Water Rationing

[yialanliu]

If prices are allowed to move up and down, you will not have water shortages. In addition, I strongly suspect the free market will find a way to provision water at a lower cost than the government is able to, just like the free market has done with every other commodity.

This is wrong.

It has been proven many times. For instance, in China, the end of the coupon system of rice and food lead to a major increase in price. Free market made things much more expensive.

With regards to education quota. I believe that people should have equal access to college. This means if people in the cities score higher, then they should go. Your argument would lead to an affirmative action of sorts based on location right? However, that can't be made feasible due to the fact that in China, everything is based on exams from entrance exam into elementary, middle and high school. This means people in rural areas might be going to schools in the city due to their ability from day 1 of their schooling. Because of this situation, I don't think you need affirmative action.

Next, because cities like Shanghai have provisioning that allows for high able students from other provinces to goto Shanghai for schooling and subsequently take the Shanghai Gaokao and be a part of Shanghai quota, it reduces the number of high achievers in the "poorer" provinces and moves them to Shanghai. So obviously Shanghai would then need a higher quota.

[gato]

With regards to education quota. I believe that people should have equal access to college. This means if people in the cities score higher, then they should go.

I guess I misunderstood you when you suggested raising the "quota" for Shanghai students. Raising the quota, to me, would mean lowering the admission standards for Shanghai students. But if you are suggesting that everyone should have the same admissions standards, then I would support that.

The current situation is the admission standard for students with Shanghai and Beijing hukou is much lower than for other cities. It's much easier for those with Shanghai hukou to get into Fudan and those with Beijing hukou to get into Beida and Tsinghua. The difference in admission scores between regions is harder to see now because each province and municipalities started administering their own admission tests several years ago. The difference in entrance scores between regions had become too glaring.

http://gaokao.chsi.com.cn/gkxx/ss/200702/20070204/772209.html

南方周末：高考移民拷问高考

2007年02月04日 14:14

2002年全国高考各省录取分数线：以文科重点为例，北京462分，上海497分，新疆490分，青海445分；而山东568分，河南562分，浙江560分。北京与山东等地相差100分左右。

●据教育部消息，2003年全国有527万考生参加高考，预计录取率为52％。但北京、上海、海南、新疆等地预测录取率都超过70％。由此，海南、新疆等地再次就成为高考移民挺进的重地。

http://blog.china.com.cn/qiugx/art/2484044.html

消除高考招生地域歧视何以举步维艰？

“北京、上海几乎所有的重点大学都优先招收本地学生，以高分数线将外地学生拒之门外。我上海的母校也“与时俱进”，50％以上招收的是上海本地学生，复旦大学本地生源超过63％，从全国各地招收的不足37％。教育的‘地方割据’使许多内地青年感叹：中国似乎不再是我们共同的家园。”

http://news.cctv.com/society/20080402/103921.shtml

在2004年，北京大学在北京地区招收380人，清华大学在北京地区招收360人；而同年，北大在河南招收72人、贵州招收32人，清华也差不多。“河南 省人口是北京的8倍，贵州省人口是北京的3.36倍。”徐友渔教授说，“也就是说北京考生考上北大的概率是河南的60倍，贵州的34倍。”

北京之外的部属高校也存在严重的地域歧视问题，招收本地学生要远远高于其他地方。比如地处上海的复旦大学在上海的招生计划占了总招生计划的40%，湖北武汉大学招收本地生占总招生计划的50%，浙江大学招收浙江省的考生占总招生计划的70%等。

既然是教育部直属院校，本应服务于全国人民，为什么会产生“招生地域歧视”呢？全国政协委员、复旦大学历史地理研究所葛剑雄教授谈了自己的观点。

“比如我是复旦大学的教授，原来复旦大学招的学生没有那么多上海人，‘文化大革命’前，上个世纪60年代以前最多是福建人，因为那时候福建高考分数全国第一，但是为什么近年来，从10%扩大到40%呢？”葛剑雄教授说，“就是因为实行共建，这样主管部门给复旦大学拿6个亿，上海也拿出6个亿，这样就要提高本地招收的比例，否则钱为什么给你。武汉大学、浙江大学也受这样因素的影响。”

[studychinese]

This is wrong.

