Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on July 26, 2018, 07:09:46 am
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/magazine/the-water-wars-of-arizona.html
I had read about depletion of aquifiers before, but I thought that there was some kind of sane management in place. After reading this, I really don't think that's the case at all. Arizona has been ATTRACTING water-draining agriculture businesses even as their taps run out.
These types of stories sound like leftist parodies of capitalism. All centrists need to take notice and remind our populist brothers, sisters and nonbinaries that THERE IS A SWEET SPOT OF POLITICS BEEN HUGO CHAVEZ AND TRUMP. Business can thrive, and social order can be funded with efficient and responsible government, without identity politics pushing everything else out.
-
Business can thrive, and social order can be funded with efficient and responsible government, without identity politics pushing everything else out.
WTF? The problem in Arizona and other dry southern states is they have too little capitalism when it comes to water. i.e. they refuse to put a price on water and let it be consumed too cheaply - especially by big agricultural users.
-
Government price control=capitalism?
I ll take it.
-
Government price control=capitalism?
Collective resources like water need to be managed by a government monopoly. This requires some price regulation but variable pricing based on consumption is absolutely necessary.
-
Maybe they should stop pissing away their water on golf courses.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/09/28/phoenix-golf-courses-use-more-water-than-anywhere-else-in-us/72957908/
-
WTF? The problem in Arizona and other dry southern states is they have too little capitalism when it comes to water. i.e. they refuse to put a price on water and let it be consumed too cheaply - especially by big agricultural users.
Price on water, what is next for the capitalists, a price on each breath we take?
-
Price on water, what is next for the capitalists, a price on each breath we take?
If you don't want to pay for water then put a barrel out to collect it when it rains. If you expect someone to build an maintain a distribution network then you should expect to pay for it. Not putting a price on a finite resource only encourages waste. That said, each person could be granted a free allotment and people only need to pay for consumption in excess of their allotment. That should be enough to address concerns about people not being able to afford it.
-
If you don't want to pay for water then put a barrel out to collect it when it rains. If you expect someone to build an maintain a distribution network then you should expect to pay for it. Not putting a price on a finite resource only encourages waste. That said, each person could be granted a free allotment and people only need to pay for consumption in excess of their allotment. That should be enough to address concerns about people not being able to afford it.
Water is not actually a finite resource, but we do tend to misuse it in many ways. Of course a system that delivers it to your kitchen tap has to be paid for, but lets not water our lawns at noon when the sun is beaming down.
-
Collective resources like water need to be managed by a government monopoly. This requires some price regulation but variable pricing based on consumption is absolutely necessary.
*Hardner checks his watch wondering when the Capitalism part arrives*
-
Maybe they should stop pissing away their water on golf courses.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/09/28/phoenix-golf-courses-use-more-water-than-anywhere-else-in-us/72957908/
READ THE DAMN ARTICLE. It's worse than that. In an area where water is precious they started growing pistachio trees using a torrent of water every minute.
-
Price on water, what is next for the capitalists, a price on each breath we take?
READ THE DAMN ARTICLE
-
Water is not actually a finite resource, but we do tend to misuse it in many ways. Of course a system that delivers it to your kitchen tap has to be paid for, but lets not water our lawns at noon when the sun is beaming down.
IT'S AN AQUIFIER - READ THE DAMN ARTICLE JESUS WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.
I would love to have the time to read the site all day but I am back in slave mode.... treasure your board time people.
-
Water is not actually a finite resource, but we do tend to misuse it in many ways.
Supplies of potable water are always finite. Annual water shortages occur even in rainy Vancouver because the demands of the population exceed the capacity of the reservoirs that are only filled during the winter.
-
READ THE DAMN ARTICLE
Can't, wants money. Maybe I am not the only one.
-
Price on water, what is next for the capitalists, a price on each breath we take?
So pistachio farmers and golf courses should be allowed free access to water?
