The Bureaucrat in Your Shower
As with all regulations, the restriction on how much water can pour over your person while standing in a shower is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. Manufacturers must adhere to these regulations under penalty of law, and to be on the safe side, and adjust for high-water pressure systems, they typically undershoot. But: some companies have found a way around it. Also: this article includes information on how you can hack your shower. But I am not advocating that you do anything that would violate federal law or otherwise endanger your status as a law-abiding citizen who takes wimpy showers. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (114)
Not to disparage any other articles, but this is truely one of the best articles in a while.
Great Jeff.
Published: January 9, 2006 9:04 PM
Akin to most other flagrant attacks on our individual freedoms this will go under the radar of the mainstream media until the "evil-doers" are convicted for their crimes against "the environment". Once the "profit-seeking nature haters" are strung up we'll hear the trumpets of progressive legislation blaring that we're all safe for another day because of the enlightened law makers decision to limit our wasteful uses of energy. Mr. Deitemann will be given his fifteen second Chris Mathews spot to explain his special method for applying the ol' jackboot. It's these "small" acts of oppression that remind me why it's so important to be armed.
Published: January 9, 2006 9:32 PM
Kosmo Kramer found a solution to this problem also.
Actually, I asked around (one of my ex-business partner's father is a plumber) and it seems high-flow appliances for the bathroom are readily available on the black market. I guess some of the newer models aren't as easily hacked.
Also, I wonder if the mandates for maximum flow per shower head is an average figure. Can you throw up maybe 5 shower heads, 4 of which offer nearly no flow, the 5th offering a great deal higher, but the average is safe?
Published: January 9, 2006 10:07 PM
Just heard a radio ad on WABC NYC, asking all current and former employees to call a 1-800 number to turn in companies for software "stealing".
I don't exactly how the authorities will react to shower piracy, but it'll probably be something along these lines. Remember the famous observation, when the Stasi archives were opened, that something like 25% of all people living in East Germany had been informers?
Published: January 9, 2006 10:14 PM
Great article Jeff!
It's nice to see how the market rises above the regulations to still offer to consumers what they want.
Sadly, however, government regulations will beget more government regulations.
"What I am suggesting is that the Constitution, if the letter of its law was obeyed, would be preferable to the government we have now. But we can’t go back. If the Constitution itself was so good, it would have been obeyed from the very beginning. But near the very beginning, it was violated, and has been violated ever since. Whether from a self-perceived higher ethical law, or expediency, the Constitution will always be violated. It has not been, is not now, nor ever will be, a check on despotism."
-- James Wilson
Published: January 9, 2006 10:17 PM
Only the State could produce a black market in shower heads.
Published: January 9, 2006 11:50 PM
This is a lovely example of creeping legislation and the inherent unpredictability of human action.
It's a shame that so few realise what happens - to actaully force people to behave in a certain way logically leads to totalitarian rules, if one is serious about control. It really depends how far politicians are willing to go.
What makes a mockery of water conservation is the subsidy of it elsewhere - there was another mises.org article about it - millions of gallons poured on farms in the desert? Ah, here: http://www.mises.org/story/1557
Published: January 10, 2006 3:58 AM
This perfectly illustrates the futility of using legislative force to stop peoples' natural inclinations. This usually leaves the legislation as a resource drain, while doing nothing to achieve the originally stated objective. What follows is a short piece describing an analogous case - the South African legislative attempt to ban retailers giving away free plastic bags.
When is a plastic bag not a plastic bag?
Laws are usually enacted in order to serve a purpose – to stop something being done, or perhaps to ensure that something else is done – to further the best interests of society at large. However, once the law has been passed, the intention behind it – the purpose for that law’s existence – becomes irrelevant, and the concern of everyone (potential transgressors, law enforcement authorities, lawyers and judges) is focused exclusively on what exactly the law says – the better to circumvent it, or the better to ensure conviction of transgressors, as the case may be. The letter of the law is paramount, and the spirit of the law means nothing, except in so far as it happens to correlate with the letter. This happens a good deal less than it should due to language limitations or hamfisted drafting. In law, it seems, form overrides substance.
Take the new retail plastic bag law. Huge volumes of plastic litter needed controlling and, with laudable sentiment if not economic wisdom, the Environmental Ministry decided to do something about it. To encourage a more responsible and thrifty attitude to bags, laws were enacted to outlaw thin, flimsy free bags, and ensure that the plastic bags purveyed by retailers were both (a) more robust than before, and (b) were to be charged for. This was cleverly calculated to vest in them economic value, and hence create an incentive for customers to preserve and re-use them, rather than tossing them to the wind and allowing them to settle on barbed wire fences. Stringent enforcement followed, and, not surprisingly, both the yellow/red and blue/white species of South Africa’s national flower disappeared from the wild, almost overnight.
Consumers reluctantly accepted that they had to pay for bags, and many started to bring their own for the groceries. Of course, before long, supermarket checkouts came to realize that they were constrained in sorting their clients’ purchases in the professional manner they had previously used when bags were issued with carefree abandon. No longer could they place detergents and toiletries in one bag, meat products in another, and dairy products in yet another. The customers either bring their own bags, or they buy just enough new bags in which to cram their purchases, however incompatible the contents might be. This has generated a problem for the checkout staff, and the customer, who doesn’t want the Sunday joint leaking blood all over the cheese.
So how have the supermarkets responded? Entirely rationally, given the letter of the law. Each checkout operator is given supplies of two types of bag – the strong, valuable ones, and some extremely flimsy ones (even more diaphanous than the old, now illegal, supermarket bags – come to think of it, thinner than government-issue condoms). The wet or toxic purchases are then placed individually in the flimsies, the better to ensure that they don’t contaminate the rest of the groceries crammed into the paid-for, legal supermarket bag. All for no extra charge, mind. It would seem that the dispensing of these flimsy bags circumvents the law on the grounds that they qualify as wrapping for the individual product, rather than being plastic bags as such.
I’m not complaining – I don’t want my food to taste like washing powder any more than the next person – but one can’t help reflecting that all those flimsy see-thru bags walking out of the supermarkets for free, to eventually find their way to rest on barbed wire or thorn trees, have nullified the entire legislative exercise. What a waste of time, effort and taxpayer money.
Published: January 10, 2006 4:35 AM
Another example of endless interventionist measures.
It seems inevitable (in my homeland, Catalonia - Spain - Europe, surely a less-showered area, the arbitrary intervention is to fix a price up to a consumption of 100 litres per person/day and to fix a much higher price when the consumption of water exceeds 100 litres per person/day).
Another example of pure interventionism is the recent law that prohibits smoking in public and private venues in Spain under severe fines. It comprehends factories, schools and hospitals as well as bars, restaurants and so on and so forth.
Another colossal intrusion of government into private affairs and property.
Given that the interventionist appetite of government is insatiable and unredeemable, I wonder if a theory of discerning which interventionist measure is less evil would be required.
Greetings from Manresa, where Saint Ignatius from Loyola wrote his Spiritual Exercises in 1522.
Published: January 10, 2006 5:48 AM
Nathan Shepard:
You're too hung up on the idiocy seemingly involved in the contrasted attitudes: on one hand, severe limitation on the ordinary freedom of consumption of individual users; and, on the other hand, profligate consumption.
My point is, you didn't go all the way and "connect the dots." When some are priveleged with the ability to consume quantities not available through normal market operation, it means others must be deprived of quantities they would otherwise have consumed under such a system. I don't mean that a specific case of subsidized consumption is directly, causally related to another specific case of restriction but merely that the two phenomena cannot be separated. They're both part of the normal attitude of the regulatory state, which believes (or at least says and behaves as though it believes, despite an overabundance of evidence to the contrary) that it can (and should) make everyone better off by restraining the normal tendency to satisfy wants to the extent of ability on the market.
I differ from some commenters on another matter.
This is NOT a great article--just a good one in the vein of commentary on current events of interest. Other than its "newsworthiness," the entire matter is hardly noteworthy: literally jillions and bazillions of similar situations occur all around us--as we read and write. The only aspect which distinguishes this one in particular is that the outfit thinks it may have found a "loophole" in the law by exploiting some ambiguity over what constitutes a "shower-head." It's unlikely to stand up in court and, even should it, might well spell the demise of the firm for the simple reason that, should they be successful, the same tactic would be immediately available to all other manufacturers in like wise and they'd quickly be deprived of their market-advantage niche. About the best the guy can hope for, now that he's been flushed out from "beneath the radar," is that the feds will be content with a consent decree rather than prosecuting him to the full extent of the penalties available to them. Unfortunately, publicity over the matter is what, ultimately, will motivate strangling the guy and depriving his otherwise customers-to-be-satisfied.
The fundamental aspect of this story for Misesians is the extent to which attempts by authority to effect a particular outcome actually (in an overwhelming number of cases) produces a result diametrically opposite that sought by the regulators (or at least oppsite that which they proclaim as their intention) and leads (as Mises described) to ever more disruptive intrusions and "all-around planning" (socialism).
Published: January 10, 2006 8:27 AM
how a typical politician see's this "problem"
Need a "special" prosecutor to investigate. (75 million).
Millions of people thrown in jail (3.2 billion).
political money received from bathtub companies (10 billion) plus exemption for congress to use illegal shower heads
Published: January 10, 2006 8:38 AM
Jordi:
Thanks for the report from Spain. One thing I'd point out is that the regulations don't emanate, normally, from the regulators. They're just bureaucrats programmed by inclination and job description to do some version (either lacksidaisical or strenuous, as the case might be) of whatever the law requires. Even legislators are, to the greatest extent, merely mandataries of their constituents, the majorities which they hope will re--elect them. And, though the proponents of various intrusions are frequently merely organized minorities (pressure groups), that fact does not detract from the validity of the process description. What must be recognized is that, in any final analysis, the oppressors, parasites, and busybodies are many of your neighbors, each of whom helps to constitute the electoral majority on the basis of perceived benefits to himself that, he rationalizes, will cost no-one else anything (or at least not very much).
Published: January 10, 2006 8:48 AM
I didn't know they were regulating my shower. Great article, I even did a couple smile while reading it especially one this one:
"And what happens to shower offenders? One can see federal S.W.A.T. Teams screeching up to your house, black-clad men pouring out, securing the perimeter, and shouting through a bull horn: "Drop the soap and come out of the shower with your hands up!""
Published: January 10, 2006 8:50 AM
Sudha:
What's new? The state is the only entity that can produce a black market in ANYTHING!
Published: January 10, 2006 8:52 AM
If successful, the enforcement of this stupid regulation will disproportionately affect low-to-middle-income people - wealthy people can afford multiple-head installed systems or else unregulated custom systems. The rest of us will be stuck using a hammer, screwdriver, and pliers to try to remove the evil flow restrictors.
Published: January 10, 2006 9:12 AM
"This creates a rather serious problem for nearly everyone in the country."
Really--THIS creates such a horrific problem for nearly EVERYONE in the country?
The goal is to conserve a precious resource, not stick a gun to the head of United States citizens. I realize the article is meant to be humorous but I believe the point would come across more strongly without such exaggerations.
Published: January 10, 2006 9:48 AM
Julia,
While I appreciate your reaction to such a sweeping statement, Jeff has his tongue firmly planted in cheek here...except, of course he realizes that when the federal govenment has the power to regulate the seemingly trivial, it is a sure sign it has jumped the tracks and is completely out of control.
As for your assertion that the feds are trying to conserve a precious resource - precious to whom? If I am paying for the water, why can't price alone regulate and determine my use of it?
Published: January 10, 2006 10:10 AM
Julia, it creates a problem if a)the intended goal of water conservation is not reached, especially in the West where water is limited, and b)the government takes more drastic steps to deal with offenders of the law.
More to the point, it's all so unnecessary, because as Vince points out, market prices as determined by supply and demand could more effective manage water than the government can with its heavy-handed regulation. Instead of wasting our time coming up with creative ways to get around government regulations and avoid punishment, we could utilize our creativity on more productive pursuits.
Published: January 10, 2006 10:19 AM
Julia, how will it be enforced? No matter how good the intention, one must consider every aspect of what one is asking for.
Do you remember the fable, "Belling The Cat"? Then ask yourself, who will police the water pipes? Will there be inspections looking for violators? Will they know the difference between someone using the shower *and* the dishwasher at the same time, or an illegal shower using twice the quantity of water allowed?
Lofy goals are nice. They feel good. But at some point the rubber has to meet the road.
Published: January 10, 2006 10:36 AM
Oh, I'm sorry sir. It would appear that you have used up your shower coupons for the month.
If you like, we have a pond out back. But first you're going to have to fill out an environmental impact statement.
Published: January 10, 2006 11:08 AM
Well, it really does create a terrible problem for everyone in the country who takes showers. People have some sense that they are not getting clean, and maybe they are not in fact getting as clean as they would like to be. Lots of folks go out and buy new shower heads, only to be frustrated again, and they live with a vague sense of something having gone wrong every day at the start of their day. Anyone who thinks that this is not a major issue should see my email right now! This is a big deal in people's lives.
Published: January 10, 2006 11:09 AM
Great article, Jeff. I love it. I just hacked my shower head after reading it. I removed a rubber grommet from inside the plasic washer (I guess the washer didn't restrict the flow enough!) and the plastic washer, too. Now I'm a criminal. Thanks a lot Jeff...LOL. I think I'll buy one of those Zoe shower heads. I like the Captain's Shower Head better.
I already had my shower for the day, but I'm looking forward to tomorrow's shower. I can't wait to feel the difference. I wonder if my wife will notice. I won't say anything.
By the way, if the new heads are not as easily hackable, take it into your garage and take a drill to it. Or a Dremmel.
