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.
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.
Some of the outcomes are literally "more crops grow," dumbass. Have you considered having less idiotic stances? Or does your platform peak out at "neolibs bad"?
There are citations for the claims if you want to follow them (but you won't).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
it says higher gross domestic product, not "more crops". it doesn't actually give a figure (cause like how would you separate it's effect from just progress in general???). and again that could just mean more cash crops which doesn't necessarily mean more actual societal benefit is getting created.
if this shit was voluntary wouldn't need to enforce it. liberalism in general self-defeating trash.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It says "gross product," not GDP. That's referring to crops and manufacturing, and a later point specifically called out almonds.
The relationship between irrigation and crop yield isn't a mystery.
There are citations for the claims if you want to follow them (but you won't).
It's not a controversial position that these water markets improved economic output in Australia.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
confirmation bias tends not to be all that controversial when it comes to the religion of economics.
yeah i'm not digging thru 3 papers to find trace elements he lifted. how about you do that.
i mean as if ca agriculture hasn't been dynamic and shifting for the past 2 decades either?
gross product measured in dollars, not literally amount of crops grown. "high value" sources are considered better by economists treating it like a black box... that really doesn't mean they are lowering prices for most ppl, because it could just be redistributing production towards goods for the rich few, or export. markets don't really give a shit about the masses. it's not charity.
so far you haven't listed any hard numbers. cause u don't actually care to.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I care about growing the economy, not your commie goalposts. Read the cited articles if you want to know why there's consensus that it was good, how that was determined, and the hard numbers backing it. I'm not going to do a writeup on a country/state I don't know well when all you'll do is demand more every time I post. !anticommunists !neolibs
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