-
Can't, wants money. Maybe I am not the only one.
oh jeebz... I forgot about paywall. Yes I subscribe to NYT :(
-
Over the previous decade, the price per pound for pecans and pistachios has roughly doubled, driven largely by demand from China. But those nuts, like almonds, require an exorbitant amount of both water and capital to farm. An average orchard can cost more than $20,000 an acre to clear and raise, in part because the trees don’t bear nuts for five to 12 years. In the valley, where land is a fraction of the price of California’s, the principal cost for nut farmers is water. During sapling years, trees consume only about two acre-feet of water a year but grow to require as much as six acre-feet when mature, among the highest of any crop. To ensure a consistent supply of water from an aquifer already plummeting deeper every year, farmers often drill a well every 160 acres, each to a depth of at least 1,000 or 1,500 feet. One farming conglomerate, expanding from Minnesota, bought or drilled 293 wells, some pumping more than 2,000 gallons a minute.
Suddenly, the very qualities of the valley that had nurtured generations of family agriculture — its cheap ground, its lack of groundwater regulation — seemed to threaten its existence. In the span of a few months, Intent to Drill notices increased almost fivefold, as Chase Farms and the National Pecan Company, two of the largest pecan growers in the world, bought and consolidated several thousand-acre farms. Soon, tree-nut orchards blanketed about 20,000 acres, forcing the state to put a six-month moratorium on new farms. (Today, there are 35,000 acres of tree nuts in the valley.) The groundwater had created, as local farmer Ted Haas put it, “a gold-rush mentality,” which in the next five years yielded a dozen new vineyards, as well as 20,000 acres of corn and wheat and 16 greenhouses for NatureSweet Tomatoes, the country’s largest producer. As yearly water consumption doubled, the sands and gravels within the aquifer began to shift and collapse, causing the elevation to sink more than 15 feet in places. About 50 miles of earth fissures ruptured the surface of the valley, even splitting a major highway in half.
To Seitz, the farmers’ arrival seemed like a blessing at first. “There’s more outside money moving in, and it’s great for the area,” he said. “That’s good for the John Deere dealership. I’m in the crop-consulting business — if I sell product, it’s good for me. It’s good for irrigation companies.” But a few weeks after the community meeting, Seitz sent a concerned email to 15 of his clients and business partners. “We need to get together and figure this water thing out,” he wrote. As more farms arrived and more families lost water, Seitz had come to realize that the boom was “good for the area on one hand, but we’re still shooting ourselves in the foot.” Most of the recipients were, like Seitz, prominent local farmers who owned modest, family-run acreages with long legacies in the valley.
-
Because the "government=bad" idea is so entrenched, they can't get it together to push for some kind of sane management. Meanwhile the lobbyists (they don't really think government is bad as long as they do what they say) are still getting new developments approved.
This, to me, is the flip side of deficits increasing because no one is paying attention to the economy. Government is most at risk after a period of success, when people stop paying attention and it gets corrupt.
-
Because the "government=bad" idea is so entrenched, they can't get it together to push for some kind of sane management. Meanwhile the lobbyists (they don't really think government is bad as long as they do what they say) are still getting new developments approved.
And I do not care in the least. The more farms and developments the better. Not just in Arizona but the in the desert of California. I also don't care that Las Vegas continues to grow.
One day in the not that distant future, they will all run out of water, and then all those millions of people will bleat about 'how did this happen!?" and I will laugh at them as they abandon their homes and pools and head to cooler climates where there is water, leaving behind glorious empty cities in the desert and all the abandoned farms that used to surround them.
If you ignore the realities and don't vote, or continue to vote for people who ignore the realities, then you get what you deserve.
-
So pistachio farmers and golf courses should be allowed free access to water?
Can't put a price on water, just like you can't put a price on carbon. That is anti-capitalist.
-
Can't put a price on water, just like you can't put a price on carbon. That is anti-capitalist.
Water should be a right.... for the individual. For a corporation, they need to pay the true price of the resource.
-
Water should be a right.... for the individual. For a corporation, they need to pay the true price of the resource.
A clean safe supply of water costs money, it just doesn’t appear out of your tap. You will pay for it one way or another.
-
READ THE DAMN ARTICLE
You post really long articles.
-
You post really long articles.
:P
-
A clean safe supply of water costs money, it just doesn’t appear out of your tap. You will pay for it one way or another.
No ****.... ::)
-
No ****.... ::)
I don’t think society has an obligation to provide people with water regardless of where they decide to live, any more than it is to provide electricity or gas.
-
Water should be a right.... for the individual. For a corporation, they need to pay the true price of the resource.