It has been proven many times. For instance, in China, the end of the coupon system of rice and food lead to a major increase in price. Free market made things much more expensive.

This is ridiculous. If you needed more rice than available under the coupons you have, then you can't buy rice, right? Can't buy rice at any price. How is that 'cheaper' than free market rice.

This reminds me of the story of the butcher selling beef. A customer came to the butcher and said "I want to buy your beef, but I don't want to pay the $5 a kilo that you are charging. The other butcher down the street is only charging $1 a kilo". So the butcher asks "Why don't you buy it from him?". The customer replies "Because they have sold out". The butcher says "When I have sold out, I will charge $1 a kilo too!".

What is the point of 'cheap' water if you come home from work and find that water does not come out of the shower? You can have all the cheap stuff you want, only you will find it is never available.

[skylee]

Re university admission standards, why do universities lower their requirements for local students? Don't they want the best students? Wouldn't this potentially affect the quality of their graduates (some people would say that the quality of the entrants is not as important as the value-added, but this is not the main point of my question)?

[Silent]

It is quite simple. Under the free market water would be available. If mother nature could not provide it, entrepreneurs would process it from the sea to make fresh water. And the best system of rationing is the system of prices.

Nonsense, no entrepeneur is going to build a desalination plant only to provide during an extreme drought that happens once in a 100 years.

It is quite simple. Under the free market water would be available. If mother nature could not provide it, entrepreneurs would process it from the sea to make fresh water. And the best system of rationing is the system of prices.

Actually this kind of crap is what may happen in a free market. A product is hyped, long queues ensue and in the end people get disappointed. The same thing happens over and over again in all kind of forms in the free market. From concert and theatre tickets to electronics like xboxes, ipods etc. This happens when products are introduced, when 'special offers' are anounced. It happened with the Tulip mania and in the internet bubble. The free market is not a solution for shortages and disappointment.

[icebear]

Actually this kind of crap is what may happen in a free market. A product is hyped, long queues ensue and in the end people get disappointed. The same thing happens over and over again in all kind of forms in the free market. From concert and theatre tickets to electronics like xboxes, ipods etc. This happens when products are introduced, when 'special offers' are anounced. It happened with the Tulip mania and in the internet bubble. The free market is not a solution for shortages and disappointment [in luxury consumer goods?!].

I think our opinions of how savvy consumers and investors are, and thus how much benevolent wisdom they require from the government, are diametrically opposed. As such I don't think this discussion is worth pursuing any longer.

[studychinese]

Silent, if there were a proper pricing system, things would not get to the stage where there was no water, even during 'extreme drought'. The droughts are not extreme as governments say. They are blamed for the government being unable to provision the water to the populace.

[studychinese]

I think icebear has the right idea. I don't know how to argue with someone that claims that shortages in a government run monopoly can be the fault of the free market.

[Silent]

I think our opinions of how savvy consumers and investors are, and thus how much benevolent wisdom they require from the government, are diametrically opposed. As such I don't think this discussion is worth pursuing any longer.

I don't think that our opinions are diametrically opposed. Just like you I don't see much benefit from excessive government intervention. Nevertheless I feel a clear set of rules has to be in place and enforced by a government. A raw free market without enforced rules isn't a solution either. That would result pretty much in the same as an overregulated market. Namely one or a couple of large parties that control the market.

[Silent]

Silent, if there were a proper pricing system, things would not get to the stage where there was no water, even during 'extreme drought'.

No price can only fix limited shortages. If water is spilled in large quantities and consequently there are shortages, yes, price can help to fix this. If everyone is at a ration needed for survival and there are shortages price ain't going to fix that. If all the drinking water comes from one or two sources and those sources get polluted due to an accident no pricing system is going to fix that.

I don't know how to argue with someone that claims that shortages in a government run monopoly can be the fault of the free market.

??? I don't know where you get this idea? You claim the free market fixes everything. That's just not true!

Edit: to add, if you feel that a proper pricing system is fixing all shortages, then explain me how this would work out for a region of say 50 million people that depend on one river for drinking water and that river get heavily polluted and can't provide drinking water for a couple of weeks.

[xiaocai]

Living in a wealthy, vibrant downtown metropolitan area is not a right.

There are many things people in some countries enjoy which are not right, but their governments put out their effort to make sure these resources are available to all their citizens as equally as possible. Maybe having affordable clean water supplied to one's home is not a right either, but I would be more happy with a government which focuses beyond satisfying only the basic needs of its people.

National Geographic had a special issue on water in 2010, while not giving much further explanation, it shows that many governments have been deliberately keeping the price of fresh water lower than the expected "market price". It says that "Many people believe we'd conserve more if rates were higher-and the cost is generally rising around the world. The question remains how to make clean water affordable for the poorest citizen."

[imron]

If there is a water shortage in Melbourne

There isn't a water shortage in Melbourne *now*, because we've had two years of very high rainfall, but two years ago water came quite close to running out.

As a consumer, I don't want to (and nor should I have to) compete against industry and agriculture for the price of water, because I will lose out every time due to the fact that for the largest consumers of water it's easier to bear the cost of a price increase than it is for them change the way they use water (i.e. using grey water in industry when potable water is not a requirement, using drip irrigation in agriculture and so on). In these situations I don't have a problem with some amount of government regulation to ensure that I don't have to move elsewhere in Australia just to have water in times of drought.

I strongly suspect the free market will find a way to provision water at a lower cost than the government is able to

I strongly suspect that in a completely free market with little government regulation you'd see the same thing that happened in the banking industry.

[Silent]

Maybe having affordable clean water supplied to one's home is not a right either, but I would be more happy with a government which focuses beyond satisfying only the basic needs of its people.

I completely agree with the point you try to make. But there are two important points of discussion in this statement.

1) What needs and wishes should the government provide for?

2) In what way should the government provide in the needs and wishes?

I think few would argue that people are not entitled to safe water for basic needs. The issue in point 2 is far more complex. The government can take up a monopoly and provide the water itself. The government could leave it to a completely free market and 'donate' money to the poor to buy it. Or something in between. I feel that both the extremes are indesirable. A government monopoly gives very little incentive for efficiency and to provide quality (real quality like safety, but also reliability of supply). In a truely free market that requieres significant investment to enter there will be so much manipulation that you'll end up with a monopoly or cartel with pretty much the same issue's as the government solution with on top of that a group of people that make extremely handsome profits from it. IMHO the best solution is at the middleground. A commercial market that produces and sells within a framework of rules and regulations setup and enforced by the government with a money transfer to the really poor so that they can enjoy at least basic needs (and won't revolt).

What the rules and regulations should be is open for debate. I think it at least should contain some rules about the minimum amount of competition and some quality assurence to make sure there's no (big) mismatch between what is promised and what is supplied. For basic needs additional rules may be needed to make sure that the product or service is available for everyone in a reasonable amount at a reasonable price. For water you may think about spare capacity, storage capacity, the diversity of independent sources etc. If you're consistent it would also imply that one should be able to choose the delivery options. For utilities this would imply multiple grids imho an (near) impossible hurdle for new entrants to the market. Out of the box solutions like private watertanks or battery packs for electricity may exist but would still provide a big hurdle. That's imho why so many governments struggle with utilities it's virtually impossible to enter the market due to the investments. Also competition on quality is impossible if everything has to be transported through the same grid.

[yialanliu]

With regards to Education.