I'm going to print out several copies of that article and leave them lying around in strategic places, like the shower section at Home Depot and Home Hardware. I love causing trouble.
Published: January 10, 2006 12:05 PM
How do you feel about all the Government intervention in moving water from the Colorado River to the middle of the desert in Nevada and California? If water were free, which it is if you have a well, then I'd agree. Since most urban areas rely on a massive water treatment system, limiting some excesses, like not allowing lawn watering during draughts seems reasonable.
Not so sure about this shower head thing, but isn't reasonable stewardship of resources a good thing?
Published: January 10, 2006 12:05 PM
Just ordered one of the Nautilus II Chrome shower heads from Zoe. Sounds like an excellent product and my purchase is a way to show support. Thanks for your article Jeff!
Published: January 10, 2006 12:20 PM
Water - it will never sell. ~W.C.Fields
Oh, wait...
Published: January 10, 2006 1:00 PM
Mr. Tucker wrote, "Many people now hack their showers — or customize them, if you prefer. You can take your shower head down, pull the washer out with a screwdriver, and remove the offending intrusion that is restricting water flow. It can be a tiny second washer or it can be a hard plastic piece. Just pop it out and replace the washer. Sometimes it is necessary to trim it out using a pen knife."
I did that YEARS ago when I first moved into my apartment. +)~
Published: January 10, 2006 1:37 PM
I sent the link to this article to Mr. Dietemann, calling it a just rebuke to an intrusive government pecksniff. I look forward to his response.
Published: January 10, 2006 1:42 PM
Oh, great Christopher! I'd better get busy putting those flow restrainers back into my shower heads to prepare for the inevitable knock at the door.
Published: January 10, 2006 1:48 PM
The best part of this article was the section "for information purposes only." The next time I'm met with an unsatisfactory shower experience, I think I'll misuse that information immediately. (Strangely, my current shower is quite enjoyable.)
Published: January 10, 2006 2:01 PM
DTK: Now you are getting close to the root of the problem. If government subsidizes your water, you are beholden to their conditions, all of which are non-economic. Why don't they just charge you full price for water? An answer might be that if they did, the townspeople would very quickly march with torches and pitchforks on the water monopoly, and a lot of bureaucrats would find themselves cut off from their source of power and money.
Published: January 10, 2006 2:36 PM
Not a plug, but a satisfied customer; I just recently bought two "large ultimate" showerheads from highpressurehowerheads.com because I was all too well-aware of this problem.
The trick, for now, is that companies include a "flow restrictor" (a plastic disc/washer with a small hole in it) in their otherwise high-flow showerheads, order to sell them legally. Does including instructions on how to remove the flow-restrictor constitute "conspiracy"? (see also: psilocybe mushroom kits) Does marketing showerheads as "high flow" constitute "solitictation"? (see also: Grokster)
Furthermore, where exactly has the price system failed to communicate the scarcity of water that we cannot simply rely on paying more for more gallons of water?
Published: January 10, 2006 2:38 PM
When my wife and I renovated our home recently, we were determined to outwit the water nazis. We scoured junkyards for toilets; no luck. We called a friend in Canada (we had heard that the toilet and shower head regualations hadn't reached that outpost yet); no luck without an export license. Until one day I mentioned the problem at the local plumbing supply house. Living in Miami turned out to have a side benefit. You see, Miami is the place where wealthy Latin Americans come to buy their stools and as rotten as governance is in most of those states, there are apparently no restrictions on water flow for bathroom devices. My friendly plumbing supply house merely needed to know the country to which I intended to export the offending devices and he would gladly load them on my truck. We live on Haitian Drive and so my bathroom now sports a sign welcoming all visitors to Port Au Prince. I hope no one from the government is reading this because they can have my 3.5 Gallon flush toilet and my 4GPM shower head when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
Published: January 10, 2006 2:52 PM
This reminds me of the black (or gray) market in toilets where people had to buy toilets from Canada (or get a toilet with an electric motor to speed up the flush - harldy "good for the environment" the power for the motor has to be generated and the motor wears out) because Fed regulations limited the amount of water in a single flush.
Your reply is correct.
There should be no Fed, State or local subsidies to "mine" water in Arizonia or any other place (Fed subsidies are unconstitutional anyway - although this does not seem to matter anymore, indeed the regulations are hardly what "regulate interstate commerce" was supposed to mean).
If people want to live in the middle of a desert they should pay the market price for water.
"But then cities in Arizonia will not grow so much" - oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Published: January 10, 2006 2:53 PM
Unreal. I think I may have to refrain in the future from reading your articles. Just kidding, I enjoyed it, but I'd almost rather not know about such aggrivating antics by our government officals 'working in the interest of the public'. Keep up the good work! Thanks for keeping us informed. And by the way, I just got out of a hot shower after work and enjoyed everyone of those 30 gallons used!
Published: January 10, 2006 4:15 PM
On the toilet side, my expression for the 1.6 GPF (gallon per flush) rule is "1.6 TPF" - (excrement unit rhyming with "birds" per flush).
The irony of having to flush 2-3 times to clear all the little "remnants" (at minimum) etc. in the name of saving water is classic....
Published: January 10, 2006 4:35 PM
Your take on the shower regs is right on. But flow and pressure is only part of the problem. I believe there are regulations about temperature as well. A faucet that I recently installed in my bathroom will not allow the water temperature to exceed a certain limit. The problem is that the temp is regulated on flow, not actual temperature. I'm in a rural area and have well water. Max pump pressure is 40 psi and usually hovers around 30 psi. As a result you can't lower the flow of the cold water side to get the most out of the hot water side.
I learned how to customize my shower heads long ago, but I've not been able to customize the temperature.
MJT
Published: January 10, 2006 4:36 PM
Here is a site that was apparently on to this topic long ago, complete with graphics.
Published: January 10, 2006 4:48 PM
Here in Sydney we have all these regulations, and more. Water flow and tempering devices are mandatory in every new home, along with countless other restrictions and limitations. Hosing of hard surfaces and cars is banned – and all garden hosing must be hand-held before 10 am or after 4 pm, 2 days per week only.
Prices are set by bureaucrats, and those using more than the limits they decree as acceptable are labelled greedy and charged at a higher rate. Until very recently, no competition was permitted, even to the extent of prohibiting housing in areas lacking a reticulated supply – deemed “inappropriate�.
It provides an excellent example of the failure of socialism. In the absence of both pricing signals and competition, demand and supply have become completely mismatched. Worse still, the consequent daily intrusions into our lives have stolen our freedom, a point summed up rather well by the following sentence in a letter I received from our local council, defending their actions in regard to a related issue:
“It is unrealistic to consider that a property owner has exclusive rights to manage or maintain a property as they see fit.�
Published: January 10, 2006 5:40 PM
Vince,
As you say why not let the price of water be regulated by market forces? However, I think we all know that this is not what most Americans want, we want CHEAP, not valued goods. We don't sit back and watch companies make too much money on gasoline and think, well, that's the price we pay for being so dependent and allowing our growing desire to consume cost me so much. No, we ask our congressmen to interrogate, nay grill, the oil execs for making TOO much money for their product.
How can the market really sustain itself without the influence of the government when we are so happy to allow them to intercede when we feel like we're paying too much for something?
Published: January 10, 2006 6:31 PM
We live on a ranch in Rural California, where the water pressure is really low. After dumping over $100 in different showerheads that are designed for low water pressure, we were still showering in a trickle of water.
Then I found someone selling 10gpm showerheads on Ebay, and purchased one for $15. The seller included a great kit, including instructions and even a strip of teflon tape.
I can't tell you the difference it makes.
I'm an ex-Navy guy, and know what a Navy shower is. I don't waste a lot of time using ANY source of water, whether its watering, washing, or brushing my teeth. But to me, this is really a quality of life issue. I find it analogous to the government telling me how high I can have my thermostat, or how many miles I can drive each week.
That said, I'm incredibly conservative, living in a rural location makes that necessary. I drive an economical car, and take public transportation to work. But c'mon... water flow?
And I think its been said in before, people will continue to run 2.5gpm water LONGER than they will higher pressures, so it really is unlikely that these regulations (pun) work.
And at the same time, the California legislature is considering changing fuel taxes to be per MILE based, as opposed to per gallon. Sure, nothing will drive consumption down like INCENTIVIZING gas guzzling vehicles.
My theory: Somebody who knew somebody lobbied for low flow fixtures on the backs of true conservationists, so that their cousin Eddy - who *just* happens to own a low flow device factory - can make a killing..
Or am I just paranoid?
Published: January 10, 2006 6:37 PM
'"But then cities in Arizonia will not grow so much" - oh dear, how sad, never mind.'
Um, hi. Some of us actually live in that state. Why is your water more important than mine? Current consumption rates, in a lot of cases probably by typically ignorant consumers like several people who have posted on this topic so far, is reducing available supply to desert cities at a rate that will leave us dry within the decade.
Many of the people reading this 'hack' article weren't even aware this was really a problem, but now it'll be an 'in' thing to do this upgrade and waste non-renewable resources for a shower that won't take any less time, to make them 'feel' cleaner when they should try using soap and maybe some elbow grease.
This isn't cool. It's ignorant.
Published: January 10, 2006 6:51 PM
This has got to be the biggest bullshit issue the "green" activists have ever come up with. The fundamental thing is, water cannot be "wasted" or even consumed. It is endlessly recycled, regardless of whether one uses 100 gallons per shower, or 10 gallons per flush. The cost of water is the sum of moving to where it's needed, and sanitizing it. Nobody is using the water up.
Bill Nash may not think it's fair that he should have to pay more than me just because he wants to live in a desert, but that should be his problem.
Published: January 10, 2006 7:09 PM
Yeah, hey Bill - move out of the desert if it's a problem for you. Why should we subidize your choice of high-cost living environment?
Don't get me wrong, I have relatives in Arizona and I enjoy it there. But deep in the desert is not the most natural environment for human life, so if you want to live there you're going to have to deal with the higher costs and risks that may be associated with that choice. We in more temperate clients should not be made artificially worse off just for your sake, unless you're willing to compensate us sufficiently.
Published: January 10, 2006 7:21 PM
This is so cool, I just ordered one with a dual head, even if I don't really need it. But anything to screw up the regulators.
I remember when they wanted to tell me where I could put my thermostat in the house too. We put up a dummy one to get past inspectors.
When you order, they have to ask if you are in Arizona now.
Published: January 10, 2006 7:43 PM
I think this is the first time I've seen a Mises blog post make it to the front page of digg. Check it out here. I think it's because it's a hack.
Published: January 10, 2006 8:17 PM
Water is, in fact, a non-renewable resource. 1937, Robert Hill. You can repurify recovered waste all you want, it's still non-renewable. The amount of water on this planet is finite.
I don't bill myself as a super environmentalist, but c'mon, people. This entire thread is about circumventing well-reasoned regulations over what? Some decadance? Arguably sticking it to 'the man', like a one-person Boston Tea Party? It's not just about the desert. Coastal cities that rely on desalination capacity run by government subsidy or water fees, still only have finite processing capacity.
Seriously. What does this kind of change provide to you? A couple extra minutes of comfort in the shower? Entire counties worth of land turn to blight because of excessive water consumption. Perfectly good, farmable soil becomes useless because it's too dry, and is therefore too expensive to recover. It's a pretty vicious cycle that will eventually kill a significant volume of people, left unchecked.
Compare your water usage to your gasoline usage, or your electrical usage. Livin' large, or what?
This is hysterically typical of our society. Everything is great as long as we've got everything we need, until we can't have it anymore. Who's fault will it be? Some politicians?
I didn't see several million politicians contributing to the incredibly large power draw that exacerbated blackouts in an entire region of our country, much less California's yearly energy drama.
This is a lot like software and music/video piracy. People do it because they can, and it has no immediate, tangible effects. The costs incurred by one person are so diluted as to be negligible.. but it adds up when large volumes of people are doing it, like those inspired by this 'hack.'
Irresponsibility is the new cool.
Published: January 10, 2006 8:24 PM
If you like this story, head over to digg, register and vote for the story.
For those who don't know, "Digg is a technology news website that combines social bookmarking, blogging, RSS, and non-hierarchical editorial control. With digg, users submit stories for review, but rather than allow an editor to decide which stories go on the homepage, the users do." [From the digg faq]
If enough people vote for this story, it stands a good chance of a mention on the Diggnation video podcast.
Published: January 10, 2006 8:50 PM
Bill,
Hmm...I remember reading a Russell Roberts article that said in 1970 there was 531 billion barrels of crude oil reserves in the world with 16.5 billion barrels of annual consumption. So we should have run out of oil around the year 2000. However, by the year 2000 there was actually 1 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves with 26 billion in actual consumption. So we have like 40 years of consumption left.
So how come we didn't run out?
As price for oil rose in the late 70s, producers were enticed to find "new" reserves and more efficient uses for oil and consumers switched to more fuel efficient cars.
Amazing what the price system can do! Even when it fights against government regulations.
No amount of regulations, price controls, subsidies, etc. can effectively ration scarce resources.
Published: January 10, 2006 9:10 PM
Bill,
I can't remember ever reading a bigger bunch of B.S. on this blog. Take, for instance your first assertion - as it happens, the town next to mine is going to start recycling waste water for recharging the local aquifer.
The larger point is that if all water users were paying the full market price for water, you would have zero argument. The scarcer the resource became, the more it would cost, and the less people would waste.
The problem is not scarcity but abundance at the point of use, abetted by short-sighted government policies. Get rid of the government subsidies, let the price rise, and people will fall over themselves to conserve it.
Published: January 10, 2006 9:20 PM
Sage,
Unfortunately, you are right - many people do prefer 'cheap' to 'economic'. Sad.
For my own part, I have a well on my property. I paid for the land, which not only covers but contributes to the aquifer. I paid for the well, well pump, and ancillary equipment. I paid to install water treatment equipment. I pay for electricity and water softener salt. But, under penalty of Federal law, I am prohibited from using this water for certain uses, though not others. All the water I use is treated onsite in my septic system and returned to the environment pretty much intact. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of industrial users permanently pollute billions of gallons of water per day to levels decreed 'safe' by the Feds.
Who's the one wasting water here?
Published: January 10, 2006 9:38 PM
Vince,
What sort uses of your water are you prohibited from under penalty of Federal law.
I'm just curious.
Published: January 10, 2006 9:50 PM
A well-written article, even if I had to stop mid-way through and say that I didn't agree with your initial premise. Sadly, I have to admit that I had always thought that most showers were too aggressive, but recently have found more that are comfortable than not. While I do encounter pressure more akin to spit than shower from time to time, I must say that you must be approaching "showers as extreme sports" if you are finding fault with most of what is out there. Either that, or you just don't bother taking showers.
Published: January 10, 2006 9:53 PM
Keith,
The federal statute we are discussing here prohibits me from buying a certain type of shower head or toilet. I am also enjoined by my state from watering my lawn or washing my car at certain times.
As it happens, although my wife insisted on a full-flow showerhead, I left my own restrictor in place (I have a lot less hair than she does).
Published: January 10, 2006 10:08 PM
Bill, you may not realize this, but just about everyone here agrees with your main argument: water is precious and scarce and it would be best for all concerned if it were conserved. A very effective and fair way to conserve water would be to let it be bought and sold at market prices. A much less effective -- not to mention viscerally unsatisfactory -- strategy is to regulate its usage.
Published: January 10, 2006 10:15 PM
Proof that gov't subsidies result in waste and misuse of resources: fly from Phoenix, AZ to Las Vegas sometime during the day in the summer, and look below at the massive cultivation of crops -- in the middle of a desert! No one should ever defend gov't as a protector of the environment; its subsidies have resulted in the mass dumpage of water into rocky soil at evaporative 100+ degree Fahrenheit temperatures, to the point that unnatural crops (for the region) and golf courses can be groomed with impunity.
Published: January 10, 2006 10:18 PM
Also, when you said "Water is, in fact, a non-renewable resource... The amount of water on this planet is finite," I'm not sure whom you were addressing, since no one has argued that the water on Earth isn't finite.
Published: January 10, 2006 10:19 PM
Water may be finite, but taking a shower does not destroy water. The entire point is moot.
Published: January 10, 2006 10:22 PM
feel glad you dont live in australia, we live with water restrictions all the time, and i am not just talking about out in the middle of the dessert. The big capital cities near the ocean still have water restrictions.
http://www.savewater.com.au
Published: January 10, 2006 10:45 PM
Vince,
Thanks! I just wanted to know the other restrictions placed on you by your state.
Published: January 10, 2006 10:53 PM
I did hack a showerhead just to get a decent flow of water. It's easy to do. Now won't somone please tell me how to do the same with the gubmint controlled toilets that *save water*? The newer variety of toilets don't flush the first go around and often require 3 or 4 cycles to get clean enough that you may want to reenter that bathroom some day. Saving water? I don't think so.
Published: January 11, 2006 2:55 AM
Perhaps you should read the BBC's report http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3747724.stm - of particular interest is the graph "Water use around the World". North Americans have a blatant disregard for the rest of the planet.
Published: January 11, 2006 4:20 AM
That is nonsense, because North America just happens to have plenty of water. Blame the weather for favouring people in temperate zones if you like, but it's a bizarre notion that some people use water at the expense of someone else.
In a lot of places the problem isn't that there is a lack of actual water, it's more that the economic devlopment is so stunted there is no investment in efficient or effective water processing. The reason some people have to carry water for miles is that there is no delivery system. In Africa the problem is down to corrupt government and no capital.
Published: January 11, 2006 5:56 AM
"What's the big deal? What critical matter of American public life is at stake?"
Right on! Goddamm it, no pinko commie bureaucrat is going to tell me I can't pour precious natural resources down the drain at the rate /I/ demand! Who cares if it screws the world over, that is something my seven God-fearing kids can fix once we are dead and gone.
This is our way of life at stake here and it is damm well non-negotiable!
Published: January 11, 2006 7:39 AM
Great article!
I do believe in Europe the regulations are less strict than in US and showers while less frequent are much more enjoyable.
Anyone have any extra info on differences between EU and US regulations?
Published: January 11, 2006 7:58 AM
Mike, if the resources were truly that precious, they would be more expensive and people would have a real economic incentive to conserve. But when water is subsidized by the government, people who do conserve are forced to pay those who don't--hardly a way to encourage efficient usage of "precious natural resources."
As an example, it takes 2500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat. If this cost wasn't subsidized by taxpayers, hamburger would be $35/pound.
No private owner could ever afford to be as wasteful as the feds.
Published: January 11, 2006 8:11 AM
This entire article reads like a 10-year-old's rant against his parents' curfew. If you want to rail on government regulation, pick something important!
Anyone who cares at all about their shower volume has already been modifying showerheads for years . . . ergo the current system works fine. Those who really want it get it, and those who don't don't waste it.
And the idea of the price system sorting out water conservation is utterly ridiculous. Do you really want a world where those who can afford it (presumably you assume this group to include yourself) are spending $2/gallon to fuel a triple-headed shower, while those less fortunate are reducing their fluid intake, or worse, drinking unprocessed water, because they can't afford the price?
Water is used for a lot more things than hosing down fat white people, after all.
Published: January 11, 2006 8:46 AM
Larry,
Hmm..."Do we really want a price system to sort our water conservation?"
umm...YES!
Just like I want the price system sorting out essentials like food!
Published: January 11, 2006 9:08 AM
Larry, there are plenty of other articles on this site that illustrate the adverse effects of "important" government regulation. The purpose of this one was to show that even the trivial regulations have unintended consequences, invariably leading to cries for even more regulations to clean up the mess.
And of course the price system should sort out water conservation. Would you rather poor people pay $0.10 a gallon for their own use plus $1.90 in taxes to hose down some rich white person?
Published: January 11, 2006 9:08 AM
Sudha summed it up best in an earlier post:
Only the State could produce a black market in shower heads.
Published: January 11, 2006 9:43 AM
Here in Ontario Canada, a number of years ago, agents of the local water authority actually came into my home (while only my wife was home, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten past the doorstep) and removed my existing shower heads, replacing them with those of the "correct flow" variety. In addition, they put a brick in each of our toilet tanks.
Needless to say, the bricks were taken out within minutes of my return home and I was able to still find desirable flow shower heads to purchase at the local hardware store. Fortunately, I didn't have annual inspections and so far I have managed to stay out of prison.
Published: January 11, 2006 10:08 AM
As an example, it takes 2500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat. If this cost wasn't subsidized by taxpayers, hamburger would be $35/pound.
Please make order-of-magnitude estimates of absurd statistics before repeating them. Take an average American's meat consumption at 2 lb/week (low estimate). This would put annual meat-water subsidy at:
$35/lb*2lb/person-week*52 week/year*300million people= over $1 trillion!
Now, whatever your thoughts about the issues, whatever your estimates of government spending, hopefully you realize the government does not spend one tenth of GDP (or the entire amount of the federal budget) on water subsidies.
Published: January 11, 2006 11:04 AM
Person, you are right of course. My apologies for choosing such a bad example.
Published: January 11, 2006 11:24 AM
While I agree with you that the state is overwhelmingly adamant about stopping the business, or enforcing the law, which ever you prefer, I have to agree with them in one aspect. I don't think the problem is the size of the shower head. The true problem lies in the millions of people, that use fresh water for their showers. It may seem insignificant to try and curb the gallons/per minute of certain shower heads, but the fact that fresh water is becoming quiet scarce, makes it something to be considered. You stated how we are one of the most showered nations in the world, so when taking that into consideration, we soon may not have any freshwater for things that are more important, such as water to drink. Now, you may argue that we have many methods of producing fresh water. I can't say that I'm the most educated on the matter, but because treating water, and desalting ocean water doesn't seem to yield enough good water, we are forced to take from the scarce-becoming underground natural reserves. Well, I suppose this is all fine and well, until you consider the booming population. I could go on, but I guess to make my point, eventually you may be thanking the government, as anal as they may be right now, because you'll have water to sustain you later.
Published: January 11, 2006 11:50 AM
Larry says;
"Anyone who cares at all about their shower volume has already been modifying showerheads for years . . . ergo the current system works fine. Those who really want it get it, and those who don't don't waste it."
So you are saying that inane yet immoral regulations are OK if everyone ignores them? What kind of logic is that?
Published: January 11, 2006 11:52 AM
Dana,
Last I checked, most municipal supplies rely on surface water. New York City, for example, uses the Croton Reservoir in West Chester County, and does not even treat it. Surface waters have actually gotten much cleaner in recent years, and, thanks to global warming, more plentiful in many areas (TIC). Anyway, it's all moot - economic use of water is automatic when there is a free market, otherwise bureaucrats have to resort to silly stuff like this to control usage.
Published: January 11, 2006 11:56 AM
Where do the regulator's logic stem from? The toilet fiasco is a case in point. I moved into a "newly remodelled" apartment. It was nice but the toilet.. I had to flush it two or three times. Everytime. Even more if someone with a highly active colon visited. Now, when I lease, I look first at the bathrooms and don't bother if they don't have good old fashioned crappers.
Published: January 11, 2006 12:02 PM
I'm going to "modify" my old-fashioned shower head tonight
I, for one, welcome the SWAT team ;)
I think that if I had higher water pressure, my very long thick hair would get cleaner, faster, and I'd use less water than I do now, standing under the water for a long time trying to get the shampoo out of my hair.
Published: January 11, 2006 12:38 PM
Where are these people coming from, and are they bothering to read the posts that come before theirs? They ask questions that have already been answered in the thread!
Stop wasting internet resources and please read before posting. Thank you.
I could go on, but I guess to make my point, eventually you may be thanking the government, as anal as they may be right now, because you'll have water to sustain you later.
Already answered in this very thread, Dana. The point is that government regulations like this are not effective at conserving water, but instead will cause people to waste even more water, among other unintended consequences. Whereas, without the excessive regs and subsidies, people would pay the true costs of supplying water to their homes, and will have plenty of incentive to conserve if the water is, in fact, scarce.
Government intervention in economic matters is the problem, not the solution.
Published: January 11, 2006 1:12 PM
Where are these people coming from, and are they bothering to read the posts that come before theirs? They ask questions that have already been answered in the thread!
They're coming from Fark.com. The economics of the article is missed by almost all of the posters on that site. Here's a link to their discussion on this article.
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1851552
Published: January 11, 2006 2:01 PM
Mr. Nash et al,
I will pay others subsidies with no complaint as long as they pay mine with no complaint.
Published: January 11, 2006 3:43 PM
Wow, a Mises article made Fark? I used to post there (screenname: MrWright), but tired of the ignorance of the vast majority of Farkers -- whether they agreed with me or not, sadly.
Published: January 11, 2006 3:50 PM
Sure, sure, everybody's on the antiregulation train until the well runs dry. Then we can learn to enjoy drinking the benzene and PCB-laced beverages leaching from our unregulated landfills into the water table. And then of course we'll blame the government for not having done anything about it.
Published: January 11, 2006 4:38 PM
The problem, Dr. K, as is the water case here, is when the government does do something. The government, in its wisdom, under-prices water. Which action then, oops, causes people to use too much water relative to supply. Omigosh! A water shortage! Then the government says, "We'll fix that. We'll just regulate, one way or another (other than through prices) how much water people can use." Silly nonsense.
Published: January 11, 2006 4:53 PM
"Hmm...I remember reading a Russell Roberts article that said in 1970 there was 531 billion barrels of crude oil reserves in the world with 16.5 billion barrels of annual consumption. So we should have run out of oil around the year 2000. However, by the year 2000 there was actually 1 trillion barrels of crude oil reserves with 26 billion in actual consumption. So we have like 40 years of consumption left.
So how come we didn't run out?"
There are several theories about this, including evidence of previously tapped oil wells *refilling*. A particular work called 'Deep Hot Biosphere' sticks out as a notable approach to the concept.
As for water being finite, there's more than one element to consider than just the amount of water available. Yes, it's constantly diminishing, as an effect of photosynthesis, breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen, plants release oxygen as waste. Oxygen is consumed as a catalyst in various other processes, add a timeline, et voila: At some point in the distant future, we will all be living on our own version of Mars. Unless there's a natural fusion process somewhere that I'm not aware of (which is entirely possible (though it just occurred to me that maybe hydrogen fuel cells really are a great idea.))
The other, and more important, finite resources are delivery and desalination capacities, especially in very heavily populated areas.
Add to this the resources required to purify water, mitigate the risk of industrial contamination, and just the sheer energy costs involved in distribution. Much of this cost is eaten by the municipalities responsible for delivery. It comes out of a budget somewhere, the same budget that pays little things like public school teacher salaries.
Take the 'drop in a bucket' premise, and suppose 30-40% of homeowners have removed flow limiters from their shower heads, effectively doubling the flow rate during what's probably the largest water consumption period of the day by humans[1][2]. Average eight to ten minutes for a shower on your shower head of choice, how much energy is required to simply move that water? How much of it is from gravity feeds, and how much is high voltage electrical pumps? How does that cost breakdown in power consumption during peak periods? How much power is drawn at waste reclamation facilities to handle that flow rate? What would a 30-40% reduction during peak periods amount to, in actual dollars? If that number is insignificant, I'll happily STFU. If it's enough to afford at least a few more teachers per school, per grade level..
There's been some valid points raised in response to my rhetoric, and I acknowledge that I'm winging in from left field a bit with an extremist perspective. However, most people don't consider the effects that little actions add up to, especially when you apply the internet as an accelerator to social memes. Some things that really aren't problems are suddenly noticed by some, only because they were pointed out. It's akin to so-called victimless crimes.
Applying economic regulation to water usage doesn't work for everyone, especially once you get to the lowest common denominator where the price will be felt the most. I think the balance is in reducing the amount of subsidization required to maintain lower costs, as a simple factor of increasing efficiency. This means reducing usage per capita, eliminating waste, and applying discipline both fiscally and environmentally.
[1] I'm pulling that 30-40% figure out of my ass, it's not backed up by any actual fact
[2] Maybe some rampant toilet flushing after lunch.
Published: January 11, 2006 5:40 PM
The standard FARK-ument;
"Therefore, it is in the public interest to pipe clean drinking water to every American household, and to provide it at a price that every American (even the poorest minimum-wage-earner with ten kids) can easily afford. Because otherwise their kids will be filthy and they'll spread diseases and the whole society suffers as a result."
Me;
"EXACTLY. This is why we rely on the government to distribute food - we can't leave it up to the dirty free market or millions of Americans would starve!"
FARKER:
" the Libertarian argument leads to a conclusion where the richest people can afford to waste limited resources while the poorest are priced out of essential utilities."
Me;
"A fallacy, complete and utter BS. Utilities are invariably government-enforced monopolies, run directly by government or its exclusive licensee, the monopoly effect of which keeps prices artificially HIGH. That's why cities and states then have to subsidize their systems - to avoid pricing the poor out of their cozy monopoly distribution scheme, QED. "
Hey, I tried. Good to see the Mises Blog is keeping its resolution to get out more in 2006!
Published: January 11, 2006 6:15 PM
BTW, let me stipulate that I LOVE FARK, as it is unparallelled as a source of general interest material for my own LibertyGuys.org, rivaled only by the also superb BoingBoing as a source for cool tech and general interest political outrage stories.
Of course for meat and potatoes we rely on Mises, LRC, and Antiwar, as well as our local rags , The Delaware County Daily Times, The Philadelphia Daily News, and the Gloucester County (NJ) Times.
Pertty well-read I'd say we are!
Published: January 11, 2006 6:32 PM
Mr. Tucker:
Wonderful article about the silliness of our government, not to mention the unintended consequences. I noticed on a business trip several years ago, in an economy motel in Los Vegas that my shower was luxuriance with mountains of water and an unending supply of warmth, and looking our my window there was just desert. But just a week later in Seattle, WA my shower at the same motel chain was anemic and looking out my window I saw almost continuous rain, resulting in swollen streams and rivers.
Our government believes one law fits all. How untrue and misguided. I fixed my shower problems several years ago with a drill bit just 1/8� larger that the inside of my new shower head.
Stay clean and prosper.
Doug Sizemore
Knoxville, TN
PS to the guys listening in the government: Take a shower and get a life.
Published: January 11, 2006 6:48 PM
While I really hate the idea of big government--CRY ME A RIVER!
Why on earth are you complaining about SHOWER HEADS when the government already has put into place a bill that will create an internal passport system inside the United States (The RealID Act)?
Or renewing clauses in the Patriot Act that will take away the few amendments we have left from the Bill of Rights?
Like, aren't there a lot more areas where the government is invading our privacy every day that are a lot more serious?
Water is easily the most valuable resource on the planet, you don't have a RIGHT to squander something that does not belong to anyone, just so you can take a 2 hour luxuriant shower every day. Get used to it! People in the middle ages didn't even bathe more than once a year, often. We're spoiled consumers who can't give up our habits, even if they're costing everyone in the long run. Using gallons of water so that you can relax every day is an enormous waste.
Nevermind that, though, just go back to sleep. The earth will NEVER run out of resources, that's impossible! .....right?
Published: January 11, 2006 9:33 PM
Guivin asks "Why on earth are you complaining about SHOWER HEADS when the government already has put into place a bill that will create an internal passport system inside the United States (The RealID Act)?"
It is exactly because people allow the government to get away with one that allows the government to get away with the other. The welfare/warfare state is, and always will be, one and the same thing.
Published: January 11, 2006 10:03 PM
Water is not a scarce resource, only a true moron could make such a claim.
Oceans have 97% of Earth's water supply and they are hardly used.
Also, Water is renewable. Water evaporates, Water rains, water is drunk, water is ejected, water evaporates and the cycle continue. Idiot Enviro-Whackos don't see this.
Published: January 11, 2006 11:22 PM
...the same budget that pays little things like public school teacher salaries...
and
If it's enough to afford at least a few more teachers per school, per grade level..
You write as if public education were a good thing.
Published: January 12, 2006 12:36 AM
Not to mention that enviro-whackos invariably assume that "science is finished": that there'll be no further scientific advances ever. And that humans will all die out in some reasonably short period of time. They go on about "wasting resources" like oil, and now water, and how "there won't be any left for your grandkids". OK, even assuming that were true and that science really is finished, if we restrict our use of oil/water/whatever so that "the grandkids have some", what will the grandkids do with it? If they use it, there'll be none left for their grandkids, eventually - and that's bad, right? So the only possible solution is to conserve it 100% - never to use any - and for the grandkids to do the same, and so on. But if we do that, it doesn't matter whether there's any left for the grandkids, since they won't get to use it anyway! The only other possible "solution", which the enviro-whackos must therefore be implying, is that by the time it all runs out there won't be anybody left to care: i.e., that the "world will end" in a few generations from now. Whackos!
Published: January 12, 2006 1:13 AM
Geez, and I thought my old bag landlady in Munich, Germany, was bad, permitting me to take one bath per week. Fascist.
Published: January 12, 2006 6:00 AM
Guivin is another who could have benefitted by reading the thread and responding to the arguments already made, instead of ignoring them. Regulation of shower heads, besides the unintended consequences that result, is a good example of how government regulation works in so many other areas, as well.
But he does raise an interesting point:
Water is easily the most valuable resource on the planet, you don't have a RIGHT to squander something that does not belong to anyone, just so you can take a 2 hour luxuriant shower every day.
He's implying that he doesn't believe in private property (at least in water), or that the marketplace can effectively manage the water supply. If individuals have no right to water, then how can anybody justify the claim that government has the right to control water? Like many, he falsely assumes that governments represent society, and thus can own and control the "unownable".
Published: January 12, 2006 8:48 AM
Peter,
I have tried that argument with the environmental Left. They don't like it at all, and usually try to shout me down and flame me. It is amusing.