First, no one has a right to compel other people to give them free stuff so no one has a right to water piped to their home. Second, the distinction between corporations and people is not meaningful. What matters is consumption. People and corporations should pay for that. If a corporations can't afford it they should not be indirectly subsidized with free water.
-
I don’t think society has an obligation to provide people with water regardless of where they decide to live, any more than it is to provide electricity or gas.
So you'd be fine with privatizing water resources then? Like gas and electricity?
-
So you'd be fine with privatizing water resources then? Like gas and electricity?
I don’t see it as one or the other. In BC, electricity is provided by a crown corporation, gas by a provincially regulated private company and water by the city.
If you want to live a couple of miles off the existing grid, Hydro is not going to run lines just for you at their expense. The same should apply to water.
-
I don’t see it as one or the other. In BC, electricity is provided by a crown corporation, gas by a provincially regulated private company and water by the city.
In 2016, BC also implemented a groundwater licensing requirement, a change for commercial operations that previously could simply drill a well for their water needs. Domestic households are still able to have free wells, but even small commercial operations and hobby farms now have to licence and pay for the water they take from aquifers. Domestic users are encouraged to register their wells, though they are considered to have a "right" to water.
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/water/water-licensing-rights/water-licences-approvals/new-requirements-for-groundwater-users
-
I know a dairy farmer who has access to a river running through his property. He uses that to irrigate his fields but because he can’t take a chance with water quality for his milk, his cows only drink city water. I think he said his water bill was around $30,000 a year.
-
I don’t see it as one or the other. In BC, electricity is provided by a crown corporation, gas by a provincially regulated private company and water by the city.
If you want to live a couple of miles off the existing grid, Hydro is not going to run lines just for you at their expense. The same should apply to water.
So you’d be OK with water service being privatized? Or no?
-
So you’d be OK with water service being privatized? Or no?
If a municipality is large enough to support a public system, that maybe the best way to go but I don’t see a big problem with a private system as long as it is regulated like other public utilities. The fact is, we have both. We have a recreational property where we operate and share our own water and sewer system with a bunch of other properties. We have friends who live in a rural subdivision on Vancouver island who all operate and share their own well and pumping station. Those are private systems.
-
If a municipality is large enough to support a public system, that maybe the best way to go but I don’t see a big problem with a private system as long as it is regulated like other public utilities. The fact is, we have both. We have a recreational property where we operate and share our own water and sewer system with a bunch of other properties. We have friends who live in a rural subdivision on Vancouver island who all operate and share their own well and pumping station. Those are private systems.
If the water source in the scenario you describe is a well, they may require licensing by the province. My understanding of the Water Sustainability Act is that a well is considered domestic if it serves one household, based on the estimated draw from the aquifer one household would need. If a well is serving multiple households the draw on the aquifer
may go over the annual upper limit designated for domestic use. When I worked in that business line, there were a couple similar situations come up and aquifer draw was considered key in deciding whether it was domestic use or required licensing.
In the short term, it won't matter if someone's well is registered or licensed or not; the province doesn't have either the resources or interest In tracking down non-compliant wells; currently, registering and licensing wells is essentially voluntary. In the longer term it could matter very much because in the case of a water shortage, access to water via a well will be determined based on the "date first use". The date of first use is based on the date the well was registered or licenced.
BC implemented this legislation in an attempt to manage aquifer water and in anticipation of climate change and increasing drought and perhaps avoiding a situation such as the one in Arizona.
-
Can't put a price on water, just like you can't put a price on carbon. That is anti-capitalist.
I think Tim presents a reasonable argument here. If industrial users of water had to pay a fair market rate for water, water-wasting enterprises like almond and pistachio farms and golf courses would become a lot less financially viable and would start disappearing. If these outfits had to pay a fair market price for water, they'd probably switch their enterprises to something that's a heck of a lot more water-efficient. (one wonders why Tim doesn't feel the same way about putting a price tag on people pumping pollution into the air, but that's a different thread.)
How many times in recent years have we read about some outfit like Nestle being able to pump out almost unlimited volumes of water for some tiny nominal fee because they bought water rights from some native tribe in the 1950s for $24 and some beads?