Every province have their own tests so I don't see how a comparison of scores make sense. That's like comparing SATs with ACTs with the BACC. Good luck making a comparison between those tests without any error. It's funny how biased the article is since it doesn't mention Jiangsu, the 2nd or 3rd hardest province to get into college tied with Sandong and Zhejiang. Do you know why? That's because the score of 310 is enough for college. Want to know why they weren't included? The max score is only 450 or something. But obviously they can't compare it right because then the argument would be mute. So this statistic is obviously biased and doesn't show how the Shanghai score comes from a different max then the other provinces. That's like your trying to tell me an ACT 30 = SAT 30...With that established, why can you compare the others? Each province have their own ways of testing and until you know how it directly correlates, then please don't just look at raw scores.

Next, with regards to location based quotas. Why is it that in the US we never complain if UCLA or UC Berkeley has easier requirements for California students than for out of state? The reason is because it's a public school designed for the local students. Well, here's the deal, it's the SAME in China. Public schools are funded in part locally from lcoal taxes so why shouldn't they take more students from the local area? Why complain about Fudan but not Xinjiang University or Zhejiang University taking a huge number of locals that greatly outnumber the 60% that you are seeing. PKU for instance takes only at most 20% Beijingers. So these cities provinces are actually being more fair.

Also, part of the reason for different scores is due to Chinese affirmative action for minorities. Hence why the West also seems to have lower scores because if your a minority(mostly located in the Wesstern Provinces), you can get upto 50 freebie points that's added directly to your score. So a Xinjiang 490 would then compete with be considered a 540.

Anyways, you can't remove the quota without removing provincial testing. And since not all universities are administered by the coutnry level government, then it doesn't make sense since the great majority of colleges are at the lower levels of government so a local test makes sense since it affects a much larger proportion of the students. the quota is used as a tool for comparison..

What is the point of 'cheap' water if you come home from work and find that water does not come out of the shower? You can have all the cheap stuff you want, only you will find it is never available.

Couponing means everyone gets some. It's not as dramatic as you make it out to be.

Each person's allotment of rice was huge. Most people couldn't finish their allotment of rice during the nonfamine years. Of course, some things were more limited, however that was because of the limitations of agriculture. China could feed everyone but not with meat as 1kg of beef takes 8kg of corn. And 8kg of corn for a human is a lot more filling than 1kg of beef. The reason for coupons was to mantain good living standards when other countries aren't willing to export to China agriculture ie. the US(the number 1 exporter of food in the world).

So if you want to be dramatic then please call the US the reason for these coupons. Remember, from 1949 to 1969, the average life expectancy went up 20 years. It was so high that a plot of GDP to life expectancy has China way out there. A part of this was due to the barefoot doctors but another part was due to the fact that people aren't starving anymore.

Next, what do you mean you can't buy any rice at any price? If the cost of rice is the cost of a human being, do you think money can buy a human life? Remember if you buy the rice intended for someone else that other person is going to starve and die. Your argument rests on the notion that I can buy a human being's life. In a situation where food is just enough to feed everyone I think if you buy more and starve someone else, the government has a right to limit it.

It's always a Western view of a free market for everything. Yet it doesn't always work and when the US was rationing no one complains(WWII) but when China did it we complain. Great hypocracy.

[skylee]

Regarding education,

The reason is because it's a public school designed for the local students. Well, here's the deal, it's the SAME in China. Public schools are funded in part locally from lcoal taxes so why shouldn't they take more students from the local area?

I think this makes sense. I started a relevant thread last year -> 高考分數

[abcdefg]

It's not my intention to trigger another heated, wide-ranging infrastructure debate. Just wanted to give a brief update on the Kunming water situation.

We have had some late spring/early summer rains, but people in the know say the water reservoirs are still critically low. Apparently, even if we get normal amounts of rainfall this summer (peak months are usually July and August,) we still won't be out of the woods until next year.

Some apartment locations in the city have encountered severe water restrictions, but most people have not been affected terribly much. I live in an old low rise building, and we have reduced pressure, but have had no actual water outages.

Here's a link with more discussion of the situation:

http://www.gokunming...water_rationing