https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/putting-people-over-fish
Kamala hmu I'll get you back in
Top Poster of the Day:
JimieWhales
Current Registered Users: 31,246
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
so... u want to tax water now?
why not just ration.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The current system in California doesn't permit rationing, either, for the pre-1914 stakes. It is basically a priority system based on who's upstream (IIRC).
Market-responsive pricing is better than rationing, anyway, because different crops offer different approaches to efficiency, some easier than others. You don't want everyone making similar cuts but for the farmers with easy efficiency gains to realize them and let other farmers have the water. !neolibs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
austalia still has a ton of residential water restrictions, so it didn't really help out with conservation of water.
overall profit impact was maybe +10% so not really transformative like u seem to hope. i have no idea if that translates to a better QoL cause that kind of a marginal impact doesn't really mean the current goods inherently produce 10% more QoL than what was produced before.
literally
u stupid neoliberal cuck
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm more familiar with California than Australia. I just know Australia formerly had a similar system, reformed it, and seems to be managing alright. You can't convince some lefties to let people have long, powerful showers and quick dishwashers; they revel in the virtue-signalling self-denial.
You're right, I'll add the ping group to my previous comment.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i'm sorry how has it actually benefited?
austrialia still has fairly strict water use restrictions when it comes to residential ... so it didn't exactly solve that aspect.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A few possibilities:
(1) The government/politicians like being "green" and won't uncap residential usage even if water is more abundant now.
(2) The current reality is the good outcome, and the alternate reality is an Atlanta-style water crisis.
(3) The reforms only targeted commercial use of certain major (but scarce) supplies, having little effect on residential needs.
I genuinely don't know, but this seemed to be a good (if long) explanation of how the markets work and why they're considered a success: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332764964_The_Australian_water_markets_story_Incremental_transformation
I'm not nearly as much an expert on Australian water reform as the situation in California. I just know it's often touted as a template for California by people who seem to have sensible judgment about other policies.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that was mostly an explanation of what rather than why, but i can summarize the why with:
several neoliberals clap themselves on the back for vaguely correlating events with talking points
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Also, consider reading why the markets are considered successful. It just takes skimming the link I shared:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
that's literally what i'm referring to u tard
for example: the first sentence is literally try to claim "a bunch of ppl participate in our forced water allocation scheme, plus the numbers went up" implies "strong user support"... as opposed to people just dealing with a system they can't otherwise ignore
fricking neoliberals wouldn't know voluntarism even if it took a giant dump in their mouth
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
You ration resources through prices.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
neoliberals love taxes now, eh?
who even has the right to charge others over water?
and why should i be taxed to use something i exert energy to pump out of the ground?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You don't need to tax it. Just stop subsidizing it.
The owners of the water. Duh.
Gas should be free.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
so people who have free access to it? like what we already have?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i'm not really sure where u were going with that attempt at an analogy...
but right now people own rights to pump out as much water as as they are able to,
and you want to coercively take that from them,
so then sell it back from some other entity who doesn't pay for water ... ?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's not how it works.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
those are words
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context