If only there were some method for allocating scarce resources (such as water), by which everyone could indicate their perception of the relative value and some sort of equilibrium could be found.
Free markets fail when allocating resources like water. The problem is that when someone needs something to survive, the market stops working because the value is infinite to them. Another reason it doesn't work is because you can have people who need it but are too poor to pay what others will pay for it. If someone with more money comes in and buys all the water, they can then charge what they want for it or just dump it into the ocean if they feel like it. It also doesn't work when the product is common use, like a road or a park, because their is no profit in providing something everyone benefits from but will not directly pay to use. Property rights and markets are not the ultimate way to allocate all resources.
I think people get emotional when they talk about water, but it's easier when it's broken down into more specific categories-
Every person should have the right to clean easily accessible drinking water in their homes. We know how to do that, it just costs money but it should be a basic responsibility of every government.
Beyond that if you want to use water for whatever then you should have to compete for it in a market. Maybe the only other exception might be growing sustenance food. But those systems (as they are currently implemented across the world) quickly get political- but no one should starve because water is too expensive either.
The thing is that almost all of the time that's not what's at stake when talking about things like data centers- it's a strawman.
> when someone needs something to survive, the market stops working because the value is infinite to them
No, that's precisely the situation where markets work best: when resources are scarce. A single gallon of water isn't worth much to a data center or a farmer; you can't water a field with just one gallon. But it's potentially worth a lot to someone who's thirsty. Prices will go up, demand will drop, and supply will increase to meet demand, unless you kneecap that process by imposing artificial price controls - then you'll have shortages.
> you can have people who need it but are too poor to pay what others will pay for it
You're right, markets are not charities; they're only concerned with efficiency. Caring for people who can't take care of themselves isn't efficient, but it is the right thing to do. Even in this situation though you're better off with markets than without them, because it's way easier for people, organizations, and governments with excess resources to provide for the needy when they're operating in an efficient environment than in an inefficient one.
> If someone [...] buys all the water
That's called a monopoly and I agree that's not good, because if one person owns/controls everything it's no longer a free market; you're essentially back to central planning. Individuals and data centers should be able to buy their water in a competitive market, not one dominated by a single supplier.
> It also doesn't work when the product is common use, like a road or a park
Markets are actually great at allocating things like road space. NYC's congestion pricing is doing wonders for the efficiency of their road system right now, and tolls have been a thing basically forever. But I agree in principle it's hard for markets to allocate resources that there's no practical mechanism of charging for. Thankfully, water generally doesn't fall into that category.
We should just create a World Government (like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_constitution) and be done with it, global focus on the most pressing issues like water, food and getting rid of nuclear weapons.
Eisenstein|8 months ago
awongh|8 months ago
Every person should have the right to clean easily accessible drinking water in their homes. We know how to do that, it just costs money but it should be a basic responsibility of every government.
Beyond that if you want to use water for whatever then you should have to compete for it in a market. Maybe the only other exception might be growing sustenance food. But those systems (as they are currently implemented across the world) quickly get political- but no one should starve because water is too expensive either.
The thing is that almost all of the time that's not what's at stake when talking about things like data centers- it's a strawman.
Ajedi32|8 months ago
No, that's precisely the situation where markets work best: when resources are scarce. A single gallon of water isn't worth much to a data center or a farmer; you can't water a field with just one gallon. But it's potentially worth a lot to someone who's thirsty. Prices will go up, demand will drop, and supply will increase to meet demand, unless you kneecap that process by imposing artificial price controls - then you'll have shortages.
> you can have people who need it but are too poor to pay what others will pay for it
You're right, markets are not charities; they're only concerned with efficiency. Caring for people who can't take care of themselves isn't efficient, but it is the right thing to do. Even in this situation though you're better off with markets than without them, because it's way easier for people, organizations, and governments with excess resources to provide for the needy when they're operating in an efficient environment than in an inefficient one.
> If someone [...] buys all the water
That's called a monopoly and I agree that's not good, because if one person owns/controls everything it's no longer a free market; you're essentially back to central planning. Individuals and data centers should be able to buy their water in a competitive market, not one dominated by a single supplier.
> It also doesn't work when the product is common use, like a road or a park
Markets are actually great at allocating things like road space. NYC's congestion pricing is doing wonders for the efficiency of their road system right now, and tolls have been a thing basically forever. But I agree in principle it's hard for markets to allocate resources that there's no practical mechanism of charging for. Thankfully, water generally doesn't fall into that category.
elric|8 months ago
diggan|8 months ago