note: since the 1970s, forcing an increased reliance on groundwater. Australia’s aquifers are being drained at unsustainable rates, but Perth is now actively replenishing them by pumping 10% of its treated wastewater into shallow aquifers that naturally filter and store the water until it is needed again. This process of augmenting freshwater supplies with treated wastewater, called Indirect Potable Reuse. could be crucial to futureproofing urban water supplies. In 2018 recycled water use increased in most urban centers and although no city directly uses treated wastewater as tap water, Perth has considered it.
Australia seems like the country of "what could possibly go wrong" I feel like every time i hear about them its because the government did something without fully considering the longterm consequences or safeguarding against bad actors.
I’m an Australian farmer who uses this system. Overall this video does a pretty good job but it does conflate a couple of issues. The main one is that over extraction is not related to the water market as the government decides each year what percentage of entitlements are received each year based on how much rainfall there has been. The other is that floodplain harvesting is regulated in most of Aus and is in the process of being regulated in the remaining areas. Also water that is harvested from flood plains is not able to be sold in the water market as you are not allowed to let water that has been collected for irrigation back into the river due to contamination concerns.
Yeah uh corruption. You're obviously a good ethical farmer, you're awesome farmers are beyond under appreciated, thankyou. However not every farmer is like you and it is beyond easy to game this system.
Also fails to address the concern that you can’t just let people take as much water as they want from a river that runs through their property in Australia. There would be nothing left in the river for the farmers further downstream. Our land to water ratio is just not like other countries/continents
do you buy the entitlement once and then get to sit on it forever or does the entitlement only last for a certain amount of time after which you have to re-buy it?
@@charleslambert3368 you can buy water on either a temporary or permanent basis. If you own permeant water each year the water authority will tell you what % of your allocation you are allowed to extract. This allocation may go up through the year if there is enough rainfall in the catchments. You are allowed to carry 20-30% of your allocation through to the next year if you don't use it otherwise you forfeit any amount you don't use. If you own permeant water you can sell your allocation to other users on the temporary market. In this case the water must be used by the end of the year. The price of permeant water is fairly consistent as it has a long term return where as temporary water fluctuates wildly depending on rainfall each year.
Just need to point out: this is only valid for the Murray-Darling Basin, /not/ the whole country. There are smaller but much less significant water marketrs in other parts of the country.
Ah, that makes sense. Naturally, it's a good old case of the westernmost state (or, two-thirds, or more in this case) of the country being ignored when talking about the entirety of the country. ...which, admittedly, in a brief semi-educational RUclips video, is fair enough and certainly a better explanation than me not knowing about something so important that directly impacts me.
Dear HAI editors, the repeats of stock footage clips are amazing and I look forward to them tremendously. I, too, find the man throwing his laptop into the sea hilarious and more than worthy of a rewatch. Also that clip of a man with blue eyes and curly hair looking extremely unimpressed and making dubiousness gestures, I always get a kick when I spot that one. Sincerely, a loving fan.
There's this one popular stock footage clip, although I've never seen it on this channel, it's an open file cabinet with manila folders, and one of them is labeled in handwritten ink "miscellaneous". And I swear to God, the handwriting is identical to my own. It's creepy as Heck.
It really shocked me when I went to Bourke NSW as a teenager. The sheer size of the water storage reservoirs used to grow cotton out there (basically the edge of the desert) is insane.
That sounds reasonable if they can't count on getting water from anywhere else. Their best bet may be to figure out how much water they have at the start of the growing season and plant accordingly.
@@WyvernYT the unreasonable part is growing a crop like cotton that uses massive amounts of water right next to the desert in a country that regularly has serious droughts that will only get worse due to climate change.
@@Caxacate Cotton is actually the best crop to grow if you have irrigation water in these regions. It suits the boom and bust cycles, it is the highest return for a short season crop. Many of these irrigators grow a crop for 2 years and then sit and wait for the next flood in 5 years time. Other crops like oranges, almonds have a HIGHER water use than cotton and need to be irrigated every season
Prior usage water rights function similarly to an open water market, in practice. Large landowners may derive the entire value of their property from their prior usage rights, which they will auction off year-to-year. The problem with this system is that it encourages wasteful use of water if you already have the rights and aren't planning on auctioning the water off. It also means that agricultural users pay several orders of magnitude less for water than most municipal utilities, so the water needed for sustaining human life (i.e. drinking and hygiene) subsidizes growing exportable cash crops like almonds and alfalfa. The other massive problem is that priority rights-holders have rights to the same volume of water even in dry years, so lower-priority rights-holders are required to eliminate their water use entirely before the priority rights-holders have to limit their use by a single drop. This often leads to over-allocation as individual rights-holders attempt to use more water than was actually delivered by storms that year based on their existing rights.
Yep, which is why the concept of private ownership of water is really fucking stupid. Ironically, this is how water rights function in the east of the US, but out west its all about water rights.
And I thought this video was going to be about the overuse of the Murray River for irrigation and other industry which has led to the mouth of the river sometimes closing up entirely due to lack of water and the area around the mouth and for MANY miles back upstream becoming a toxic unusable disaster area.
I was looking at satellite imagery on Google Maps of Australian cities and every time I’d see a river or pond I’d be confused and concerned about why it’s the colour that it was (I am from the PNW of Canada so it’s a pretty big difference from what I’m used to)
@@salamander405 Australian rivers tend to be brown, but that's perfectly healthy. Its partly the soil, partly the light. There's a pretty good line about it in All The Rivers Run.
@@salamander405we don’t normally get huge water flows, and I think our dirt and vegetation affects the colour, many rivers and creeks are very polluted though, especially if they run through urban areas, by farmland, or old mines. Our drinking water is absolutely amazing though, I live in Melbourne and we have some of the best water in the world, we’re super careful to make sure it doesn’t get polluted. Drinking water is usually collected into reservoirs and then piped to our homes, so it doesn’t travel through the river
to solve that, said upstream waters are just saying remove the barrier at the mouth of the Murray and just, let the sea flow back in there... which, i dunno
What you're describing as "floodplain harvesting" sounds a hell of a lot like what people in India and elsewhere are promoting as "Floodplain/groundwater restoration" - using a bunch of small dams to slow water down. Water that doesn't reach the sea frequently ends up seeping back into the soil and into groundwater aquifers that we have otherwise been rapidly depleting. Water rights are complicated and often dystopian; Western Water Rights in the US are basically designed to guarantee maximum exploitation, and in arid regions that brings eventual environmental devastation.
@@curiosity780I mean, you can always open the sluice gates and let some water through. It happens all the time in hydropolitical situations, where upstream dam owners are required to allow some water to go downstream. It's why Lake Mead has been depleting. They could easily fill that back up by not letting any water out through the Hoover Dam, but then everyone downstream would be screwed (and the dam wouldn't be generating any power either)
Floodplains aren't always a bad thing. When properly managed that can make it better for everyone, but a market is obviously not the way to manage that.
I thought the same, they really produce a lot of biodiveristy, but maybe they seal with some types of sands like bentonite and deny the aquifer replenishment.
May I recommend looking at two charts: Aquifer locations and depths Soil location and depths. One of the unique problems within Australia comes from how old the country is itself, one of the more stable regions considering. This doesn't just give us tiny mountains in comparison, but it means a lot of the 'good soil' had millions of years to be washed out to sea*. It also means the rocks underneath might not be as good at producing Aquifer as well. *As an Australian living in another country and gardening, the fact you have feet of soil before you hit clay is.... just, yeah, so much easier to dig over here!
There are limits to overland water harvesting in most parts of Australia, limits on size of dams, % of flow harvested, flood water level triggers on pumping etc. Those rules don't apply to a house roof though where you can do what you want in most areas.
@@GeeROOin most areas, it’s a legislated requirement that all new builds have rainwater tanks, with the tank size requirement increasing significantly once you leave the suburbs
The Australian constitution said no one could have control or ownership of any waterways, unabridged......but our gruberment over road / ignore it and sold us out ......again.
Australian here, who grew up on a farm. You buy entitlements but then regulators set allocation % each year, based on dam levels. There are also different types of allocations, such as normal and high security. During drought, water allocation can be set to 0% for normal security and some other % for high security. The government can do buy backs, but that’s usually for other uses that aren’t allowed for legislatively. As an example, some rivers have “environmental flow” to ensure ecological outcomes (which rarely works). Also, generally, depending on the state, things like captured water from rainfall can actually be regulated and licensed once the capture amount exceeds a certain amount. An interesting reference point is the NSW Government Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) which is the primary regulator for things like this in NSW, however other systems have other regulators, both in NSW and in other states, like with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which is a multi governmental statutory authority which regulates the Murray and Darling basin water system across NSW, SA and Victoria. Anyways, just some fun facts. And yes, Kangaroos are CrossFit rats.
Water rights in the US West are more complicated than that. There are a variety of restrictions over how you can collect water and what you can do with it, and a lot of the rights to water from rivers are indeed owned by corporations or individuals, and some of it is owned downstream of you, so you don't really have collection rights. If a significant stream runs through your property, and you live in a Western state, you probably aren't allowed to take most of that water for yourself. In Utah and Colorado, you don't even have the right to collect rainwater (though in Utah, you can collect up to 2500 gal, so it's not much of a restriction).
There are literally towns on the Murray river that have to get water shipped in because cotton farms upstream siphon off the water that would flow to them.
Well you can thank John Howard for the destruction by removing water entitlements from the title of the land but he allways was a sneaky little bastard
they could have gotten jobs as agricultural consultants nut they did some other things and all members of the civil service of executive rank and the 87% of the sitting members of the bill that voted for it have mining consultancy jobs because it pays better :(
Here's a most cited paper on the subject if your genuinely interested ewater.org.au/archive/crcch/archive/pubs/pdfs/technical200205.pdf oh and the federal government did nothing as a political reward for the Victorian labour party backing during fraises coup en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
Hey Sam, good job on this!! Even if a few details were a bit off, you clearly put in a lot of effort to understand a complicated topic, and I appreciate you.
On the flip side (as an Aussie), it seems crazy to me that Americans can't collect rain water that's fallen on their land. The floodplain example is obviously a bad extreme, but a lot of Australia isn't anywhere near a major river - without rainwater tanks a lot of rural communities wouldn't be able to survive, as most people have their own in dry areas that they can collect & use for free. Edit: I got schooled 😂 Didn't realise only Colorado & Utah had those types of rainwater restrictions - touché!
I'm not sure for industrial farming, but for individuals, it often depends on each municipality of harvesting rainwater legality. So even in the same state, a neighbor down the street technically in a different city or town may have different legal ability to harvest rainwater
I keep seeing this persistent myth and it is simply not true. Is it the case that there are some municipalities in the US where rainwater collection is banned during drought periods? Sure. But by and large across many states residents have the freedom to collect rainwater on their property. I’m tired of seeing this misinformation keep being repeated.
Environmental studies minor here: the US has 2 systems of water rights. Riparian rights are in the east where water is more plentiful. But out west they use prior appropriation and the rights can be bought and sold eg colorado and California.
Short-sighted government policies are what allow this sort of thing to happen; it's not an inherent feature of FMC. Put more sensible rules in place and FMC will balance accordingly.
@@Effisso Rules make the market not free, though. Hoarding and inflicting arbitrary amounts of societal harm for marginal personal gain are core tenets of the free market.
@@EffissoIf You have to add rules to it then it's no longer a "free market" isn't it? Every single economy is planned even the top companies in the world plan deeply their economies, why don't just plan it all to benefit the people instead of just a few millionaires, the evidence is clear, the disparity between de richest and the poorest increase all over the world.
I'm as an Australian economist who works on water. This video is wildly misleading and deeply flawed. There are so many problems, I don't know where to start. But the bottom line is that the Australian system has overcome what used to be a massive problem of massive water over-use, and dramatically reduced environmental impacts. This is in stark contrast to the United States. The water management issues for say the Colorado River are somewhat similar to those of the Marray-Darling River system, but whereas they are reasonably well managed in Australia, they are a complete mess in the US.
Hi, very rarely comment on you tube videos but this one whilst making some extremely valid points to Australia's MDB water market, has some misleading and inaccurate statements that should be further researched especially when considering the allowance of dams on properties and the ability to capture water on your property as you please. It also is incorrect wrt to how the US (Colorado River catchment at least) operates as they too have a water market but is based of first come first served (law of the land). It is definitely not as simple as your 5 minute video claims to be, and should be corrected if true and correct edutainment is what you are trying to achieve.
The US system of water rights isn't actually good. In drought-prone CA you have people and farms and cities who have no incentive to conserve water because they have senior rights and can just suck water dry, while other people and farms and cities just get boned. It's based on nothing other than "who was lucky 100 years ago" and it means that some very major cities get screwed because they happened to come later than some tinier city that happened to get founded much earlier. Rationalizing this kind of system with price signals (yes, introducing water markets) would be massively important to making things fairer and encouraging water conservation. Obviously you don't want speculative rent-seeking or hoarding behavior like what's mentioned here, but treating the US system as somehow better than what Australia is not accurate. (Pop quiz: almonds are notoriously water intensive to grow and yet are one of the main crops in drought-prone CA. Why is that? hint: has something to do with riparian water rights. Large farms with senior rights can suck all the water dry and screw everyone else and nobody can do anything about it because they have water rights that are more senior than actual cities where people live.)
Did you not read the asterisk in the video where the dry western half of the US uses a different system than the wet eastern half of the us? The US is not a monolith as pertaining to water rights.
@@darkfool2000 it's an irrelevant point because the things this video is so easily dumping on is actually a necessary reform to the mess of water rights. just bc australia effed it up doesn't mean market-signals on water use isn't very important.
It has nothing to do with riparian water right as they use wildly different system. In fact with this system water right is tradeable in open market so the market signal is there. That's precisely how they can suck up as much water as they want since by not selling those right to downstream user they can use as much water as they want. Market interest between cities and other downstream user trying to get as much water right as possible while because of shortage while at the same time upstream user doesn't want to not lose their water right for their cash crop as water is limited choose to keep their water right themself since they would no longer able to use those water their crop and have to pass it downstream. In the market where downstream user have shortage does mean that any water right that upstream cash crop sell mean they can't buy it back even if they need it (practically no chance downstream user going to sell it when they have growing shortage). To cash crop owner selling water mean very large one time income unlike cash crop which provide yearly income.
It would be interesting to hear this compared to the system used in parts of the US with water shortages, because from what I've heard it doesn't seem any better
Is this actually such a bad scheme though? It seems better than the American one with less wastage at least. I feel need to talk to some of the individual concerns that actually use water to have an opinion on it.
My favorite thing about Australia as an Australian is how you can't do anything without first acknowledging and respecting the traditional owners. Imagine if someone stole your land and killed most of your family. Then years later every time a game of football starts, a politician gives a speech or your middle school teacher is starting the day. Then those same people who've stolen and murdered now say WE WOULD LIKE TO PAY OUR RESPECTS TO THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE. So the same people who stole not only everything you had but also your future are now standing on what was once yours they verbally say they respect you but you won't be getting that land back. Imagine that happened to you, how do you think you would feel about it.
What’s even worse, is that the rivers that make up the Murray-Darling Basin flow through indigenous land, yet they aren’t entitled to that water. Despite water being a crucial component of their beliefs, and a violation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In the us, western states don't even let you own the rain. If you have more than two barrels (55 gallons x2) to catch rainwater off your roof you get in trouble.
I would not necessarily say that this is an example of a "free market," but rather a system whereby the Australian state is granting monopoly rights over natural resources. In general, classical economists believe that man should rightfully own that which he produces himself, but natural resources (or at least the **rent** of natural resources) rightfully belong to all of society. Free market advocates do not advocate for the monopolization of natural resources.
monopolies are an intended effect of the free market and a man owning what he produces is literally a fundamental building block of workplace communism
It's a market in the sense that those rights are traded. And while I agree with you in principle, I think the idea that "free markets are the only way to make things work" is fairly pervasive, as is the idea that anything anyone finds a way to own, however it was obtained, is theirs by right.
@@cooperised The question of who should rightfully "own" natural resources has always been fraught with controversy among classical economists, both because these resources are vital and scare, and because they are not produced by man's labor. I just think the video does a disservice by casting Australia's misguided, monopolistic water policies as an example of the "free market," which it most certainly is not.
Doesn't the government have any way to come in and say "Oh, yeah, this was stupid, we're rolling back these changes" or smth? Surely there must be a way..
I literally guessed before the video even started that, when it comes to the concept of water as a commodity, there would be at least one jab against Nestle. lmaoooo glad I wasn't wrong
Sam, seeing what some people are buying on eBay and Only Fans, you are missing an opportunity to sell your bath tub water. I am not one of those people.
You didn't really mention the reason Australia adopted this system: legacy property rights. Property owners would be pretty mad if Australia expropriated their water rights without just compensation and that would also harm future investment. They instead divied up water rights to existing landowners and made them tradeable so that downstream users could simply buy the rights to the amount of water they needed. It's probably not a perfect system, but the critics are just complaining without proposing any new system. Nobody actually has a better idea for how to handle water rights, they just complain.
So what? People should complain, it's not their responsibility to figure out solutions. In this case, it's the government's responsibility to figure out a better solution that satisfies more people.
Victoria almost sold their water supply after the 1980s recession. They sold their energy grid and their public transport system, corporotised the warter system like they did initially with the public transport system, restructured remnents of the works department into Melbourne Water and Parks Victoria, spent money massively valcanising the water supply to prepare for privatisation, but never sold it off. They can due to enabling legislation, but they haven't. But they were able to build the CityLink, a tollway which links the southeastern, southwestern and northern suburbs, which was previously a discontinuous set of bottlenecks stuffed up by the bankrupt previous government. (The public transport system collapsed again in 2002 and 2009 but in 2002 it was saved by renationalising most of the state carrier (who was owned by National Express who fled the country in debt), merging a bunch of franchises together, and creating a master franchise to bring all the ticketing stuff together into one colour-coded system, then by 2009 by firing (retendering and losing) the train operator (Transdev who also used to own the trams under a co-predecessor) again, building some extra railways, creating an e-ticketing system, and reforming the department in 2012. Transdev was almost nationalised in 2008 but the government was told they didn't have to.)
Boy I sure wish we'd re-nationalised rail that early in the UK. The Railtrack debacle could've been a great time. We're only really just starting to repair some of that damage, for both trains and buses, across the island. With ScotRail nationalisation and TfW for trains, and Manchester and Liverpool taking over their buses.
@@kaitlyn__L The Victorian public transport is still private including the suburban carrier, just the train arm of the state carrier V/Line isn't and there is now a big franchise managing it all as one unit. (except both authorities have recently been abolished behind the scenes and merged with the rebooted transport authority as part of infrastructure reform and booming)
I have been trying to discuss this Issue with other Australian's for the last 6 years, yet everyone either thinks it's a 'baseless' conspiracy theory, assume I'm stupid, or just....plain don't listen. Very few people thoroughly investigate the issue most, just, do not seem to listen or care.
Australians do not like funding investment projects. This is why the big Australian mining companies are listed abroad. The Aussies lose out when the dividends are repatriated abroad.
Rubbish. Most Australian mining companies are listed on the local stock exchange. In fact Australian companies own far more mines abroad than foreign companies own in Australia. Perhaps you should check things rather than just posting what you emotionally feel?
@@Dave_Sisson Come on mate, don't be so emotional. Who owns key Australian infrastructure? Darwin Harbour, for example, is Australia's only deep water harbour up north. But who owns it? The Chinese not Australia.
As someone who lives in a state near Arizona and keeps an occasional eye on the ongoing nightmare that's resulted in them effectively draining their aquifer and selling it off, I was already like "Oh no..." when I read the title. After watching the video, it's somehow even worse than I was expecting
Australia as a nation is more than the state of New South Wales. There are multiple states. The Commonwealth Government’s own documents note - ‘Australia’s most active water markets are in the MDB, accounting for 97 per cent of all allocation trade… and 77 per cent of all entitlement trade… ‘ so commentary in this video that the entire country has sold its water rights are not nuanced enough to properly explain the situation across the 6 states and two territories.
Trivia note: The U.S. game show The Amazing Race has been on for 35 Seasons, & they have traveled to Australia for 4 of them; 2, 4, 9, & 18 (which aired back in 2011).
The government controls how much water is able to be sold or bought. Arguably the government could stop the entire system next year if it wanted. however a minority of large farming organizations (ie. business people sitting in tall buildings in central Sydney) actively lobby the government not to change the system.
That proves what we have in Australia is NOT the free market. Under a free market, the big corps would lack the power to influence the politicians with bribes.
The water speculators are making a killing. Now the Federal Government is trying to pass legislation to prevent the speculators manipulating the water market.
The problem is that the water rights are not taxed. If the water rights were taxed at near 100%, then it would be impossible to make money speculating on it. Rights holders would only use as much water as they need and sell the rest, then there would be more available for everyone else. The problem isn't free market capitalism. The problem is private ownership of land, because land is not capital and shouldn't be privately owned. (Economically speaking, water is a type of land.) For more information, look up the ideas of Henry George and Georgism.
Capitalism is meant to harness the nature of animals which is to resource hoard (greed) and use it to convince them to compete against each other from a value added perspective, this is more and more difficult to have happen as jobs get more specified creating natural monopolies (port of Long Beach, ASML, DTCC, etc.) as well as utilities that we need to survive, when the profit motive is applied to utilities it is just extortion. Capitalism has its place, it just needs to stay there
@@RK-cj4oc sadly that's generally not the case. Even the USA, bastion of private ownership, you don't really own land. Don't pay the taxes on that land and you'll quickly learn who owns it. So really you rent exclusive (mostly) use rights through the tax system.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
"Man I hate when the value of my portfolio starts to shrink"
Inflation?
"No, evaporation"
Funny 👍
"Kangaroos, which are basically just rats that do crossfit" is my new favorite HAI quote
I'm an Aussie. He is 100% right
Sam’s just jealous a kangaroo is more swole than him
Why do you look at Kangaroos as " just rats " ??
note: since the 1970s, forcing an increased reliance on groundwater. Australia’s aquifers are being drained at unsustainable rates, but Perth is now actively replenishing them by pumping 10% of its treated wastewater into shallow aquifers that naturally filter and store the water until it is needed again. This process of augmenting freshwater supplies with treated wastewater, called Indirect Potable Reuse.
could be crucial to futureproofing urban water supplies. In 2018 recycled water use increased in most urban centers and although no city directly uses treated wastewater as tap water, Perth has considered it.
Please finish your comment
mf got shot mid typing💀
Bro got us hyped up for nothing
@@ГлебКоротков-ш4гHe came back to life to finish this comment
I think we should start a religion around him
Australia: today's beer is tomorrow's beer
Australia seems like the country of "what could possibly go wrong" I feel like every time i hear about them its because the government did something without fully considering the longterm consequences or safeguarding against bad actors.
yeah unless something is actively killing us (like bad food) people don't really seem to care
@@eris9062I heard mining companies keep releasing dangerous chemicals into the drinking water but lobby the government to keep the status quo
Hey, leave Kristen Stewart out of this!
One of the bad actors being the emus?
Australia is captured by natural resource exploitation corporations just like Canada.
I’m an Australian farmer who uses this system.
Overall this video does a pretty good job but it does conflate a couple of issues. The main one is that over extraction is not related to the water market as the government decides each year what percentage of entitlements are received each year based on how much rainfall there has been.
The other is that floodplain harvesting is regulated in most of Aus and is in the process of being regulated in the remaining areas.
Also water that is harvested from flood plains is not able to be sold in the water market as you are not allowed to let water that has been collected for irrigation back into the river due to contamination concerns.
Yeah uh corruption. You're obviously a good ethical farmer, you're awesome farmers are beyond under appreciated, thankyou. However not every farmer is like you and it is beyond easy to game this system.
...but the Shiny New Moose line did make me giggle.
Also fails to address the concern that you can’t just let people take as much water as they want from a river that runs through their property in Australia. There would be nothing left in the river for the farmers further downstream. Our land to water ratio is just not like other countries/continents
do you buy the entitlement once and then get to sit on it forever or does the entitlement only last for a certain amount of time after which you have to re-buy it?
@@charleslambert3368
you can buy water on either a temporary or permanent basis.
If you own permeant water each year the water authority will tell you what % of your allocation you are allowed to extract. This allocation may go up through the year if there is enough rainfall in the catchments. You are allowed to carry 20-30% of your allocation through to the next year if you don't use it otherwise you forfeit any amount you don't use.
If you own permeant water you can sell your allocation to other users on the temporary market. In this case the water must be used by the end of the year.
The price of permeant water is fairly consistent as it has a long term return where as temporary water fluctuates wildly depending on rainfall each year.
As the owner of 782 silver moose, Australia definitely didn´t make a mistake in selling the water.
Moose*
@@wilh3lmmusic they're their meese and they may call them what they wish
@@wilh3lmmusic Thanks, learned something new today. 😉
I own some moose and some cougars! Canadian Wildlife Series FTW! :)
The term "water market" is easily one of the most repulsive terms I've heard this week
Straight out of Mad Max.
Wait until you hear about Nestle’s CEO
Yeah, I mean, what else are they going to make into a market? Food? Electricity? Housing? Medical care? Oh wait, all of those are already markets
Even worse than the term "wet market"
@@EustatheWait until you learn that there's even a market for house pet's parasites ......
Just need to point out: this is only valid for the Murray-Darling Basin, /not/ the whole country. There are smaller but much less significant water marketrs in other parts of the country.
Ah, that makes sense. Naturally, it's a good old case of the westernmost state (or, two-thirds, or more in this case) of the country being ignored when talking about the entirety of the country.
...which, admittedly, in a brief semi-educational RUclips video, is fair enough and certainly a better explanation than me not knowing about something so important that directly impacts me.
@@lucasriddle3431there is so much wrong in this video it isn't funny. And it has a lot of great jokes...
Dear HAI editors, the repeats of stock footage clips are amazing and I look forward to them tremendously. I, too, find the man throwing his laptop into the sea hilarious and more than worthy of a rewatch. Also that clip of a man with blue eyes and curly hair looking extremely unimpressed and making dubiousness gestures, I always get a kick when I spot that one. Sincerely, a loving fan.
My personal favorite is the black man with the beard looking astonished.
There's this one popular stock footage clip, although I've never seen it on this channel, it's an open file cabinet with manila folders, and one of them is labeled in handwritten ink "miscellaneous". And I swear to God, the handwriting is identical to my own. It's creepy as Heck.
It really shocked me when I went to Bourke NSW as a teenager. The sheer size of the water storage reservoirs used to grow cotton out there (basically the edge of the desert) is insane.
That sounds reasonable if they can't count on getting water from anywhere else. Their best bet may be to figure out how much water they have at the start of the growing season and plant accordingly.
@@WyvernYT the unreasonable part is growing a crop like cotton that uses massive amounts of water right next to the desert in a country that regularly has serious droughts that will only get worse due to climate change.
@@nunwrestling I don't know enough about the Australian agriculture markets to know what crops might be wise or foolish.
@@WyvernYTcotton in a desert is foolish
@@Caxacate Cotton is actually the best crop to grow if you have irrigation water in these regions. It suits the boom and bust cycles, it is the highest return for a short season crop. Many of these irrigators grow a crop for 2 years and then sit and wait for the next flood in 5 years time. Other crops like oranges, almonds have a HIGHER water use than cotton and need to be irrigated every season
Prior usage water rights function similarly to an open water market, in practice. Large landowners may derive the entire value of their property from their prior usage rights, which they will auction off year-to-year. The problem with this system is that it encourages wasteful use of water if you already have the rights and aren't planning on auctioning the water off. It also means that agricultural users pay several orders of magnitude less for water than most municipal utilities, so the water needed for sustaining human life (i.e. drinking and hygiene) subsidizes growing exportable cash crops like almonds and alfalfa. The other massive problem is that priority rights-holders have rights to the same volume of water even in dry years, so lower-priority rights-holders are required to eliminate their water use entirely before the priority rights-holders have to limit their use by a single drop. This often leads to over-allocation as individual rights-holders attempt to use more water than was actually delivered by storms that year based on their existing rights.
Tell me you live in California without telling me you live in California
Yep, which is why the concept of private ownership of water is really fucking stupid. Ironically, this is how water rights function in the east of the US, but out west its all about water rights.
And I thought this video was going to be about the overuse of the Murray River for irrigation and other industry which has led to the mouth of the river sometimes closing up entirely due to lack of water and the area around the mouth and for MANY miles back upstream becoming a toxic unusable disaster area.
I was looking at satellite imagery on Google Maps of Australian cities and every time I’d see a river or pond I’d be confused and concerned about why it’s the colour that it was (I am from the PNW of Canada so it’s a pretty big difference from what I’m used to)
Hey now, one unmitigated water-based disaster caused by capitalism in Australia at a time.
@@salamander405 Australian rivers tend to be brown, but that's perfectly healthy.
Its partly the soil, partly the light.
There's a pretty good line about it in All The Rivers Run.
@@salamander405we don’t normally get huge water flows, and I think our dirt and vegetation affects the colour, many rivers and creeks are very polluted though, especially if they run through urban areas, by farmland, or old mines.
Our drinking water is absolutely amazing though, I live in Melbourne and we have some of the best water in the world, we’re super careful to make sure it doesn’t get polluted. Drinking water is usually collected into reservoirs and then piped to our homes, so it doesn’t travel through the river
to solve that, said upstream waters are just saying remove the barrier at the mouth of the Murray and just, let the sea flow back in there... which, i dunno
No "liquidity" joke? smh
"I used to own some water rights, but i was concerned about the investment's lack of liquidity "?
Jewish dad joke
@castorchua, why does it have to be a Jewish dad ? I'm not with any following, it's just a dad joke .👍🇦🇺🦘
@@Fwdking I better agree
So basically farmers have resorted to moisture farming like on Tatooine
i think that's still the coolest piece of worldbuilding in star wars
What you're describing as "floodplain harvesting" sounds a hell of a lot like what people in India and elsewhere are promoting as "Floodplain/groundwater restoration" - using a bunch of small dams to slow water down. Water that doesn't reach the sea frequently ends up seeping back into the soil and into groundwater aquifers that we have otherwise been rapidly depleting.
Water rights are complicated and often dystopian; Western Water Rights in the US are basically designed to guarantee maximum exploitation, and in arid regions that brings eventual environmental devastation.
The problem with flood farming is that people downstream rely on that water to not die
@@curiosity780I mean, you can always open the sluice gates and let some water through. It happens all the time in hydropolitical situations, where upstream dam owners are required to allow some water to go downstream. It's why Lake Mead has been depleting. They could easily fill that back up by not letting any water out through the Hoover Dam, but then everyone downstream would be screwed (and the dam wouldn't be generating any power either)
Floodplains aren't always a bad thing. When properly managed that can make it better for everyone, but a market is obviously not the way to manage that.
I thought the same, they really produce a lot of biodiveristy, but maybe they seal with some types of sands like bentonite and deny the aquifer replenishment.
May I recommend looking at two charts:
Aquifer locations and depths
Soil location and depths.
One of the unique problems within Australia comes from how old the country is itself, one of the more stable regions considering. This doesn't just give us tiny mountains in comparison, but it means a lot of the 'good soil' had millions of years to be washed out to sea*. It also means the rocks underneath might not be as good at producing Aquifer as well.
*As an Australian living in another country and gardening, the fact you have feet of soil before you hit clay is.... just, yeah, so much easier to dig over here!
In some US states it's illegal to collect rainwater *because* that prevents it from replenishing the rivers and reservoirs that cities depend on.
Australia here. Yeah I've heard that. Sounds insane.
@@johnkauppi7078 they don't usually care about a cistern in the backyard. usually. but if you go beyond that it becomes a problem.
There are limits to overland water harvesting in most parts of Australia, limits on size of dams, % of flow harvested, flood water level triggers on pumping etc. Those rules don't apply to a house roof though where you can do what you want in most areas.
@@GeeROOin most areas, it’s a legislated requirement that all new builds have rainwater tanks, with the tank size requirement increasing significantly once you leave the suburbs
Shout-out to Argentina where the guy leading the polls for this year's presidential elections wants to privatize rivers too.
Massive W for Spain TBH they're semi-arid and wealthy
That guy is just older Jschlatt
que decía JAJAJAJAJKDSA
Australia could just remove the law that makes this possible, and then buyout the people that bought water..
Or tax held water to curb speculation.
Guess who gets to vote on the laws and who bribes them?
That’s not going to happen these companies love their money
Funnily enough, this could be said about any market.
They could, but they won't. They're a slave to their lobbyists.
The Australian constitution said no one could have control or ownership of any waterways, unabridged......but our gruberment over road / ignore it and sold us out ......again.
0:49 love how nestle gets their own *
"We must nationalize...our water."
"You must nationalize...your water? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?"
Calling kangaroos rats that do crossfit is hilarious
In Romania we pay tax on Rain water which falls over your land. So they calculate the amount of water on your land
THAT sucks.
So if you get a massive downpour on your property, you have a flood, a cleanup operation and a huge tax bill to pay… 😢
@@michaelwisniewski6047 No matter who the IRS sends, I am not paying federal taxes
ive never heard someone describe a kangaroo as a "rat that does crossfit" before but im not mad at it
Australian here, who grew up on a farm. You buy entitlements but then regulators set allocation % each year, based on dam levels. There are also different types of allocations, such as normal and high security. During drought, water allocation can be set to 0% for normal security and some other % for high security. The government can do buy backs, but that’s usually for other uses that aren’t allowed for legislatively. As an example, some rivers have “environmental flow” to ensure ecological outcomes (which rarely works). Also, generally, depending on the state, things like captured water from rainfall can actually be regulated and licensed once the capture amount exceeds a certain amount. An interesting reference point is the NSW Government Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) which is the primary regulator for things like this in NSW, however other systems have other regulators, both in NSW and in other states, like with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which is a multi governmental statutory authority which regulates the Murray and Darling basin water system across NSW, SA and Victoria. Anyways, just some fun facts. And yes, Kangaroos are CrossFit rats.
When Americans refer to the Murray as "precious drinking water" 😂😂😂 not sure I'd wanna drink any of it downstream from Hume or Eildon...
C'mon it just likes like a flat white most of the time that must be yummy :D
I'm Australian. It's a nice country to live in, but our politicians keep implementing schemes and laws causing horrible unintended consequences.
2:36 "Kangaroos, which are basically rats that do Crossfit..." 😂 You'd have to go a long way to find a more true, funnier gag than this...😂👍🇦🇺
Water rights in the US West are more complicated than that. There are a variety of restrictions over how you can collect water and what you can do with it, and a lot of the rights to water from rivers are indeed owned by corporations or individuals, and some of it is owned downstream of you, so you don't really have collection rights. If a significant stream runs through your property, and you live in a Western state, you probably aren't allowed to take most of that water for yourself. In Utah and Colorado, you don't even have the right to collect rainwater (though in Utah, you can collect up to 2500 gal, so it's not much of a restriction).
There are literally towns on the Murray river that have to get water shipped in because cotton farms upstream siphon off the water that would flow to them.
0:20 i want that semi educational RUclipsr Bath-boy water!!
I'm pretty sure water is traded as a martket commodity in dozens of countries, not just Australia
I like how this is the first sentence on the official website: "Australia’s water markets are recognised globally as a water reform success story."
Incentives to store emergency water stocks in drought prone areas does not sound like a problem.
5:32 this has to be the most emotional Sam has ever sounded in one of these videos
“My lawyers will be in touch.” -Probably Brian from Real Engineering, again
honestly this just sounds like anormal water company in the US but with a lot of extra steps xD
Well you can thank John Howard for the destruction by removing water entitlements from the title of the land but he allways was a sneaky little bastard
Don't worry HAI Video Editor- Fish Stick sandwiches are, in fact, alright.
2:13 I dont get it. how you can split the flowing natural river and know/claim "this is my water, that is your's"?
HAI: The most entertaining way to get depressed!
If they ever try to privatize the water where you are, riot.
If they ever try to privatize anything, riot.
Just wondering here, but.... The guys who came up with and implemented this scheme... What is their net worth and occupation today...?
they could have gotten jobs as agricultural consultants nut they did some other things and all members of the civil service of executive rank and the 87% of the sitting members of the bill that voted for it have mining consultancy jobs because it pays better :(
Here's a most cited paper on the subject if your genuinely interested ewater.org.au/archive/crcch/archive/pubs/pdfs/technical200205.pdf oh and the federal government did nothing as a political reward for the Victorian labour party backing during fraises coup en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
Yeah, there has been plenty of corruption around this... and there still is.
The Australian Government. but the individual States own the water
Congratulations, you’ve managed to ruin literal water with stocks
"Whiskey's fer drinkin, water's fer fightin" Mark Twain
HAI writers apparently haven't heard of western water rights.
0:47 Asterix = cartoon character, asterisk = *
For what it's worth, I would like to share that I bought that opossum pillow thanks to this video.
Hilarious and informative. Nicely done Ben!
Hey Sam, good job on this!! Even if a few details were a bit off, you clearly put in a lot of effort to understand a complicated topic, and I appreciate you.
Many important details are wrong
On the flip side (as an Aussie), it seems crazy to me that Americans can't collect rain water that's fallen on their land. The floodplain example is obviously a bad extreme, but a lot of Australia isn't anywhere near a major river - without rainwater tanks a lot of rural communities wouldn't be able to survive, as most people have their own in dry areas that they can collect & use for free.
Edit: I got schooled 😂 Didn't realise only Colorado & Utah had those types of rainwater restrictions - touché!
I'm not sure for industrial farming, but for individuals, it often depends on each municipality of harvesting rainwater legality. So even in the same state, a neighbor down the street technically in a different city or town may have different legal ability to harvest rainwater
I keep seeing this persistent myth and it is simply not true. Is it the case that there are some municipalities in the US where rainwater collection is banned during drought periods? Sure. But by and large across many states residents have the freedom to collect rainwater on their property. I’m tired of seeing this misinformation keep being repeated.
Environmental studies minor here: the US has 2 systems of water rights. Riparian rights are in the east where water is more plentiful. But out west they use prior appropriation and the rights can be bought and sold eg colorado and California.
Another win for the perfect flawlessness that is free market capitalism
shut up socialist
Short-sighted government policies are what allow this sort of thing to happen; it's not an inherent feature of FMC. Put more sensible rules in place and FMC will balance accordingly.
@@Effisso short sighted governments are a consequence of liberalism lol, capitalism breeds short sightedness
@@Effisso Rules make the market not free, though. Hoarding and inflicting arbitrary amounts of societal harm for marginal personal gain are core tenets of the free market.
@@EffissoIf You have to add rules to it then it's no longer a "free market" isn't it? Every single economy is planned even the top companies in the world plan deeply their economies, why don't just plan it all to benefit the people instead of just a few millionaires, the evidence is clear, the disparity between de richest and the poorest increase all over the world.
I'm as an Australian economist who works on water. This video is wildly misleading and deeply flawed. There are so many problems, I don't know where to start. But the bottom line is that the Australian system has overcome what used to be a massive problem of massive water over-use, and dramatically reduced environmental impacts. This is in stark contrast to the United States. The water management issues for say the Colorado River are somewhat similar to those of the Marray-Darling River system, but whereas they are reasonably well managed in Australia, they are a complete mess in the US.
Hi, very rarely comment on you tube videos but this one whilst making some extremely valid points to Australia's MDB water market, has some misleading and inaccurate statements that should be further researched especially when considering the allowance of dams on properties and the ability to capture water on your property as you please. It also is incorrect wrt to how the US (Colorado River catchment at least) operates as they too have a water market but is based of first come first served (law of the land). It is definitely not as simple as your 5 minute video claims to be, and should be corrected if true and correct edutainment is what you are trying to achieve.
I vaguely heard about this from Friendlyjordies. Now aboriginal tribes are completely out of water.
The US system of water rights isn't actually good. In drought-prone CA you have people and farms and cities who have no incentive to conserve water because they have senior rights and can just suck water dry, while other people and farms and cities just get boned. It's based on nothing other than "who was lucky 100 years ago" and it means that some very major cities get screwed because they happened to come later than some tinier city that happened to get founded much earlier.
Rationalizing this kind of system with price signals (yes, introducing water markets) would be massively important to making things fairer and encouraging water conservation. Obviously you don't want speculative rent-seeking or hoarding behavior like what's mentioned here, but treating the US system as somehow better than what Australia is not accurate. (Pop quiz: almonds are notoriously water intensive to grow and yet are one of the main crops in drought-prone CA. Why is that? hint: has something to do with riparian water rights. Large farms with senior rights can suck all the water dry and screw everyone else and nobody can do anything about it because they have water rights that are more senior than actual cities where people live.)
Did you not read the asterisk in the video where the dry western half of the US uses a different system than the wet eastern half of the us? The US is not a monolith as pertaining to water rights.
Neither Kalifornia nor other western states represent all of the US. Water rights east of the Mississippi are very different.
@@darkfool2000 it's an irrelevant point because the things this video is so easily dumping on is actually a necessary reform to the mess of water rights. just bc australia effed it up doesn't mean market-signals on water use isn't very important.
It has nothing to do with riparian water right as they use wildly different system. In fact with this system water right is tradeable in open market so the market signal is there. That's precisely how they can suck up as much water as they want since by not selling those right to downstream user they can use as much water as they want. Market interest between cities and other downstream user trying to get as much water right as possible while because of shortage while at the same time upstream user doesn't want to not lose their water right for their cash crop as water is limited choose to keep their water right themself since they would no longer able to use those water their crop and have to pass it downstream. In the market where downstream user have shortage does mean that any water right that upstream cash crop sell mean they can't buy it back even if they need it (practically no chance downstream user going to sell it when they have growing shortage). To cash crop owner selling water mean very large one time income unlike cash crop which provide yearly income.
It would be interesting to hear this compared to the system used in parts of the US with water shortages, because from what I've heard it doesn't seem any better
Is this actually such a bad scheme though? It seems better than the American one with less wastage at least. I feel need to talk to some of the individual concerns that actually use water to have an opinion on it.
My favorite thing about Australia as an Australian is how you can't do anything without first acknowledging and respecting the traditional owners. Imagine if someone stole your land and killed most of your family. Then years later every time a game of football starts, a politician gives a speech or your middle school teacher is starting the day. Then those same people who've stolen and murdered now say WE WOULD LIKE TO PAY OUR RESPECTS TO THE TRADITIONAL OWNERS PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE. So the same people who stole not only everything you had but also your future are now standing on what was once yours they verbally say they respect you but you won't be getting that land back. Imagine that happened to you, how do you think you would feel about it.
What’s even worse, is that the rivers that make up the Murray-Darling Basin flow through indigenous land, yet they aren’t entitled to that water. Despite water being a crucial component of their beliefs, and a violation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
00:07 fish stick (called fish fingers in the uk) sandwiches are amazing! One of my favourites to have
As someone who who grew up on dairy farms in the middle of that water map, its crazy to hear it talked about on here! Awesome as usual guys!
HAI has shown he will make videos without actually understanding the situation at all 😂
Any time someone talking about an anglo country gets to "so in the 1980s" you know it's about to go wrong and you know why
In the us, western states don't even let you own the rain. If you have more than two barrels (55 gallons x2) to catch rainwater off your roof you get in trouble.
I would not necessarily say that this is an example of a "free market," but rather a system whereby the Australian state is granting monopoly rights over natural resources. In general, classical economists believe that man should rightfully own that which he produces himself, but natural resources (or at least the **rent** of natural resources) rightfully belong to all of society. Free market advocates do not advocate for the monopolization of natural resources.
I think Nestle disagrees with you.
monopolies are an intended effect of the free market and a man owning what he produces is literally a fundamental building block of workplace communism
It's a market in the sense that those rights are traded. And while I agree with you in principle, I think the idea that "free markets are the only way to make things work" is fairly pervasive, as is the idea that anything anyone finds a way to own, however it was obtained, is theirs by right.
@@cooperised The question of who should rightfully "own" natural resources has always been fraught with controversy among classical economists, both because these resources are vital and scare, and because they are not produced by man's labor. I just think the video does a disservice by casting Australia's misguided, monopolistic water policies as an example of the "free market," which it most certainly is not.
@@ryuuguu01 What do you mean?
Doesn't the government have any way to come in and say "Oh, yeah, this was stupid, we're rolling back these changes" or smth? Surely there must be a way..
But you have to consider their donors
@@jjoohhhnn sounds more like don'trs to me..
Too corrupt.
I kinda want a fish stick sandwich now...
They're somewhat common here in the UK
@@superzigzagoon Of course you bastards would eat those.
You oughta link friendliejordies hour long doc on this
I literally guessed before the video even started that, when it comes to the concept of water as a commodity, there would be at least one jab against Nestle. lmaoooo glad I wasn't wrong
This sounds so dystopian
Sam, seeing what some people are buying on eBay and Only Fans, you are missing an opportunity to sell your bath tub water. I am not one of those people.
It’s me. I’m the guy in Canada who wants that moose.
You didn't really mention the reason Australia adopted this system: legacy property rights. Property owners would be pretty mad if Australia expropriated their water rights without just compensation and that would also harm future investment. They instead divied up water rights to existing landowners and made them tradeable so that downstream users could simply buy the rights to the amount of water they needed. It's probably not a perfect system, but the critics are just complaining without proposing any new system. Nobody actually has a better idea for how to handle water rights, they just complain.
I don’t think you even believe the sentence “nobody has a better idea.”
So what? People should complain, it's not their responsibility to figure out solutions. In this case, it's the government's responsibility to figure out a better solution that satisfies more people.
while a reasonable compromise to begin with its hopelessly out of date
"Do not, my friends, become addicted to water. It will take hold of you, and you will resent its absence."
"Market" and "water" never go well together
Victoria almost sold their water supply after the 1980s recession. They sold their energy grid and their public transport system, corporotised the warter system like they did initially with the public transport system, restructured remnents of the works department into Melbourne Water and Parks Victoria, spent money massively valcanising the water supply to prepare for privatisation, but never sold it off. They can due to enabling legislation, but they haven't.
But they were able to build the CityLink, a tollway which links the southeastern, southwestern and northern suburbs, which was previously a discontinuous set of bottlenecks stuffed up by the bankrupt previous government.
(The public transport system collapsed again in 2002 and 2009 but in 2002 it was saved by renationalising most of the state carrier (who was owned by National Express who fled the country in debt), merging a bunch of franchises together, and creating a master franchise to bring all the ticketing stuff together into one colour-coded system, then by 2009 by firing (retendering and losing) the train operator (Transdev who also used to own the trams under a co-predecessor) again, building some extra railways, creating an e-ticketing system, and reforming the department in 2012. Transdev was almost nationalised in 2008 but the government was told they didn't have to.)
Boy I sure wish we'd re-nationalised rail that early in the UK. The Railtrack debacle could've been a great time. We're only really just starting to repair some of that damage, for both trains and buses, across the island. With ScotRail nationalisation and TfW for trains, and Manchester and Liverpool taking over their buses.
@@kaitlyn__L The Victorian public transport is still private including the suburban carrier, just the train arm of the state carrier V/Line isn't and there is now a big franchise managing it all as one unit.
(except both authorities have recently been abolished behind the scenes and merged with the rebooted transport authority as part of infrastructure reform and booming)
Isn't it illegal to collect or retain water in Arizona? I know rainwater collection is illegal.
And we also try to grow rice in the middle of nowhere, classic Australia!
Wow they're so lucky, I wish I could drink green slime that would leave me permanently disabled 😌
Dude, what the fuck, don’t tell them about the shiny moose.
ngl want that opossum pillow
2:18 missed the chance to say he's growing potatoes
I have been trying to discuss this Issue with other Australian's for the last 6 years, yet everyone either thinks it's a 'baseless' conspiracy theory, assume I'm stupid, or just....plain don't listen.
Very few people thoroughly investigate the issue most, just, do not seem to listen or care.
YOOOOO the shiny new moose comment was craazy 💀
Australians do not like funding investment projects. This is why the big Australian mining companies are listed abroad. The Aussies lose out when the dividends are repatriated abroad.
Rubbish. Most Australian mining companies are listed on the local stock exchange. In fact Australian companies own far more mines abroad than foreign companies own in Australia. Perhaps you should check things rather than just posting what you emotionally feel?
@@Dave_Sisson Come on mate, don't be so emotional. Who owns key Australian infrastructure? Darwin Harbour, for example, is Australia's only deep water harbour up north. But who owns it? The Chinese not Australia.
@@andrewestbrook4473 They don't own it, they lease it.
"Rats that do crossfit" is quite the diss
Jokes on them; the small amount of the Murray river that still exists is only made up of around 20% water. The rest is 30% salt and 50% feral carp.
As someone who lives in a state near Arizona and keeps an occasional eye on the ongoing nightmare that's resulted in them effectively draining their aquifer and selling it off, I was already like "Oh no..." when I read the title. After watching the video, it's somehow even worse than I was expecting
When he said, I am paying for an over priced screaming service that doesn’t even improve my mind. I thought he was talking about nebula 💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
I'm surprised it wasn't the UK Tories who came up with this.
Australia as a nation is more than the state of New South Wales. There are multiple states. The Commonwealth Government’s own documents note - ‘Australia’s most active water markets are in the MDB, accounting for 97 per cent of all allocation trade… and 77 per cent of all entitlement trade… ‘ so commentary in this video that the entire country has sold its water rights are not nuanced enough to properly explain the situation across the 6 states and two territories.
yes but for a 7 minute video covering 97/77 percent of a trade is a job well done but yeah maybe "A Australian state " would have been an easy fix
Why did the music at the beginning of the video bump so hard
Trivia note: The U.S. game show The Amazing Race has been on for 35 Seasons, & they have traveled to Australia for 4 of them; 2, 4, 9, & 18 (which aired back in 2011).
this isn't really a free market though. it's an artificial market ruled by poorly thought out bureaucratic rules.
The government controls how much water is able to be sold or bought. Arguably the government could stop the entire system next year if it wanted. however a minority of large farming organizations (ie. business people sitting in tall buildings in central Sydney) actively lobby the government not to change the system.
That proves what we have in Australia is NOT the free market. Under a free market, the big corps would lack the power to influence the politicians with bribes.
lol it's like they implemented the plot of tank girl in real life
This wasn't a huge mistake. It's a huge success. As we say at the investment firm, "one man's growing thirst is another man's rising stock".
Is your investment firm Immortan Joe & Co. ?
@@wenchbyattnot since they merged with BlackRock to form BlackRock & Joe
translation: “i enjoy letting people suffer from a lack of water so i can own 6 yachts.”
The water speculators are making a killing. Now the Federal Government is trying to pass legislation to prevent the speculators manipulating the water market.
Quickly, inaccurate Murray river map. The Murray opens into the ocean after a while
its the legal map not the geological one
The problem is that the water rights are not taxed. If the water rights were taxed at near 100%, then it would be impossible to make money speculating on it. Rights holders would only use as much water as they need and sell the rest, then there would be more available for everyone else. The problem isn't free market capitalism. The problem is private ownership of land, because land is not capital and shouldn't be privately owned. (Economically speaking, water is a type of land.) For more information, look up the ideas of Henry George and Georgism.
Land should 100% be able to be privatly owned. If i live in a country i should be able to live on a plot of land that nobody can take away from me.
Capitalism is meant to harness the nature of animals which is to resource hoard (greed) and use it to convince them to compete against each other from a value added perspective, this is more and more difficult to have happen as jobs get more specified creating natural monopolies (port of Long Beach, ASML, DTCC, etc.) as well as utilities that we need to survive, when the profit motive is applied to utilities it is just extortion. Capitalism has its place, it just needs to stay there
@@RK-cj4oc sadly that's generally not the case. Even the USA, bastion of private ownership, you don't really own land. Don't pay the taxes on that land and you'll quickly learn who owns it. So really you rent exclusive (mostly) use rights through the tax system.
@@RK-cj4oc Sure, as long as you compensate everyone else for the privilege.
What's LESS efficient than free market capitalism? Government monopoly. Socialism.