-k
-
If the water source in the scenario you describe is a well, they may require licensing by the province. My understanding of the Water Sustainability Act is that a well is considered domestic if it serves one household, based on the estimated draw from the aquifer one household would need. If a well is serving multiple households the draw on the aquifer
may go over the annual upper limit designated for domestic use. When I worked in that business line, there were a couple similar situations come up and aquifer draw was considered key in deciding whether it was domestic use or required licensing.
In the short term, it won't matter if someone's well is registered or licensed or not; the province doesn't have either the resources or interest In tracking down non-compliant wells; currently, registering and licensing wells is essentially voluntary. In the longer term it could matter very much because in the case of a water shortage, access to water via a well will be determined based on the "date first use". The date of first use is based on the date the well was registered or licenced.
BC implemented this legislation in an attempt to manage aquifer water and in anticipation of climate change and increasing drought and perhaps avoiding a situation such as the one in Arizona.
They are licensed and the water quality is checked periodically by the local authority.
-
one wonders why Tim doesn't feel the same way about putting a price tag on people pumping pollution into the air, but that's a different thread.
I have never opposed a carbon tax in principle and am generally in favor of consumption taxes. The question of whether a carbon tax is an effective tool for reducing CO2 emissions is another question for another thread. Many of the same issues come up with water pricing. i.e. the Arizona economy depends on tourism and if it could be shown that golf courses are an important driver of tourism then subsidized water could be justified. But saying that water would be priced and subsidies granted on a case by case basis is a lot different than saying big industrial users should be given water for free by default.
-
Water rates where I live.
Residential, commercial and institutional $1.24 per cubic meter
Industrial & Agricultural $1.12 per cubic meter.
-
How many times in recent years have we read about some outfit like Nestle being able to pump out almost unlimited volumes of water for some tiny nominal fee because they bought water rights from some native tribe in the 1950s for $24 and some beads?
-k
I felt that way too, and then talking to spmeone who helped design the BC Water Sustainability Act who is also a staunch environmentalist provided some explanation. In addition to their water usage rate, Nestle also pays a high licence fee; even though the rate charged on their water usage is low, the total amount is high; they do employ quite a few people directly as well as indirectly; they spend a lot on their physical infrastructure - not just to build, but also maintain it, and they also provide information on the aquifer through their reporting requirements. Putting them out of business locally through high water usage fees would not be in the best interests of the BC economy. Of course, whether these benefits outweigh their potential impact on aquifer levels is perhaps a matter of opinion, but the information this person provided to me suggests its a little more complicated than what what they pay in water usage fees.
In Arizona the situation seems to be a little different, at least from the bit I read, in that the oversight of water use is essentially non-existent. In BC, and I believe in Ontario, there is much more active oversight. Again, how much this does or will help is perhaps debatable.
-
I have never opposed a carbon tax in principle and am generally in favor of consumption taxes. The question of whether a carbon tax is an effective tool for reducing CO2 emissions is another question for another thread. Many of the same issues come up with water pricing. i.e. the Arizona economy depends on tourism and if it could be shown that golf courses are an important driver of tourism then subsidized water could be justified. But saying that water would be priced and subsidies granted on a case by case basis is a lot different than saying big industrial users should be given water for free by default.
Your carbon tax question was answered in BC for one instance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/business/does-a-carbon-tax-work-ask-british-columbia.html
-
Price on water, what is next for the capitalists, a price on each breath we take?
There’s a price on land, labour, food, clothing, education, and healthcare. So a price on air isn’t far fetched.
-
I pay for water, you pay for water, and even if you operate your own well you still pay the cost of purifying your water. I'm not sure how the idea that having to pay for water is some sort of dystopian nightmare got started. Industrial scale users should definitely pay for water. People should also pay for air that they render unbreatheable. Taxing airborne emissions (whether industrial or tailpipe) should be a no-brainer policy.
-k
-
People should also pay for air that they render unbreatheable. Taxing airborne emissions (whether industrial or tailpipe) should be a no-brainer policy.
"Pay to consume" and "pay to pollute" are two very different policies that should not be conflated. "pay to consume" makes sense when a resource is finite and demand exceeds supply. The price becomes a mechanism for rationing and this is the rational behind water pricing. Such a rational would never apply to air.
"pay to pollute" only comes up when simply banning the pollution is not economically viable and politicians think that putting a "price" is a magic wand that can make eliminating the pollution viable. The real world is rarely that simple and politicians end up setting a "price" that too low to change anything because setting it higher would have too large a negative effect on economic activity.
