|
 Read-Only Topic
Go |
Find |
Notify |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
|
quote: Because the need isn't there yet. Droughts are annoying be rarely last forever
but the current water shortage is not just because of a drought. as mentioned above, it is because of a combination of things: increased population natural drought mismanagement by water "officials" increased commercial use
------------------------------------------
debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
|
| |
| Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006 | |
|
|
I realize that the Middle East has much more expendible money than the US, but wouldn't you rather they desalinate the Pacific and Atlantic, than allow for every fresh water source in the US be used up to fuel our continous need for more water. It works really well in the UAE, and although expensive, I feel a worthwhile investment. Although, I suspect a country which pretty much deems its infrastructure worthless and not worth investing in, why invest in desalination. We really are so far behind in so many areas, and we wonder why when we have natural disasters (Katrina), we require financial help from our third world neighbor to the south, Mexico.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
|
| |
| Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007 | |
|
|
|
Melissa, did you know that Santa Barbara has had one for years here. Way too expensive to run it, thus half of it was torn down for a while. The last I heard is drilling some more wells in case our reservoir gets too low. I could get you some more information on this if you so wanted.
|
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
I just think it is strange, that it is so commonplace in much of the Middle East (which is much dryer than most of our drought areas), but here we would rather continue to drain our river and lakes, instead of put the money towards desalination. At what point do you say, it may be a necessary investment? Oh well, there is so much I don't even begin to understand about how our country operates.
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
|
| |
| Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007 | |
|
|
|
/rén, I responded to your post about Free Marketeers at Posted 16 November 2007 18:46. I can move it back here if you want. I also was thinking about the Mouseketeers also when using that phrase. LOL. |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: /rén, I responded to your post about Free Marketeers at Posted 16 November 2007 18:46. I can move it back here if you want. I also was thinking about the Mouseketeers also when using that phrase. LOL.
You appear to be answering a question of whether the free market exists or not. I feel I'm clear that I've asked about the ideal, not anything that exists. This is not a trick question. I am asking the question of whether the principles of the true free market, as an ideal principle, can be employed to solve the problem. The Wiki article attempts to describe the principles, and yes, it also notes that no such ideal is known to exist. I don't care whether such a thing has ever been achieved or not, because the nature of my question is theoretical. "Free market" is a principle that itself has been called upon to formulate government policy. Is the principle itself a valid one for solving these sorts of problems? If so, how would the free market principle achieve results that would avoid the potential catastrophe that looms for Atlanta, as it appears in this thread? Can this so-called bottom up "spontaneous order" or "invisible hand" of planning as described work to avoid catastrophe in some way? Is that something you can answer? Can you validate that theory? It should be a simple yes or no. If it can, how, describe all the microeconomic mechanisms, If you can't answer it, and no one can, I'll move on to other questions. This is not about taking the free market out in the back yard and shooting it in the head. I'm wondering how civilized society can manage itself. I don't know how. I don't have any pat solutions in mind. |
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ftmyersfisherman: quote: Because the need isn't there yet. Droughts are annoying be rarely last forever
but the current water shortage is not just because of a drought. as mentioned above, it is because of a combination of things: increased population
OK. More people, more water. That makes sense. quote: natural drought
OK. Act of God. (Sorry secularists!) That makes sense, but these things even out over the long haul. quote: mismanagement by water "officials"
I'm not sure what you are specifically talking about, but I am confident there are thousands of examples to prove you are right. I think most free marketeers would agree - public officials, allocating public resources, will not be as careful as private owners allocating their own resources. quote: increased commercial use
This was the most curious of your explanations of the shortage. What do you suppose Commercial water users are doing with the water? Are they not using it wisely? |
| |
| Posts: 1807 | Location: West Michigan | Registered: 23 June 2005 | |
|
|
|
I still want it clear the difference between a microeconomic event such as a free market and the macroeconomic event of a free market economy that is purely theoretical in nature. I will try to make this clear by indicating macro/micro as the case may be. East River Trucker and I did look into the question of whether free markets (micro) could exist outside the confines of a state and a summary of what I looked at is located at: Markets without states. But if we want to have a free market economy (macro) as an ideal, then yes you may be right that I can not answer that question. I can only envision an ideal that uses two methods of figuring out problems. One with a liberal democracy that solves societal issues and equality. Another being a collection of individual free markets (micro) to help allocate resources to the most efficient way. Of course I would like to see the government as small as possible but with understanding of when markets fail there needs to be failsafes built in through the democratic process addressed above. Also those individual markets that can be proven that only governments can or even logically reasonable then governments (LD) should take over those functions. The most important aspect of the free markets (micro) is allowing the prices to dictate how resources are to be allocated. When you have governments subsidize one party consumption over another then of course you are distorting the most efficient allocation of those resources. Now after I have read every link and story on the first page of this thread, I saw nearly nothing to indicate that prices have any criteria on the operation of the market. From my graduate level class of Economics for Public Policy Managers, the instructor talked about the fact that nothing says that a government agency could not price as if it was a business. By now nothing that the market provides will be the 'best' solution in Atlanta. It may solve the problems now by shipping in water. Ultimately governments have not priced accordingly to the fact that the resources have a degree of scarcity. As a resource becomes scarcer a business would charge a higher and higher price until what he supplies the market clears the market and supplies enough for all buyers in the market at the market price to have as much as they want. The next step might be to look more at the mechanisms of how the market sets the prices, or how the markets deal with scarcity of a resource. |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
quote: PeeWee: What do you suppose Commercial water users are doing with the water? Are they not using it wisely?
