans done with carbon emission offsetting where companies will do some creative accounting to hide their value extraction.
edit: to those who down-voted me,
can you provide a reason why having more private profit driven investments on water is a good thing that we should aim for?
yes companies should not be allowed to hog a social good, and using an economics-style revalorisation will lead to the same dubious shenanigans done with carbon emission offsetting where companies will do some creative accounting to hide their value extraction.
I didn’t downvote you.
The choice is often between private investment and no investment at all. It’s all well and good to say the world shouldn’t work that way but meanwhile people need water infrastructure while you are going about changing the world.
The choice is often between private investment and no investment at all. It’s all well and good to say the world shouldn’t work that way but meanwhile people need water infrastructure while you are going about changing the world.
That's not how the interstates got built.
That the interstates got built doesn't mean they were a good idea.
There are always opportunity costs.
The Soviet Union mostly managed to feed its citizens, but that doesn't mean we should copy the Soviet model.
There are always opportunity costs.
The Soviet Union mostly managed to feed its citizens, but that doesn't mean we should copy the Soviet model.
> The choice is often between private investment and no investment at all. I
No other option? Citation needed.
No other option? Citation needed.
>>>Yet public ownership undervalues water, in that one person’s access does not limit another
Chile's private water rights management does not undervalue water. In fact they value it so much that a new class of professional developed : water real estate brokers.
Private leasing of public lands to the highest bidder is an interesting use case that does not get much attention
Chile's private water rights management does not undervalue water. In fact they value it so much that a new class of professional developed : water real estate brokers.
Private leasing of public lands to the highest bidder is an interesting use case that does not get much attention
For Chile's private water rights management to work, one person's access has to limit another person's access.
It's not so much that there's a water shortage in a lot of places but merely that the natural sources of drinking water that people use are drying up forcing them to switch to more expensive sources of water.
My home country the Netherlands actually has a water shortage. But much of it is below sea-level and we pump a lot of non salty water into the sea (at great expense) to keep the land dry. So, this is a notion that needs a little explaining.
How come there is a shortage in a country like that? Very simple: farmers don't like it when their fields are a swamp, so ground water levels are kept very low. This is done by draining, pumping, etc. Most of that water ends up in the sea. This in turn is governed by local policy on which farmers have a lot of influence. Additionally, they use groundwater for irrigating the land. Because dry land doesn't produce a lot of crops.
So, ground water levels are at a historic low in a lot of places. To the point where nature is struggling and water companies that also rely on ground water for supplying drinking water have to remind people to limit their water usage. In a country that is basically a swamp below sea level.
The solution to all this: change policies and stop using ground water at an unsustainable rate. There's plenty of other water. But using that is more expensive. Ground water tends to be very clean as it has been filtered through sediment layers. Surface water from rivers, lakes, etc. needs more treatment. Collecting rain water seems very uncommon. But there is plenty of that as well. Most of it is pumped and drained straight to the sea.
There is an abundance of water. So much that it is actually a problem. If my country stops pumping and draining water out to sea, it won't take long for a lot of it to be reclaimed by it. And in a pinch, we can actually take ocean water and desalinate it. This would of course be ridiculous in the Netherlands considering that two of the largest rivers in Europe flow through it to the North Sea and given that it rains a lot here (less than it used to, but still).
Other places in the world have a lot less water. But this planet is far from running out of water. Most of it is still covered by water and we have plenty of ways to produce drinking water from that. All we need to do is transport it around to where it is needed. In some places, desalination is cheaper than doing that.
My home country the Netherlands actually has a water shortage. But much of it is below sea-level and we pump a lot of non salty water into the sea (at great expense) to keep the land dry. So, this is a notion that needs a little explaining.
How come there is a shortage in a country like that? Very simple: farmers don't like it when their fields are a swamp, so ground water levels are kept very low. This is done by draining, pumping, etc. Most of that water ends up in the sea. This in turn is governed by local policy on which farmers have a lot of influence. Additionally, they use groundwater for irrigating the land. Because dry land doesn't produce a lot of crops.