"pay to pollute" schemes are simply government manipulation of the market and are really the opposite of "pay to consume" schemes which leverage the free market.
-
"pay to pollute" only comes up when simply banning the pollution is not economically viable and politicians think that putting a "price" is a magic wand that can make eliminating the pollution viable. The real world is rarely that simple and politicians end up setting a "price" that too low to change anything because setting it higher would have too large a negative effect on economic activity.
Do you think that making it more expensive to pollute is a reasonable step? Some kinds of pollution can't be banned, but putting a price on them would at least give producers an incentive to find ways to reduce it. Cost is usually the only incentive we can provide using public policy.
-k
-
Do you think that making it more expensive to pollute is a reasonable step? Some kinds of pollution can't be banned, but putting a price on them would at least give producers an incentive to find ways to reduce it. Cost is usually the only incentive we can provide using public policy.
It is a reasonable thing to do from the perspective of public policy (at a minimum it is a source of revenue for government). I am only objecting to the false equivalency between "pay to consume" and "pay to pollute" policies. They are very different policies. More importantly, "pay to pollute" policies have nothing to do with a free market. They are simply a way for government to regulate the market.
-
"Pay to consume" and "pay to pollute" are two very different policies that should not be conflated. "pay to consume" makes sense when a resource is finite and demand exceeds supply. The price becomes a mechanism for rationing and this is the rational behind water pricing. Such a rational would never apply to air.
"pay to pollute" only comes up when simply banning the pollution is not economically viable and politicians think that putting a "price" is a magic wand that can make eliminating the pollution viable. The real world is rarely that simple and politicians end up setting a "price" that too low to change anything because setting it higher would have too large a negative effect on economic activity.
"pay to pollute" schemes are simply government manipulation of the market and are really the opposite of "pay to consume" schemes which leverage the free market.
Not sure why you keep referring to air and water as finite resources. Shortages of water for instance are created by us when we plunk populations down in the middle of deserts and then **** away tons of what water is there greening up a golf course, or ten. And you should maybe have a look at how the carbon tax in BC works. Less emissions, revenue neutral.
-
Not sure why you keep referring to air and water as finite resources. Shortages of water for instance are created by us when we plunk populations down in the middle of deserts and then **** away tons of what water is there greening up a golf course, or ten. And you should maybe have a look at how the carbon tax in BC works. Less emissions, revenue neutral.
1) I never said that air was finite;
2) The amount of potable water flowing into a region per year is finite. That is why rainy Vancouver has water shortages in the summer;
3) BC emissions are rising again. The initial drop was more likely due to 2008 crisis than any tax policy;
4) The BC carbon tax is no longer revenue neutral;
-
1) I never said that air was finite;
2) The amount of potable water flowing into a region per year is finite. That is why rainy Vancouver has water shortages in the summer;
3) BC emissions are rising again. The initial drop was more likely due to 2008 crisis than any tax policy;
4) The BC carbon tax is no longer revenue neutral;
!. Air is no more finite than is water. It's the misuse of the latter and the pollution of both by us that causes the problems.
2. see #1
3. The tax was implemented in 2008 and was successful in cutting emissions and was revenue neutral for at least 8 years. And it could be again as long as governments don't tamper.
4. see #3
-
!. Air is no more finite than is water. It's the misuse of the latter and the pollution of both by us that causes the problems.
2. see #1
3. The tax was implemented in 2008 and was successful in cutting emissions and was revenue neutral for at least 8 years. And it could be again as long as governments don't tamper.
4. see #3
"Fake News"™
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/08/BC-Carbon-Tax-Failure/
“The reality is that since 2010, B.C.’s GHG emissions have increased every year; as of 2013 they are up 4.3 per cent above 2010 levels,” Lee writes on the CCPA website.
Even on a per capita basis, emissions have risen.
“We see the recession-induced drop in 2009 and 2010, then increases from 13.5 tonnes per person in 2010 to 13.7 tonnes per person in 2013,” Lee says.
