High prices do two different kinds of parallel rationing. They ration the good to its higher marginal utility uses: people who need it more will be willing to sacrifice more for it. This is a good thing. They also ration the good away from the poor and towards the rich. This is not really a good thing.
How could, in general, one have the first but not the second? Ration a thing to high marginal utility uses, but ability to afford, income, social class should not play much a role?
My attempt: let the price go high, because it incentivizes production. But also subsidize a certain quota of it per person, roughly as much as the highest marginal utility use is (drink, one quick shower etc. calculate it). Make the quota sellable, transferable, because people will do it anyway on the black market.
I would expect the second effect to be small in practice with respect to water because of the small quantities involved. My demand for water for drinking and cleaning is inelastic within the relevant margins, and even large changes in the price of tap water would have minimal costs to me. My use of water for lawns would be more price sensitive, so green lawns in California would become more of a luxury good, and I am with James_Miller in seeing that as a good thing in the American Southwest. As you suggest, some sort of price tiering or progressiveness in municipal water costs would minimize effects.
The larger effect will be on those using large quantities of water, farmers. Which is the goal. We can discuss the plight of the poor farmer, but that quickly seems to become a cover for agribusiness lobbying rather than a targeted intervention for independent farms.
That makes sense on the object level (although I was more interested in the meta, as in how to think beyond econ 101, beyond the supply-demand curve).
I should add that there are grass fields here (Vienna, Austria) that nobody waters and they are green enough—granted, there is far more natural precipitation than in California, granted, they don’t look as nice as really “manicured” lawns, but they still look kinda grassy enough. The point is—probably it would be possible to find a different species of lawn grass that looks 80% as good but takes like 30% of the water. I suspect British lawn species may have been imported to Cali and that may not be such a good idea.
Because they’re human, and humans have a hard time imagining how very different conditions can be.
I know someone who had a hard time raising basil, which mystified me. What could possibly be hard about raising basil? You put it in a pot on a windowsill and water it when it’s looking a little limp and it grows.
My friend was living in Wales. Basil needs more sunlight than occurs naturally there.
Left to myself, I never would have believed that water boils at different temperatures in different places. It sounds like a practical joke, but there’s good physics behind.
High prices do two different kinds of parallel rationing. They ration the good to its higher marginal utility uses: people who need it more will be willing to sacrifice more for it. This is a good thing. They also ration the good away from the poor and towards the rich. This is not really a good thing.
How could, in general, one have the first but not the second? Ration a thing to high marginal utility uses, but ability to afford, income, social class should not play much a role?
My attempt: let the price go high, because it incentivizes production. But also subsidize a certain quota of it per person, roughly as much as the highest marginal utility use is (drink, one quick shower etc. calculate it). Make the quota sellable, transferable, because people will do it anyway on the black market.
I would expect the second effect to be small in practice with respect to water because of the small quantities involved. My demand for water for drinking and cleaning is inelastic within the relevant margins, and even large changes in the price of tap water would have minimal costs to me. My use of water for lawns would be more price sensitive, so green lawns in California would become more of a luxury good, and I am with James_Miller in seeing that as a good thing in the American Southwest. As you suggest, some sort of price tiering or progressiveness in municipal water costs would minimize effects.
The larger effect will be on those using large quantities of water, farmers. Which is the goal. We can discuss the plight of the poor farmer, but that quickly seems to become a cover for agribusiness lobbying rather than a targeted intervention for independent farms.
That makes sense on the object level (although I was more interested in the meta, as in how to think beyond econ 101, beyond the supply-demand curve).
I should add that there are grass fields here (Vienna, Austria) that nobody waters and they are green enough—granted, there is far more natural precipitation than in California, granted, they don’t look as nice as really “manicured” lawns, but they still look kinda grassy enough. The point is—probably it would be possible to find a different species of lawn grass that looks 80% as good but takes like 30% of the water. I suspect British lawn species may have been imported to Cali and that may not be such a good idea.
Good news—such a species does exist! It’s called “Astroturf”, and it requires even less than 30%.
Why is it some Europeans have a hard time imagining that not every place has the same climate as Europe?
Because they’re human, and humans have a hard time imagining how very different conditions can be.
I know someone who had a hard time raising basil, which mystified me. What could possibly be hard about raising basil? You put it in a pot on a windowsill and water it when it’s looking a little limp and it grows.
My friend was living in Wales. Basil needs more sunlight than occurs naturally there.
Left to myself, I never would have believed that water boils at different temperatures in different places. It sounds like a practical joke, but there’s good physics behind.
Letting market prices reign everywhere, but providing a universal basic income is the usual economic solution.