So, ground water levels are at a historic low in a lot of places. To the point where nature is struggling and water companies that also rely on ground water for supplying drinking water have to remind people to limit their water usage. In a country that is basically a swamp below sea level.
The solution to all this: change policies and stop using ground water at an unsustainable rate. There's plenty of other water. But using that is more expensive. Ground water tends to be very clean as it has been filtered through sediment layers. Surface water from rivers, lakes, etc. needs more treatment. Collecting rain water seems very uncommon. But there is plenty of that as well. Most of it is pumped and drained straight to the sea.
There is an abundance of water. So much that it is actually a problem. If my country stops pumping and draining water out to sea, it won't take long for a lot of it to be reclaimed by it. And in a pinch, we can actually take ocean water and desalinate it. This would of course be ridiculous in the Netherlands considering that two of the largest rivers in Europe flow through it to the North Sea and given that it rains a lot here (less than it used to, but still).
Other places in the world have a lot less water. But this planet is far from running out of water. Most of it is still covered by water and we have plenty of ways to produce drinking water from that. All we need to do is transport it around to where it is needed. In some places, desalination is cheaper than doing that.
I know nothing about it, but it sounds sort of like it would be good for the groundwater level to be low, but fresh water to be stored somewhere else rather than pumped into the sea? Like a reservoir?
Sort of like air and food. Government-funded provision of necessities for health via taxes and protection via regulation should not be damned by calling it names.
If they could privatize air, you can bet that they would have done it a long time ago. Its still public because they havent found a monetization mechanic yet.
do you notice how their grubby hands want to claim ownership of thongs they did not create?
It's not public, it's regulated commons.[1]
1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/
1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/
We need to pay for all common reources such as fish, groundwater, polluting air quality. However banks and investment companies should not be allowed to invest otherwise the market will become skewed.
Earths resources are not endless. We share earth with future generations. Thus we should try and live in harmony with eco systems.
Earths resources are not endless. We share earth with future generations. Thus we should try and live in harmony with eco systems.
Next century: " We need a new economics of air as a common good".
If you are interested in better understanding water issues, I highly recommend the books Salt Dreams, which is about the Colorado River, Salton Sea and water history in Southern California, and Water for a thirsty land, which is the history of water development in Fresno County, California where a lot of water rights issues were hashed out historically in court and a lot of equipment was invented and patented, etc.
Fresno has a very interesting water history and has done a good job of learning to recharge its aquifer, among other things. It probably has better water security than most of California and anyone interested in improving water security for their region would do well to learn a little something about Fresno.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27566605
Fresno has a very interesting water history and has done a good job of learning to recharge its aquifer, among other things. It probably has better water security than most of California and anyone interested in improving water security for their region would do well to learn a little something about Fresno.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27566605
Georgism?
Am I supposed to feel bad for people who moved to the desert and have no water or worse subsidize a farmer to grow high water usage crops like alfalfa so they don't lose their antiquated water rights? Honestly, two of the fastest growing areas in the US is Las Vegas and Phoenix neither of which have their own water to me this is probably one of the dumbest moves I've ever seen. Are we as a country/society supposed to fix this or do we just say, wow that was a dumb fucking move I suggest you check out Des Moines?
Las Vegas is actually very efficient. The city's water infrastructure is well built, and sustainable.
More over... It's simply not the problem either - cities never are.
Cities need water for individuals - ablutions and drinking, some light industry. The amount they use pales in comparison to what farmers and livestock will go through, and the volume and type of effluent produced, as well as contamination risk.
More over... It's simply not the problem either - cities never are.
Cities need water for individuals - ablutions and drinking, some light industry. The amount they use pales in comparison to what farmers and livestock will go through, and the volume and type of effluent produced, as well as contamination risk.
All of the food consumed in Vegas has to get shipped in. That is not efficiency. In what universe are golf courses in the desert efficient?
All of the food consumed anywhere has to get shipped in because of globalization... Because that's the most efficient thing. And golf courses only use 4 acre feet of water for each acre of golf course. In the grand scheme of half a million acre feet of water that Vegas takes from Lake Mead, it sure is efficient given how worried it makes people who don't even live there.
