1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/16602/ted-talk-how-the-market-keeps-streams-flowing/

TED Talk: How the Market Keeps Streams Flowing

April 22, 2011 by

There are tens of thousands of miles of streams and rivers in the United States that have been “dewatered,” largely from excessive siphoning for agriculture. Regulations have had at best, no effect. Fortunately, Rob Harmon helped develop a free market solution that is returning water to stream beds that have been dry for 100 years.

{ 6 comments }

Peter April 23, 2011 at 5:43 am

And here’s the link for those that can’t view it via Hulu:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rob_harmon_how_the_market_can_keep_streams_flowing.html

Great example of the free market in action!

Colin Phillips April 24, 2011 at 3:02 am

Thanks.

Naro April 23, 2011 at 8:57 am

I don’t understand why a brewer or anyone else would pay somoeone in another state to protect their water. If I pay them to protect the water, do I then have access to it? How long does the payment protect it for?

BioTube April 23, 2011 at 2:38 pm

It’s an image issue – the system described is unworkable in the long run, but could be the catalyst of true reform.

Donald Rowe April 23, 2011 at 9:11 am

Good as far as it goes. But that is hardly far enough.

The first owner has a windfall due to an imperfection in the current paradigm of the free market. That flaw eliminates an important market result, that of directing a scarce resource to its most efficient use. Each resource, as it moves from the “unowned” to the owned realm skips that “side effect” of the free market process. In the case of land, it occurs once and soon is forgotten. In the case of water usage rights, it happens continuously with each and every drop of water that falls from the sky. Pennies from heaven, if you own the rights, dues paid to the devil if you don’t.

We can create a better paradigm.

Eric Parks April 23, 2011 at 9:30 am

I think it’s a good start toward better solutions and a good segue into the benefits of property rights for those people who are inclined to reach for their sickle and hammer as the chosen tools to handle such nuanced problems – problems which most of the armchair environmentalists probably didn’t know existed. How many knew about all of those dried up rivers and streams? Also, how many were willing to admit that such conditions were the result of the rigid inflexibility of law? One more: How many really believe that some NEW law wouldn’t benefit special interests over the, ahem, proletariat?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: