Being Fuckwitted over Water

[erudito]

I have posted before on the stupidity of water restrictions. But I received yesterday via snailmail a magnet poster for the fridge and a glossy pamphlet from the Victorian Govenrment on Permanent Water Saving Rules Now in PlaceIt tells us how precious water is, how water restrictions have conserved it, and gives us five rules to follow: use manual

Comments

Why water saving?

[curufea]

Surely petrol is a rarer and more valuable commodity - why aren't they instituting regulations on petrol usage? Mandatory car pooling or public transport use?

Re: Why water saving?

[erudito]

*chuckle* an excellent point.

And petrol is so much more expensive! Consider the poor people ...

Re: Why water saving?

[curufea]

But if you compare "things the government raises prices on" - then the nearest equivalent is cigarettes in my mind. Which actively kill their users.

Mind you, so does petrol-sniffing. And car accidents.

Bureaucracies, eh? Each department has no clue, and different policies on what other departments handle.

Re: Why water saving?

[erudito]

You have a very limited idea of things governments increase prices on.

Try houses. Or jobs.

Some departments aren't so bad. And a politician always ultimately signs off on it.

[madewithplastic]

It seems to be a symptom of our governments these days that they address the symptom and not the cause. (no, I promise not to degenerate into Frank speak) The "war on terror" for instance, rather than trying to figure out why people are angry enough to choose to take their own lives as well as those of others, they think they can shoot them before they do too much damage. I suspect it's got a lot to do with the competitive nature of "democracy". If our politicians stopped to think and actually focussed on what needs to be done rather than constantly attempting to shame the other party we might end up with some more permanent solutions. Also darthbessie's always been of the opinion that they need longer terms to actually get things done, all the "worst" dictators we've seen, Hitler, Mussolini, whatever, they all had several years to do what they wanted without needing to worry about being voted out, so they made remarkable social changes to their country... But then made the mistake of killing lots of people. And at that point I leave the topic

Incentives

[erudito]

a symptom of our governments these days that they address the symptom and not the cause
A 'solution' which ameliorates but does not solve a problem provides bureaucratic careers forever.

A 'solution' which really is, doesn't. What do you think governments will generally end up doing?

Re: Incentives

[madewithplastic]

Getting overthrown?

Re: Incentives

[erudito]

*chuckle*

[andricongirl]

you do need to educate the public. its no good charging more. you will end up with corporations owning water which should be free as the air we breathe

Hip pocket nerve

[erudito]

Nothing educates the public like the hip-pocket nerve.

Water should absolutely not be free, because it is not infinite and how much we use matters.

Corporations supply food, drink, housing, clothing. That seems to work quite well (indeed, a great deal better than getting govt to do the same). And I actually want corporations, like everyone else, to pay the real scarcity value of water.

Re: Hip pocket nerve

[andricongirl]

i dont agree with the financial incentive way

Re: Hip pocket nerve

[erudito]

Oh, there a major problems with privatising water, which is why private water management on long-term contracts is generally as far as people go. But I don't see what is so magical about water -- food is a basic human necessity too, and shelter and clothing come close. Profits are about having good incentives for efficient provision. Just as loss is about discouraging value-destroying activity.

And I have lived on a low income with little money, indeed, fairly recently. But the notion that prices only affect people on low income is demonstrably false. And, as I said, I am happy for rebates for low income people.

One of the (many) problem of water restrictions is that they are inherently unfair -- the diligent obey them and the feckless don't. Prices are inherently fairer.

[thebaronmk1]

Actually the State Governmewnt is being remarakably pro-active about encouraging people to install water saving appliances in their houses with extensive rebates being available to all consumers who choose to fit these systems.

Check out :http://www.savewater.com.au/default.asp?SectionId=630&ContentId=674

I think there is quite good balance between regulation and encouragement - even for business.

No

[erudito]

Actually, that's a really dumb way of doing it (though I wil concede less dumb than not offering such rebates).

"This thing is underpiced item, so we will make it even more underpriced if you install water saving devices".

Just more unnecessary complication which still underates water scarcity and provides an insufficient incentive structure. And the rebates are govt set prices for actions: I'm sorry, they have a really bad record for very good reasons.

Price water properly. Give rebates to low income households. Simple, effective: much more effective, indeed.

Re: No

[catsidhe]

Actually, that's a really dumb way of doing it
Only if given that water must be expensive. If access to water is a human right, then your argument becomes less tenable. Instead of everyone having access to water, your method would introduce more beaurocracy to keep track of who is elegible for rebates or not, and those who fall foul of that beaurocracy and don't have the resources to fight miss out. Don't even try to pretend it wouldn't happen. Privatising water would even more egregious, as people who cannot afford their inflated water bills would simply be cut off, and alternative supplies would be made illegal. This is not a hypothetical argument, it has happened, and is worse than I could have invented.

Education, instead, has inculcated a sense of the worth of water far deeper than mere money can do. Even wealthy people are loath to obviously waste water, where if the disincentive was purely economic, then large swimming pools and hosing down the driveway become status symbols of conspicuous consumption. You may not believe the

Re: No

[erudito]

Rebates take a lot less bureaucracy than the complicated arrangement of regulation and enforcement we have now.

And of course farmers should pay proper prices. I do mean everyone.

Your point about cultural factors just means that Australians will respond more strongly at lower prices. Australia's drought history no doubt is a factor.

Water is no more a 'human right' than food, shelter etc are. Water is a resource, and should be priced accordingly.

Simplicity

[erudito]

The great thing about prices is they are simple, have built-in incentives and apply to everyone