This is just a way to socialize water, take it from those who have it and give to those who dont.
Yeah, just like how keeping a military funded by taxes and governed by democratically made laws is taking the military power away from those who have it and giving it to those who dont...
Socialize all the things. Abolish private property.
Eat the... moist?
Lets start with your personal belongings. I promise we'll get to the rest of everyone else eventually.
This is always the response of someone who doesn't understand the difference between "private property" and "personal property". Next to zero percent of people who want to abolish private property want to abolish personal property.
You can keep your playstation. That's personal property. The people who want to abolish private property are interested in removing the ability for you to exercise power over others because you are holding a public good in private. For instance, by purchasing land and renting it to others, or by using private water rights and making a profit from them.
If we can talk about this stuff without resorting to strawmen, I think there's an interesting and useful exchange of perspectives that can happen.
You can keep your playstation. That's personal property. The people who want to abolish private property are interested in removing the ability for you to exercise power over others because you are holding a public good in private. For instance, by purchasing land and renting it to others, or by using private water rights and making a profit from them.
If we can talk about this stuff without resorting to strawmen, I think there's an interesting and useful exchange of perspectives that can happen.
> The people who want to abolish private property are interested in removing the ability for you to exercise power over others because you are holding a public good in private. For instance, by purchasing land and renting it to others, or by using private water rights and making a profit from them.
I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
> This is always the response of someone who doesn't understand the difference between "private property" and "personal property".
This is the response of someone who does not make a distinction between these because there is no distinction. Only to people who think there is a distinction believe that there is a meaningful difference. No one is obligated to believe in your belief, nor are they going to on purpose dumb themselves down to your level so that people can argue on your field. You are trying to force your definition of words so that you can appear as if you have something meaningful to say, but you don't.
My property is my property. Not yours.
> If we can talk about this stuff without resorting to strawmen, I think there's an interesting and useful exchange of perspectives that can happen.
Of course you do, you're a commie. You absolutely believe in this despite how many holes your ideology has, because if you don't you won't be able to win. Every single bad aspect is nothing compared to the defects in your opponent's world view.
You're not here for discussion.
I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
> This is always the response of someone who doesn't understand the difference between "private property" and "personal property".
This is the response of someone who does not make a distinction between these because there is no distinction. Only to people who think there is a distinction believe that there is a meaningful difference. No one is obligated to believe in your belief, nor are they going to on purpose dumb themselves down to your level so that people can argue on your field. You are trying to force your definition of words so that you can appear as if you have something meaningful to say, but you don't.
My property is my property. Not yours.
> If we can talk about this stuff without resorting to strawmen, I think there's an interesting and useful exchange of perspectives that can happen.
Of course you do, you're a commie. You absolutely believe in this despite how many holes your ideology has, because if you don't you won't be able to win. Every single bad aspect is nothing compared to the defects in your opponent's world view.
You're not here for discussion.
> I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
Private houses, when used as a primary residence, are typically closer to the personal property rather than private property realm. There's a very real discussion about how the land should be allocated, but it's more likely that land use becomes addressed via land value taxes rather than by appropriation.
> [Rude remarks re: definitions]. My property is my property. Not yours.
Private property, real property, personal property, public property -- these are all types of property in the discourse. Liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and many other economic theories use these terms, and choose (or choose not to) differentiate between them. Plenty of conservative thinkers recognize the difference between private and personal property, and choose not to treat them differently.
> You're not here for discussion.
I think you'll find I'm very much interested in a discussion, if there is discussion to be had. Despite your hostility, I don't believe I've resorted to any 'punching down', as it were.
> Of course you do, you're a commie.
My personal beliefs are on that side of things, yes, though that's not the language I would use. (FWIW, I would also describe myself as opposed to Soviet style communism. I am not, for instance, a fan of Lenin's authoritarian "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and I find many authoritarian communists absolutely vile.)