As you can see below your post I have started to answer such questions. Since the government is pricing the market then I would say there is a good chance they (Commercial water users) are not using it as wisely as they would if it was priced as the scarcity has dictated. We might also want to look at long term vs. short term pricing... |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: I still want it clear the difference between a microeconomic event such as a free market and the macroeconomic event of a free market economy that is purely theoretical in nature. I will try to make this clear by indicating macro/micro as the case may be. East River Trucker and I did look into the question of whether free markets (micro) could exist outside the confines of a state and a summary of what I looked at is located at: Markets without states. But if we want to have a free market economy (macro) as an ideal, then yes you may be right that I can not answer that question. I can only envision an ideal that uses two methods of figuring out problems. One with a liberal democracy that solves societal issues and equality. Another being a collection of individual free markets (micro) to help allocate resources to the most efficient way. Of course I would like to see the government as small as possible but with understanding of when markets fail there needs to be failsafes built in through the democratic process addressed above. Also those individual markets that can be proven that only governments can or even logically reasonable then governments (LD) should take over those functions. The most important aspect of the free markets (micro) is allowing the prices to dictate how resources are to be allocated. When you have governments subsidize one party consumption over another then of course you are distorting the most efficient allocation of those resources. Now after I have read every link and story on the first page of this thread, I saw nearly nothing to indicate that prices have any criteria on the operation of the market. From my graduate level class of Economics for Public Policy Managers, the instructor talked about the fact that nothing says that a government agency could not price as if it was a business. By now nothing that the market provides will be the 'best' solution in Atlanta. It may solve the problems now by shipping in water. Ultimately governments have not priced accordingly to the fact that the resources have a degree of scarcity. As a resource becomes scarcer a business would charge a higher and higher price until what he supplies the market clears the market and supplies enough for all buyers in the market at the market price to have as much as they want. The next step might be to look more at the mechanisms of how the market sets the prices, or how the markets deal with scarcity of a resource.
Ronald, if you can't answer it, that's fine. The problem I'm asking seems different than problems you are addressing in the approach you are taking. We have this notion presented that we know periodic droughts occur over time. We can see that a number of factors create a demand for water, and there is a limited capacity involving supply that varies over time. We see that demand has possibly exceeded the supply capacity in the low cycle period. From that, then, we have a way of seeing what the limits to the water capacity might be, given the long term ups and downs of the drought cycle, which may be predictable. In that sense there's an opportunity for some sort of planning to account for the worst case of the cycle which could cause a problem if the carrying capacity at that point in the cycle is exceeded by the sum of the water usage factors. It strikes me that the nature of market principles themselves are somewhat blind about long term cycles of this nature. I'm wondering, then, how a market economy could solve a basic planning problem for long term carrying capacity cycles. It seems to me that markets by their nature tend to be reactive, while long term planning is a proactive process, requiring non profit making expenditures that involve organizing a bureaucracy, regulation and all that inefficiency that no business wants to pay for, or be limited by, because it reduces short term competitiveness in the market, and markets can be very volatile so businesses need to be flexible and maximally reactive to be adaptive. If people act according to the market forces only when the resource carrying capacity is high and maximize the capacity of the available water at that time, with various factors including migration and business growth, that's a reactive process. Looking at the long term swings in carrying capacity and setting limits to account for the low end of the cycle would be proactive. That's what I'm asking about, can market principles account for the need for proactive planning on that scale other than creating these crisis and reacting to them as is happening now. I hoped someone might tell me. |
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
|
quote: until a cost effective way to desalinate water comes out, we wont be able to use salt water on a wide scale.
cost effective. how a bout a matter of live or death.? |
| |
| Posts: 62 | Location: A Buggy | Registered: 06 November 2007 | |
|
|
|
quote: cost effective. how a bout a matter of live or death.?
i agree lives should take precedent over costs. but what company will build these desalination plants when they will surely lose money? its almost the same as the global warming problem. why cut down on emmissions if it means corporations like that of the oil industry stands to lose billions if we take action? their influence is too great to change at the present time and americans are hooked on oil. and the bottled water company is only seeing dollar signs in the water shortage crisis. they can essentially charge whatever they wish once ground water runs out in areas. it has nothing to do with saving lives. its all about money and profit.