-
"Fake News"™
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/08/BC-Carbon-Tax-Failure/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/
B.C.'s tax, implemented in 2008, covers most types of fuel use and carbon emissions. It started out low ($10 per tonne of carbon dioxide), then rose gradually to the current $30 per tonne, which works out to about 7 cents per litre of gas. "Revenue-neutral" by law, the policy requires equivalent cuts to other taxes. In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.
But how Donald Trumpian of you to call anything that refutes your ideas as "fake news".
-
<thread drift>
-
I pay for water, you pay for water, and even if you operate your own well you still pay the cost of purifying your water. I'm not sure how the idea that having to pay for water is some sort of dystopian nightmare got started. Industrial scale users should definitely pay for water. People should also pay for air that they render unbreatheable. Taxing airborne emissions (whether industrial or tailpipe) should be a no-brainer policy.
-k
Do vs ought discussion. When nature is commodified, our humanity comes under the control of a select few who control those commodities.
-
Do vs ought discussion. When nature is commodified, our humanity comes under the control of a select few who control those commodities.
The issue is how to control it. It will be commodified but how to *try* to make the best decisions you can is the question. Single-sourced decision making is error prone. There will always be mistakes to make.
-
"Pay to consume" and "pay to pollute" are two very different policies that should not be conflated. "pay to consume" makes sense when a resource is finite and demand exceeds supply.
You are polluting a limited resource as well, they are 100% identical.
-
It will be commodified
They're commodified because as a society we've allowed these things to be commodified.
-
The issue is how to control it.
It is a classic resource allocation problem. How do you decide who could get access to how much of a limited resource? The options are:
1) Communist style central planning;
2) First come first serve;
3) Personal allowance + a price for consumption in excess of allowance;
1) and 2) lead to shortages and unfairness as the politically connected get unfair allocations.
3) forces users to decide if they really need the water on a case by case basis.
3) is by far the fairest system because each person can make the choice for themselves at a time when they need without some government official deciding for them or being forced to hoard water.
-
You are polluting a limited resource as well, they are 100% identical.
Nope. There is never a situation where allocating rights to pollute is desirable outcome. It only happens when there is no other choice. OTOH consuming water is not inherently undesirable. It is only problematic when demand outstrips supply.
-
They're commodified because as a society we've allowed these things to be commodified.
And what is the alternative? Some government bureaucrat handing out access to water based on the quantity of bribes paid? If a resource is limited there *will* be a price set whether you like it or not. The only question is if this price in on an unregulated black market or on a regulated public market. Seems to me the latter is better for everyone.
-
Do vs ought discussion. When nature is commodified, our humanity comes under the control of a select few who control those commodities.
For the vast majority of Canadians, the "select few" who control the commodity of water is a public utilities corporation that provides water at a very modest nominal fee.
Water from the lake or the river doesn't arrive become safe to drink for free, and it doesn't arrive in your tap for free. Our public utilities corporations are the best way I can think of to share the costs of purifying and distributing water. If you have a better idea, please share it.
-k
-
They're commodified because as a society we've allowed these things to be commodified.
Commodified as in exploited as in used en masse. You can do it without depleting it, like using Niagara Falls for power ?
-
3) is by far the fairest system because...
The rich win... like always.
-
To me privatized/water as a commodity means that it is administered privately for a profit. That is totally different than charging fees to residential/commercial users that recovers the costs of the infrastructure to get it to our taps safely.
The public water sources should never be controlled privately. It should always be regarded as a necessity run by a public utility that covers the costs through useage fees/taxes. Things like golf courses should be charged at a higher rate, since they are using the public water to make a profit for a completely nonessential pastime.
Of course, we have the bottled water industry, which is a different kettle of fish again. They should be charged appropriately for taking water out of the pool of water available to the public and it should only happen if it doesn't have any detrimental impacts to the availability of public water.
-
To me privatized/water as a commodity means that it is administered privately for a profit.
Makes no difference who administers the water they will always seek a profit. The only difference between public and private is with public the profits are given to unions where the taxpayer takes all the risk and provides all of the capital.
The public water sources should never be controlled privately.
Water has to be publicly owned but the infrastructure for distributing the water does not necessarily require public ownership. It comes down to a question of who can provide the best service.
-
The only difference between public and private is with public the profits are given to unions ...
Please provide citations for this and how it relates to water infrastructure and distribution.
On the face of it, this comment seems like a hyperbolic, ignorant comment. But I will keep an open mind until you provide your evidence.