Private houses, when used as a primary residence, are typically closer to the personal property rather than private property realm. There's a very real discussion about how the land should be allocated, but it's more likely that land use becomes addressed via land value taxes rather than by appropriation.
> [Rude remarks re: definitions]. My property is my property. Not yours.
Private property, real property, personal property, public property -- these are all types of property in the discourse. Liberalism, conservatism, socialism, and many other economic theories use these terms, and choose (or choose not to) differentiate between them. Plenty of conservative thinkers recognize the difference between private and personal property, and choose not to treat them differently.
> You're not here for discussion.
I think you'll find I'm very much interested in a discussion, if there is discussion to be had. Despite your hostility, I don't believe I've resorted to any 'punching down', as it were.
> Of course you do, you're a commie.
My personal beliefs are on that side of things, yes, though that's not the language I would use. (FWIW, I would also describe myself as opposed to Soviet style communism. I am not, for instance, a fan of Lenin's authoritarian "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and I find many authoritarian communists absolutely vile.)
>> but it's more likely that land use becomes addressed via land value taxes rather than by appropriation.
What do you think happens to land if you don't pay your taxes?
Answer: appropriation
What do you think happens to land if you don't pay your taxes?
Answer: appropriation
If your position is "taxes are theft", and fail to pay them, we're going to disagree on a lot. We can still chat if you'd like.
> I declare your house a public good, it is now mine.
No, it's not. Collective ownership is not "hippity hoppity, your stuff is now my property". It's about the management of goods -- land, rivers, buildings, etc. -- for the good of all, not just the one person designated owner.
You are still thinking in terms of ownership, which should absolutely not be a thing for public goods like land. Come back when you've actually read Marx and not some far-right exegesis of Marx.
No, it's not. Collective ownership is not "hippity hoppity, your stuff is now my property". It's about the management of goods -- land, rivers, buildings, etc. -- for the good of all, not just the one person designated owner.
You are still thinking in terms of ownership, which should absolutely not be a thing for public goods like land. Come back when you've actually read Marx and not some far-right exegesis of Marx.
Look at you go, requiring even more redefining of words.
I'd be embarrassed if I were you, but I don't think you have even the slightest capability to even pretend to be a human.
You are not enlightened.
I'd be embarrassed if I were you, but I don't think you have even the slightest capability to even pretend to be a human.
You are not enlightened.
Read up on the difference between private and personal property before making such a foolish response. Private property is capital. Capital is the power to rule.
The distinction is not as clear nor as useful as some make it sound. For example, is my pickup truck "personal" or "private"? Or is it personal as long as I drive myself and my stuff around, but as soon as I offer to sell moving services to others, it becomes private? Or is it still personal as long as I don't scale the business to more trucks? What if my brother and I want to pool two trucks? What if I contribute the truck and he contributes the driving skill, but we are both part owners in the business? What if he doesn't want to take the risk of capital ownership and instead wants a steady wage? At what point does the truck stop being personal property?
My personal view of this is that Marxism doesn't really have much to say about organizations below a certain scale, and what it has to say about larger scale orgs is that they are icky/alienating. Everything else is more about trying to verbalize the ickyness than to explain anything substantial about the org mechanics.
My personal view of this is that Marxism doesn't really have much to say about organizations below a certain scale, and what it has to say about larger scale orgs is that they are icky/alienating. Everything else is more about trying to verbalize the ickyness than to explain anything substantial about the org mechanics.
Nah, you will give me your stuff.
Most people would answer give you what? They rent or have a loan so they don't own most of their stuff. And stuff they own is worth less than what they owe(home? was bought during bubble, if correction comes they are so much in red...). What they can give you is part of their debt if you insist so much.
[deleted]
[deleted]
speaking as an über capitalist, clean water is a human right that every single human on earth must have access to.
there is no question about it, just about how to accomplish.
there is no question about it, just about how to accomplish.
It is easy to declare rights, much harder to provide for them. Who should actually do the real work of providing for this human right that you have decided on? And what should they do this instead of?
Access to water is a right, cleaning it and making it ready to drink is a responsibility you have to yourself. Nature makes it available, men don't have the right to preclude others, but what men make available men have the right to. To prevent others from doing so is a different story.
In other words, "suffering is bad and we should prevent it, but we don't know how"? What a brave and profound statement to make! /s
> In other words, "suffering is bad and we should prevent it, but we don't know how"? What a brave and profound statement to make! /s
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that there probably isn't one solution that would work on every part of the planet and further more that in practical terms there isn't a single "we" on the hook to solve.
There are probably many different strategies, from restricting private companies from extracting water at low cost and making huge profits, to building water infrastructure in places where there are none, to desalination, to eradicating cholera, etc. etc.
But what I do believe is that ability to pay for water should not be a limiting factor to having access to clean water because it is a basic ingredient of life and so nobody should profit off of access.
That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that there probably isn't one solution that would work on every part of the planet and further more that in practical terms there isn't a single "we" on the hook to solve.
There are probably many different strategies, from restricting private companies from extracting water at low cost and making huge profits, to building water infrastructure in places where there are none, to desalination, to eradicating cholera, etc. etc.
But what I do believe is that ability to pay for water should not be a limiting factor to having access to clean water because it is a basic ingredient of life and so nobody should profit off of access.
>But what I do believe is that ability to pay for water should not be a limiting factor to having access to clean water because it is a basic ingredient of life and so nobody should profit off of access.
Do you, as a "über capitalist" also believe the same to be true for food?
Do you, as a "über capitalist" also believe the same to be true for food?
yes. people will squabble about how much and what quality is minimally required, but I would love to see every society prioritize guaranteeing basic nourishment to not only survive, but to have a healthy mind and body.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you meant by "über capitalist", but someone who advocates for total state ownership over food production (which is essentially what you're arguing for, given that you don't want profits) is certainly on the socialist/communist side of most countries' political spectrums, and therefore can hardly be called an "über capitalist".
You can support a basic food aid while also supporting private food production.
I didn't interpret GP to say "total state ownership over food production".
Their keywords were "basic" and "minimally required".
That should have told you that they were supporting food programs where basic foods are guaranteed.
None of that means they support "total", as you say, nationalization of food production.
History has shown us that nationalization of food production leads to the starvation and death of millions.
Free market production has led countries to excess foods, such as grain, which can be and is shipped across the world to combat global starvation.
I didn't interpret GP to say "total state ownership over food production".
Their keywords were "basic" and "minimally required".
That should have told you that they were supporting food programs where basic foods are guaranteed.
None of that means they support "total", as you say, nationalization of food production.
History has shown us that nationalization of food production leads to the starvation and death of millions.
Free market production has led countries to excess foods, such as grain, which can be and is shipped across the world to combat global starvation.
I think it is entirely reasonable to tax or even heavily tax private property and profits so that we can supply necessary water, food and shelter to all of the population.
Reasonable amount of water and food should be in reach of every citizen. Does not mean production of those have to be privatized, but maybe margins can be limited when it is bought from open market.
Reasonable amount of water and food should be in reach of every citizen. Does not mean production of those have to be privatized, but maybe margins can be limited when it is bought from open market.
Precisely.
Housing? Healthcare? etc
Taxes! We need more taxes! But, tax that other guy
Tax me, tbh. I make $700k a year. If my taxes go towards resource conservation and regulating the commons towards sustainability, I'm all for paying more in taxes.
So yeah, tax the other guy who is like me and tax me.
(And before you respond with, "Well, you can voluntarily pay more in taxes" you should know that I've put aside hundreds of thousands a year towards environmental conservation, and two, I believe that even if I donated 100% of my own income it wouldn't be enough. I believe in taxes as a mechanism, and I believe that taxes on income at or above what I make are eminently reasonable.)
So yeah, tax the other guy who is like me and tax me.
(And before you respond with, "Well, you can voluntarily pay more in taxes" you should know that I've put aside hundreds of thousands a year towards environmental conservation, and two, I believe that even if I donated 100% of my own income it wouldn't be enough. I believe in taxes as a mechanism, and I believe that taxes on income at or above what I make are eminently reasonable.)