------------------------------------------
debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
|
| |
| Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
it sort of reminds me of how after the hurricanes struck this area, the price of bottled water magically skyrocketed. since there was no power and tap water had to be boiled or wasnt running, everyone was forced to buy bottled water. i remember after charlie, one store was charging over $5 for a single gallon of water. ice was even more expensive, if you can even find it. once again, it all comes down to money and profits, as a result of supply and demand. demand was high, supply was low, so people can charge whatever they wanted for water, since they knew there would be people out there willing to pay anything for that water.
------------------------------------------
debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
|
| |
| Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
ren, I have given serious consideration to your last post. And every time would find faults in my presentation. So while I try to avoid any defensiveness, let me explain some other thoughts I have on these issues. It seems to look at this problem we would have to consider at least on a simplistic statistical aspect of the availability of water has a mean and standard deviation. Thus there is some ability in predicting what the extremes are in availability of water. That is of course assuming that we do not have a trend line up or down-as I believe James was asking about. So even if the markets were free markets (micro) then I don't think the problems are long term cycles in this situation, but more to do with capacity. Having excess capacity is very costly for businesses and thus most have converted to Just in Time product placement/shipment/ordering. Excess capacity is costly and is wasteful of resources that could be used better elsewhere. So for a system or set of systems then it seems that flexibility is more important than capacity itself. But if we want to have excess capacity available such as in an insurance policy then this may be a place for government to invest in long term capacity. Of course a free marketeer (macro) might say that buying insurance might be more efficient in the market place. I could explain how insurance might work in these situations. If we go back to the above links we should notice how much regulation and restrictions every government is using to limit water consumption. That again is not a free market (micro). The quantity of water in the short period is fairly inelastic and thus does not react fast to changes in price but if long term prices are kept at a level where it is socially more optimal then conservation and better water utilization would occur. What we basically have here is a quantity of water demanded at the price set by government is greater than the capacity (quantity) to supply that amount at the given price. quote: The laws of supply and demand state that the equilibrium market price and quantity of a commodity is at the intersection of consumer demand and producer supply. Here, quantity supplied equals quantity demanded (as in the enlargeable Figure), that is, equilibrium. Equilibrium implies that price and quantity will remain there if it begins there. If the price for a good is below equilibrium, consumers demand more of the good than producers are prepared to supply. This defines a shortage of the good. A shortage results in the price being bid up. Producers will increase the price until it reaches equilibrium. If the price for a good is above equilibrium, there is a surplus of the good. Producers are motivated to eliminate the surplus by lowering the price. The price falls until it reaches equilibrium.
Supply and demand Anyway, that is all I can think of for now... |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Of course a free marketeer (macro) might say that buying insurance might be more efficient in the market place. I could explain how insurance might work in these situations.
With an empty reservoir, the city drinks the insurance policy? Or do they drink the policy's financial payout? This isn't quite the same thing as getting financially reimbursed to replace an auto or a burned down house. First, the commodity replacement (water) has to be available. Retired Monk "Ideology is a disease" |
| |
| Posts: 3412 | Location: denver co | Registered: 17 April 2007 | |
|
|
|
I appreciate your efforts, Ronald.
Looks to me like some sort of human intervention at the planning level would seem to be inevitable in terms of determining some restraints on the maximization of markets if the problem Atlanta and other areas are facing can be set in such a way as to avoid a crisis.
The downward trend line corresponding to global weather changes (global warming) and the constant fluctuation scenario is a debate between James and Loganthor as representatives of two different beliefs about global warming. Not my interest in the question. Global warming is a different kind of problem that probably could not be calculated easily enough to figure into any planning scenario, that would me my hypothesis.
|
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
|
quote: Looks to me like some sort of human intervention at the planning level would seem to be inevitable in terms of determining some restraints on the maximization of markets if the problem Atlanta and other areas are facing can be set in such a way as to avoid a crisis.
NP, ren. I did have a question about the above passage. I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "restraints on the maximization of markets". Are you missing something like 'profits' or am I just missing the point on what is being restrained? |
| |
| Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005 | |
|
|
|
Well, the prayers didn't work. Not everybody can dance so lets try singing. A friend of mine sang this last night at a club and dedicated it to the folks in Georgia. - Miss you Brook Benton Rainy Night in Georgia  Hoverin' by my suitcase, tryin' to find a warm place to spend the night Heavy rain fallin', seems I hear your voice callin' "It's all right." A rainy night in Georgia, a rainy night in Georgia It seems like it's rainin' all over the world I feel like it's rainin' all over the world Neon signs a-flashin', taxi cabs and buses passin' through the night A distant moanin' of a train seems to play a sad refrain to the night A rainy night in Georgia, such a rainy night in Georgia Lord, I believe it's rainin' all over the world I feel like it's rainin' all over the world How many times I wondered It still comes out the same No matter how you look at it or think of it It's life and you just got to play the game I find me a place in a box car, so I take my guitar to pass some time Late at night when it's hard to rest I hold your picture to my chest and I feel fine (minor scat) But it's a rainy night in Georgia, baby, it's a rainy night in Georgia I feel it's rainin' all over the world, kinda lonely now And it's rainin' all over the world Oh, have you ever been lonely, people? And you feel that it was rainin' all over this man's world You're talking 'bout rainin', rainin', rainin', rainin', rainin', rainin', rainin', rainin', rainin' rainin', rainin', rainin' <etc
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
|
| |
| Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford: quote: Looks to me like some sort of human intervention at the planning level would seem to be inevitable in terms of determining some restraints on the maximization of markets if the problem Atlanta and other areas are facing can be set in such a way as to avoid a crisis.
NP, ren. I did have a question about the above passage. I am not sure if I understand what you mean by "restraints on the maximization of markets". Are you missing something like 'profits' or am I just missing the point on what is being restrained?
Part of a market is the people, is it not? If there isn't enough water at some point in a hydrological cycle to support a metropolitan area of 4.5 million (another 2 mil. projected by 2030) who, combined with business and all the other uses for water, use water without any oversight as to how that use will consume water during times of drought, and all the market items related to water consumption support a non conservation usage pattern that would match the low point in the cycle, that would be a factor, it seems to me, in looking at the problem of restraint or no restraint in the argument of effecting market forces in the market as a whole. The generally environmentalist originated argument, involving regulating limits to unrestrained development, is a commonly attacked position by those who argue for the positive benefits of "freedom" of market forces. The people, through their government might attempt to enact regulations on a variety of behaviors, the types of lawns one might have even, in their suburban neighborhoods, such regulations limiting the freedom to promote green lawns, sprinkler systems, lawn mowers, and all sorts of market items involved in the market -- just a small example that comes to mind. Atlanta' population, by the way, was 89,872 in 1900, when it was the 43rd largest city in the US. By 1940 it had moved up to 39th, with 416,474. Ten years later they built a dam to make the lake that's now going dry. Should the population in a market also be part of a regulation and and potential restraint on that market? Note: The 4.5 million figure is apparently the greater metropolitan area because the population of the city of Atlanta has remained somewhat constant since 1940. (city census source) |
| |
| Posts: 3997 | Location: Road Prison 36 | Registered: 05 February 2004 | |
|
|
|
The drought in the 30's lasted two years. Apparantly the study of tree rings indicates that there have been one or two periods of severe drought in the midwest per century for the last four hundred years. I agree that Atlanta's population is the reason for their water shortage. They are ill equipt to supply the city water from Lake Lanier during times of drought. Georgia is one of the few states in the country which has no natural lakes. I have no idea, other than conservation, how they can deal with the problem.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
|
| |
|
|
|
The other question (s) to ask is can we have this level of development in the South West and especially in the South West (New Mexico Arizona, Nevada, Colorado) where the water problems are exacerbated? Sooner or later, somebody has to pay for the water.
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
|
| |
| Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Sooner or later, somebody has to pay for the water.
The people who use it?
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.
|
| |
|
|
|
quote: The people who use it?
but when water is piped across deserts to make virtual oasis, then the people using the water are not the only ones paying for it. for in order to supply naturaly arid areas like the southwest, the water must come from somewhere and that essentially puts additional pressure on that water supply and the local people that use that water also. in this scenerio, the people in the desert could very well pay for the water they use, but the place where the water is being piped from, say texas, is losing overall since their local population also needs the water.
------------------------------------------
debating conservatives is easy. so easy, even a caveman can do it!
"if this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck lot easier, just so long as im the dictator" -GWB Dec 18,2002
|
| |
| Posts: 1614 | Location: ft myers florida area | Registered: 23 September 2006 | |
|
|
|
quote: Originally posted by James Leo:
The other question (s) to ask is can we have this level of development in the South West and especially in the South West (New Mexico Arizona, Nevada, Colorado) where the water problems are exacerbated? Sooner or later, somebody has to pay for the water.
And sooner or later there isn't going to b | |
