> when someone needs something to survive, the market stops working because the value is infinite to them
No, that's precisely the situation where markets work best: when resources are scarce. A single gallon of water isn't worth much to a data center or a farmer; you can't water a field with just one gallon. But it's potentially worth a lot to someone who's thirsty. Prices will go up, demand will drop, and supply will increase to meet demand, unless you kneecap that process by imposing artificial price controls - then you'll have shortages.
> you can have people who need it but are too poor to pay what others will pay for it
You're right, markets are not charities; they're only concerned with efficiency. Caring for people who can't take care of themselves isn't efficient, but it is the right thing to do. Even in this situation though you're better off with markets than without them, because it's way easier for people, organizations, and governments with excess resources to provide for the needy when they're operating in an efficient environment than in an inefficient one.
> If someone [...] buys all the water
That's called a monopoly and I agree that's not good, because if one person owns/controls everything it's no longer a free market; you're essentially back to central planning. Individuals and data centers should be able to buy their water in a competitive market, not one dominated by a single supplier.
> It also doesn't work when the product is common use, like a road or a park
Markets are actually great at allocating things like road space. NYC's congestion pricing is doing wonders for the efficiency of their road system right now, and tolls have been a thing basically forever. But I agree in principle it's hard for markets to allocate resources that there's no practical mechanism of charging for. Thankfully, water generally doesn't fall into that category.
> No, that's precisely the situation where markets work best: when resources are scarce. A single gallon of water isn't worth much to a data center or a farmer; you can't water a field with just one gallon. But it's potentially worth a lot to someone who's thirsty.
1 gallon might be worth nothing to a datacenter, but the datacenter is built and a company invested in it and it can't go unused. They will pay more to keep that datacenter open than the local who needs it to drink. It doesn't matter how much the local needs or wants the water, if they don't have the money, how are they going to out bid a global corporation?
> You're right, markets are not charities; they're only concerned with efficiency.
Markets aren't concerned with anything, they are a means to an end. And they have appropriate uses and inappropriate uses. Not everything needs to be 'efficient' sometimes things should be 'just' or 'humane' rather than 'efficient'
> Markets are actually great at allocating things like road space. NYC's congestion pricing is doing wonders for the efficiency of their road system right now
That isn't a market, that is a tax.
Look, markets are great, but I don't get this quasi-religious adherence to one mechanism amongst many as the be-all-end-all of solutions. It is good at some things, bad at others. Ayn Rand was just an author.
> Not everything needs to be 'efficient' sometimes things should be 'just' or 'humane' rather than 'efficient'
You ignored the second part of my paragraph. It's far easier to be humane when operating in an efficient system than an inefficient one.
Even a multi-billion dollar datacenter can and will go unused if the price of water to cool it gets high enough. If keeping that datacenter running is somehow so important to larger society that it's actually more efficient to airlift in water from across the country to supply coolant than to shut down the datacenter (extremely doubtful), then that's exactly what should happen, and it's exactly what the market will make happen unless you interfere.
If unstable market prices result in temporary, unacceptably inhumane conditions for other people, then the most efficient solution is certainly going to be to work within the market-based system to help those people (e.g. subsidize the cost of water to residential homes until prices stabilize), not to override the system and prevent that (apparently extremely valuable) datacenter from being constructed in the first place.
> > NYC's congestion pricing
> That isn't a market, that is a tax.
People are freely choosing to exchange their money in return for a service. That's a market. Not a perfectly free market since NYC roads are a local monopoly, but closer to that ideal than the previous system of "free roads".
> Look, markets are great, but I don't get this quasi-religious adherence to one mechanism amongst many as the be-all-end-all of solutions.
Markets are more than just great, they've proven themselves time and time again to be nearly unbeatable in their ability to create wealth and allocate resources efficiently.
Markets are based on the collective decisions of millions of people taking billions of factors into account to create the most efficient outcome for everyone. None of us have any hope of beating that with our own naive takes on what "seems best". Anytime we interfere we're making everyone poorer in the service of whatever other goal we're trying to achieve, so we better be darned sure it's worth it.
> It's far easier to be humane when operating in an efficient system than an inefficient one.
Why no reverse it though? First, look out for people, then figure out efficiency.
> If unstable market prices result in temporary, unacceptably inhumane conditions for other people, then the most efficient solution is certainly going to be to work within the market-based system to help those people
Why are you so obsessed with efficiency? What is wrong with being a little inefficient if it means that people aren't even 'temporarily' in inhumane conditions. And if they were 'unacceptable' you wouldn't accept them.
> People are freely choosing to exchange their money in return for a service.
As stated in the wikipedia entry for Congestion pricing in New York City:
"This Pigovian tax, intended to cut down on traffic congestion and pollution, was first proposed in 2007 and included in the 2019 New York State government budget by the New York State Legislature."
> Markets are based on the collective decisions of millions of people taking billions of factors into account to create the most efficient outcome for everyone.
> Why no reverse it though? First, look out for people, then figure out efficiency.
Because the empirical result of that sort of thinking every time it's been tried on a national scale is widespread poverty where nobody is able to help anyone because everyone is starving. You need to have wealth in the first place in order to give it out to the needy.
> What is wrong with being a little inefficient if it means that people aren't even 'temporarily' in inhumane conditions.
You're misinterpreting my comment. You'd obviously step in to help people before conditions become temporarily inhumane. All else being equal, the more efficient (read: less wasteful) solution is the better one.
> This Pigovian tax
Taxes and markets aren't mutually exclusive. Carbon credits, for example, are another type of market-based tax.
> > Markets are based on the collective decisions of millions of people taking billions of factors into account to create the most efficient outcome for everyone.
> So what?
So read the rest of the paragraph after that sentence.
> Because the empirical result of that sort of thinking every time it's been tried on a national scale is widespread poverty where nobody is able to help anyone because everyone is starving.
You think that keeping corporations from buying local resources needed for citizens has consistently resulted in everyone starving? I'd love to see that empirical data.
No, I'm saying that "that sort of thinking", where you naively design your economic systems around "First, look out for people, then figure out efficiency." rather than "efficient systems first, then work within those systems to help people" when taken to its logical conclusion and "tried on a national scale", is communism. Communism always sounds like such a great idea to people who think they know better than markets, but it consistently results in everyone starving, or at least being in abject poverty, every time it's tried at scale.
"keeping corporations from buying local resources" is a much weaker application of the same philosophy which will cause significant harm on a smaller scale for much of the same reasons, but probably not enough to impoverish a whole country unless combined with too many other policies based on that same sort of thinking.
> No, I'm saying that "that sort of thinking" ... is communism.
Wow, you really fell for the propaganda. There is a huge middle ground between 'free market solves all problems' and 'communism'. I suggest looking into it.
> "keeping corporations from buying local resources" is a much weaker application of the same philosophy
The philosophy that property rights should not be more important than the basic needs of people to live may be 'a much weaker version of communism' but so is 'a corporation shouldn't be able to dump toxic waste wherever they please'. If you are so extreme that you think that leads to full blown communism then I don't think we have anything in common that can be discussed.
Now you're blatantly ignoring my argument and attacking a straw man. The position I'm expressing: "efficient systems first, then work within those systems to help people" is a middle ground.
You asked why not reverse the order of that and design economic systems around helping people first, and efficiency as a secondary concern. I'm pointing out that the reductio ad absurdum conclusion of that logic is communism, which we know empirically isn't good at being efficient or at helping people. Your position is flawed.
Regarding dumping toxic waste; that's an externality which needs to be accounted for by taxes or regulations in order for the market to function properly. We already talked about that. See: NYC's congestion pricing, carbon credits, and that Wikipedia article you previously linked on Pigouvian taxes.
No, that's precisely the situation where markets work best: when resources are scarce. A single gallon of water isn't worth much to a data center or a farmer; you can't water a field with just one gallon. But it's potentially worth a lot to someone who's thirsty. Prices will go up, demand will drop, and supply will increase to meet demand, unless you kneecap that process by imposing artificial price controls - then you'll have shortages.
> you can have people who need it but are too poor to pay what others will pay for it
You're right, markets are not charities; they're only concerned with efficiency. Caring for people who can't take care of themselves isn't efficient, but it is the right thing to do. Even in this situation though you're better off with markets than without them, because it's way easier for people, organizations, and governments with excess resources to provide for the needy when they're operating in an efficient environment than in an inefficient one.
> If someone [...] buys all the water
That's called a monopoly and I agree that's not good, because if one person owns/controls everything it's no longer a free market; you're essentially back to central planning. Individuals and data centers should be able to buy their water in a competitive market, not one dominated by a single supplier.
> It also doesn't work when the product is common use, like a road or a park
Markets are actually great at allocating things like road space. NYC's congestion pricing is doing wonders for the efficiency of their road system right now, and tolls have been a thing basically forever. But I agree in principle it's hard for markets to allocate resources that there's no practical mechanism of charging for. Thankfully, water generally doesn't fall into that category.