-
They're commodified because as a society we've allowed these things to be commodified.
How do you use water without commodification?
-
Please provide citations for this and how it relates to water infrastructure and distribution.
I was refuting your assertion that government run entities are "non-profit". They are always for profit but the beneficiaries change. In the case, of government run monopolies the public sector unions are very good at extracting disproportionate benefits for their members at the expense of everyone who is forced to pay for the service. Are you really going to try an argue that government workers do not cost more than non-government workers?
-
I was refuting your assertion that government run entities are "non-profit". They are always for profit but the beneficiaries change. In the case, of government run monopolies the public sector unions are very good at extracting disproportionate benefits for their members at the expense of everyone who is forced to pay for the service.
So it's your contention that government is charging citizens a market price for water services that will maximize profits/returns? And these profits are going to unions?
You don't even understand what the terms "for profit" and "non profit" are even referring to in the case of government services. This is a really ignorant position that seems to stem from some anti-union stance that really has nothing to do with this topic.
Are you really going to try an argue that government workers do not cost more than non-government workers?
If the private sector could maximize profits from selling water to citizens, I would imagine those workers would be paid pretty damn well.... like tarsands well...
I also certainly don't want a private company trying to maximize profits by cutting back on... oh, water purification....
...or training for workers... let's skip the "how to make water drinkable" course for our workers... we can save thousands!
-
You don't even understand what the terms "for profit" and "non profit" are even referring to in the case of government services.
You don't understand that the 'profit/non-profit' distinction is meaningless semantics. If a service is provided people are paid. These people make a profit off the provision of that service. Whether the organization that provides the capital and takes the risk takes a share of the revenue does not change this.
What we want are organizations that are structured in a way to maximize public benefits. If private operators are involved the incentives must be set up in a way to ensure this.
I also certainly don't want a private company trying to maximize profits by cutting back on... oh, water purification....
You mean like in Walkerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak). oops, those guys were public servants who got and kept their jobs because of "seniority" rules.
-
I am baffled as to why the discussion is focused around infrastructure, when that has almost nothing to do with the groundwater situation.
-
You don't understand that the 'profit/non-profit' distinction is meaningless semantics. If a service is provided people are paid. These people make a profit off the provision of that service. Whether the organization that provides the capital and takes the risk takes a share of the revenue does not change this.
Good lord TimG! Nonprofit doesn't mean no one is paid... ::) Part of the costs to provide the service are wages.... Are you seriously this ignorant about profit vs nonprofit?
I noticed you ignored my question about whether you thought the public utility in charge of water is trying to maximize profits. Do I need to explain what maximize means?
What we want are organizations that are structured in a way to maximize public benefits. If private operators are involved the incentives must be set up in a way to ensure this. You mean like in Walkerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak). oops, those guys were public servants who got and kept their jobs because of "seniority" rules.
Walkerton is an excellent example of how a Provincial gov't lack of regulation and government oversight lead to a disaster. Good example.
-
Part of the costs to provide the service are wages.... Are you seriously this ignorant about profit vs nonprofit?
And wages are profits earned by workers. Are you seriously this ignorant about what profits are? There is no difference between the profit earned by a business owner and the profit earned by a worker. Both are compensation for time and money invested.
I noticed you ignored my question about whether you thought the public utility in charge of water is trying to maximize profits. Do I need to explain what maximize means?
Maximizing profits is not inherently bad if it leads to delivering better service at lower cost. The problem with publicly run organizations is bad incentives lead to worse service and higher costs. Whether the organization is public or private, the right incentives and regulations need to be in place.
-
You don't understand that the 'profit/non-profit' distinction is meaningless semantics. If a service is provided people are paid. These people make a profit off the provision of that service. Whether the organization that provides the capital and takes the risk takes a share of the revenue does not change this.
What we want are organizations that are structured in a way to maximize public benefits. If private operators are involved the incentives must be set up in a way to ensure this. You mean like in Walkerton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkerton_E._coli_outbreak). oops, those guys were public servants who got and kept their jobs because of "seniority" rules.
Good lord Tim, I'm glad you're not at the helm or we'd have as f'ed up a health care system as the US has since you don't seem to get the profit/non-profit difference. Do you think because a doctor gets paid well that he/she are paid out of profits?