You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Douglas_Knight comments on California Drought thread - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: SanguineEmpiricist 07 May 2015 06:44PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (90)

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 07 May 2015 10:16:49PM 10 points [-]

I agree with most of that, but I think it takes it too far. The bread lines in the Soviet Union were due to the need to hide the favoritism, while the special farmer prices are explicit and lots of favoritism to farmers is well-known. And while farmer political power drags out the process, I don't think it's the main culprit. This is largely the legacy of a system designed for a different environment, where water was not a binding constraint. Switching systems when a commons becomes oversubscribed is very difficult.

I don't see any central planning in California. Yet, I would say the two situations are similar for a different reason: the bakers and the farmers don't really own the resources that pass through their hands. However, the Soviet Union had the advantage of a working black market, while the California farmers are basically just wasting water, in the hope that a maintaining their quota will lead to a larger payout when the system shifts.

Comment author: Lumifer 08 May 2015 12:14:32AM *  7 points [-]

The bread lines in the Soviet Union were due to the need to hide the favoritism

Hide? I don't think the fact that party apparatchiks didn't stand in those lines was a secret to anyone.

the legacy of a system designed for a different environment, where water was not a binding constraint.

I think you're factually mistaken. Water rights were always a big deal in the Western US precisely because water is the binding constraint in a lot of places. All the special water rights, the quotas, etc. reflect the system which always recognized that water was precious and in short supply.

I don't see any central planning in California.

No? source:

Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday imposed mandatory water restrictions for the first time on residents, businesses and farms, ordering cities and towns in the drought-ravaged state to reduce usage by 25%. ... The reduction in water use does not apply to the agriculture industry.

and more:

environmentalists ... have forced the state to abandon critical water-storage reservoir projects to avoid disruption of wildlife and ecosystems. But that's not all they've done. They also divert 4.4 million acre-feet of water every year — enough to supply the same number of families — to restore water runs such as the San Joaquin River, allowing passage of salmon and other fish. Without paying a dime, environmentalists have taken control of nearly half of California's water.

If I am a farmer, can I buy water on the open market?

And the system is stupid, too. As far as I know some farmer water quotas are "use it or lose it" -- if you don't draw the water allocated to you this year, your quote will get reduced next year. Any guesses as to the consequences?

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 08 May 2015 01:06:38AM 2 points [-]

The wealth of party members was obvious, yet still it was important not to explicitly mention it.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit