```Results indicate that mandatory (voluntary) prescriptive policies focused on outdoor watering restrictions achieve approximately a ten percent (three percent) reduction in aggregate demand. Given the inelastic price responsiveness of households, an average price increase of more than 30% would be required to achieve the same ten percent reduction in water use that the prescriptive mandatory policies achieved. This price increase would imply a 20 percent increase in the average customer’s monthly expenditures on water. ```

water is ofc inelastic in PED cus you know

not very much substitutes for water....

@Mou I'm a market socialist but fuck austrians and neo classicals

yikes

market socialists

y i k e s

I'm post lange

markets suck

I prefer like post hungary free capital markets but complete collective ownershi

can't remember the name

but it was two polish economists who came up with a system I quite agree with

> markets suck
in some cases yes

basically externalities and market failure

in all cases

However, behavioral econ shows that traditional neo classical concept of *market failure* is based on bad abstractions and modelling of human behavior

@Revolutionaryarmchair no, i said is ausfix trolling

oh yea feeewh

cus I actually take econ

markets assign shit based on capital instead of need and therefore suck shit

I like taking econ cus whenever ppl call me *dumb* for being a socialist I just take out the *magic card*

economics is a spook

Mou, market socialists would agree with you on that point, generally. That's why as far as I'm aware, most hardcore market socialists want nationalized healthcare and decommodified water and housing at a baseline level.

(The capital versus need bit, not the economics being a spook bit)

> markets assign shit based on capital instead of need and therefore suck shit
in an abstract model, they assign based on the highest bidder and what receives most profit, so productive efficiency as a sacrifice of basic environmental integrity (more negative externalities) and allocative efficiency as mainly allocating based on *consumer demand* which is both impossible to properly aggregate (Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu conditions) and is biased towards those with higher wealth/purchasing power

dynamic efficiency is pretty based tho

spook

👻

stop

cringe

posting

```market socialist```

```cringe posting```

> minimax

I think u dropped this chief 👌

> material balance

I think you just went larping to stirner without actually reading *ego and it's own*

```If a currently unsuccessful enterprise is prevented from attempting to raise capital in the market in order to restructure its operations, including branching out into other more promising fields, or cannot be taken over by a more dynamic firm which sees latent opportunities, strict application of the market rules of the game would actually lead to gross inefficiencies: not only would those enterprises unable to recover go out of business, but also those with good prospects although in temporary difficulties.```

brus and laski gang

spook

i can't read