Doesn't that go against the entire ethos of the YC community? Is this post going to stay up?
this article is basically written under the assumption that water is going to become more scarce, while they even admit that global warming would increase global precipitation making water less scarce overall. They claim that some areas will experience more extreme droughts but I'm not sure that's how that works. They talk about the need for international regulatory bodies to manage international water disputes - but what will be the teeth of such international bodies? Invasion by the US or UN? I'm deeply skeptical of people who think like this. Please stay powerless.
> They claim that some areas will experience more extreme droughts but I'm not sure that's how that works.
madagascar had a droight this year, which caused crop failures and mass hunger.
France had record low yields due to droughts
snowpack and ice is gone, meanong water that falls does not stay untill summer. Glaciers dwarf the largest reservoirs.
People like you fail to understand that for every dollar that fossil fuel companies made in profit, we will have to spend 4 dollars fixing the problems they caused.
madagascar had a droight this year, which caused crop failures and mass hunger.
France had record low yields due to droughts
snowpack and ice is gone, meanong water that falls does not stay untill summer. Glaciers dwarf the largest reservoirs.
People like you fail to understand that for every dollar that fossil fuel companies made in profit, we will have to spend 4 dollars fixing the problems they caused.
I don't know why you are listing examples of droughts, unless you interpreted my statement that global increased precipitation would seem to imply less severe droughts globally, as a statement that droughts will no longer exist. This would be an example of poor reading comprehension or poor inferential logic.
You failed to comprehend meaning of "snowpack and glaciers are gone" are are accusing me of poor reading comprehension? Wow, that's rich.
Go read the IPCC report and educate yourself on this very basic question
Go read the IPCC report and educate yourself on this very basic question
The total amount of water on the planet stays constant because of that nifty water cycle. The amount of potable water is going to become more scarce as population increases and water transportation/sanitation infrastructure fails.
precipitation naturally desalinates water, a normally very expensive process. isn't that a crucial detail?
Global warming means more global freshwater.
Global warming means more global freshwater.
Still needs treatment, unless you drink rainwater straight. And you need to collect the rain, not just let it go to runoff. Flash floods are going to damage the infrastructure to collect and purify such water as well.
I don't see how that's a good thing. Global warming means sea level rise which means more people crowded into less space which means more pressure on natural ecosystems and more conflict over less resources. Plus a hotter world means we're using more of that water keeping crops hydrated.
I don't see how that's a good thing. Global warming means sea level rise which means more people crowded into less space which means more pressure on natural ecosystems and more conflict over less resources. Plus a hotter world means we're using more of that water keeping crops hydrated.
Have never heard of a groundwater well? The ground collects water! It's orders of magnitude cheaper than desalination!!
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/modern-water-well-diagr...
https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/modern-water-well-diagr...
Sure, until the aquifer is permanently destroyed by over-use. There was probably some sustainable rate of usage, but "as much as you can pump" seems to be the current state of affairs.
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-western-droughts-permanent-los...
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-02-23/calls-g...
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-western-droughts-permanent-los...
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2023-02-23/calls-g...
Aquifers are drying up across the world from overuse.
Just finished a week motorbiking in Laos. It's currently incredibly hot and dry. They are at the end of dry season, but having lived in many climates with hot/dry - it still caught me off guard.
Many of the farms were bone dry - dust everywhere. Doesn't help that the regularly do 'slash & burn agriculture' where they're burning the forest, clearing it, planting their crops, and repeating after they exhaust the soil. We were constantly coming across areas on fire.
But no - that's not the issue. The government is corrupt there and is constantly selling the rights to build dams. There's no environmental survey before doing so - they're just cropping these things up all over the place; even where the return is very minimal. If there's a profit opportunity - it's there.
This is of course causing downstream rivers to run low, preventing water access to farms and villages that rely on it.
And the kicker: Laos doesn't even get the electricity generated - 90% of it is exported to neighboring countries like Thailand.
Just incredible to see.