Published: January 12, 2006 9:06 AM
A couple of years ago, we remodelled our bathroom & that included taking out the shower & replacing it and the pipes to it. While talking with the contractor in charge of the job, we talked about the flow limiter in the shower head. He said that in California all new showers have the flow limiter in the pipe -- probably in the fixture that turns on the water, but he wouldn't specify where -- so the flow is limited on its way to the shower head. This circumvents removing the limiter from the shower head itself. Your government at work.
Published: January 12, 2006 9:41 AM
Bill Nash:
No plant breaks down water into hydrogen and oxygen. If you haven't a clue as to something as relatively well-known as simple plant physiology (normally explained in middle-school science class or even earlier), Economics has gotta be out of your league. I don't know whether the others who saw your post didn't catch that "howler" or whether they're just too polite to tell you just how dumb it was.
I hope your feelings aren't hurt. Wouldn't want that.
Published: January 12, 2006 9:14 PM
Bill Nash said:
No plant breaks down water into hydrogen and oxygen......
quite. Indeed, when fats are burned ( whether in a fire or in living cells), they break up and reconfigure into carbon dioxide and watermolecules. One hexadecane molecule makes sixteen ( I think , going from memory, might be seventeen) water molecules when it gets oxidised.
Published: January 13, 2006 12:24 AM
Just FYI, I've been getting the most incredible hate mail on this piece. The latest one decries this article for neglecting the real scandals of our time, including excessive CEO pay, the supression of meaningful sex education in high school, and the pollution created by electrical generating plants, and ends by telling me to "die and get off the planet." I guess I should be used to the vitriol by now but it is still startling to see how quick the ideological left is to see death as a solution to ideas that annoy them.
Published: January 13, 2006 8:56 AM
Wow. Who'd have thought that people would get so upset about showers? Must've hit some kind of nerve, Jeffrey.
;-)
Published: January 13, 2006 9:14 AM
Jeffrey Tucker,
I only comment and get a few death threats from time to time on my e-mail account, so I don't even want to imagine what sort of dreck you have to put up with.
Published: January 13, 2006 9:42 AM
Larry,
I think it a combination of things. Most Americans are mostly unaware of how the growth of the state has harmed them since their taxes are withheld before they see the money. They have the vague sense that something is wrong, but they can't put their finger on what it is exactly. I find it interesting that property taxes, of all the taxes paid, is the one that, by far, draws the most vehemence from the population, even though it is exactly that tax that actually provides them the most "services", and is actually smaller than taxes like income and payroll. No doubt, this is due to the fact that a check has to be written to the government or the mortgage company. With regulations, most of these fall on businesses, so the population is again unaware of how they are affected, but the shower head and toilet regulations are directly affecting people, and when that happens, people actually notice and oppose it actively.
Published: January 13, 2006 9:51 AM
The comment to Jeff Tucker to "die and get off the planet" by the individual apparently from the Left illustrates to me that, as a group, the Left has little regard for human life. This country's biggest murderers, i.e. FDR, Wilson, Truman, and Lincoln, remain icons of the Left. As is the case with the Right, the Left is fundamentally concerned with controlling the lives and property of others and with political power.
Published: January 13, 2006 2:48 PM
Yancey,
Regarding property taxes, I live in New Jersey and most people here are definitely more concerned about high property taxes than high income or other taxes. In addition to your explanation, this may also be due to the fact that property tax rates generally are not progressive; thus, the "rich" pay the same rate as the "middle class" and "poor". Yes, if you own property that has a higher rated tax base, you will pay more property taxes, but the rate will generally be the same as that applied to property that has a lower rated base.
Published: January 13, 2006 3:06 PM
The actual argument here isn't about a lack of water. 3/4 of the planets surface is liquid water, so the scare-mongers are blowing smoke out of their preconceptions.
The issue is fresh, drinkable water. Yes, North America has huge quantities of it, so do other countries. The problem is that humans have located themselves where they can use up the available fresh water. Punishing other people for the bad decision to live in the desert is irrational.
Here's an idea for the "parched" areas of the world, or at least the ones which also happen to be close to the ocean.
Set up an atomic reactor, or even oil fired since there seems to be a lot of oil in some of those parched areas, and desalinate while generating electricity. Woopie, two problems solved at the same time.
Getting government the heck out of the way and having prices change will also spur other innovation, such as reverse-ozmosis, to create large-scale purification of otherwise nasty water. With price controlls, there just isn't any incentive to really do something about the problem where there is a problem.
Published: January 13, 2006 4:30 PM
Wow, my dboule headed showerhead order arrived today. I took my first REAL shower in 40 years. I forgot what it was like. My sore right arm feels a lot better too.
Reading this blog is like reading a religious debate thread. So much of what Americans know (i.e. believe) about economics is pure faith. Faith in government. It's like religion, without the commandments to not steal or murder.
Published: January 13, 2006 9:48 PM
I wish our (lithuanian) government was so environmetally savvy. We should stop wasting energy recources. Totally agree with USA governemnt's decision to do this ;)
Published: January 14, 2006 4:22 AM
quote:
wish our (lithuanian) government was so environmetally savvy. We should stop wasting energy recources. Totally agree with USA governemnt's decision to do this ;)
What makes you think this has anything to do with the environment? This is government. Wake up. They don't care about anything except their own power.
Mises said it, there's only 2 ways to organise society, either let people freely choose through the market, or use force.
Ok, you think this is good, for you. Ok, let's say, I'm the dictator (like the one who said he would use torture even though it's illegal) and I decide we need to save water. Well, how's this:
1. Restrict the number of children, those dirty rascals use a lot of water especially behind their ears. They like to play in the bathtub too. - this has been done in China.
2. No plants, no lawns, only cactus.
3. No swimming pools, natch.
....
why should some jerk in a government I never voted for choose? Why should YOU choose. Just because you have the most guns and corrupt politicians?
While we're at it, let's get rid of the fat people who sweat too much and consume too much water. You are a believer in government. The u.s. was built on small govt. but has lost it's way. If I could, I'd move to a freer country.
Once you start using force for all decisions you get the Soviet Union taking over your country. My history is a bit weak, but was your country one of those ruled by the Soviets? As Mises said, there is no third way, govt grows forever, until the people finally rebel. I'm rebelling, in my own tiny way. Maybe my children will live free if enough of us rebel.
Published: January 14, 2006 12:53 PM
Eric:
That attempted "smiley" ain't Lithuanian, bud. Pay enough attention to realize the guy's on YOUR side. Matter of fact, it seems he understands AS English better than you (AS=American Satirical, a reasonably widespread dialect common enough on this blog and even used, on occasion, by Von Mises himself.). Don't know what else to tell you--"lighten up," "get a grip,"--just don't quite do the job.
Published: January 14, 2006 3:19 PM
Bill Nash:
From your longer post above, I see that you really do try to put some thought on some of these problems. And I do not, in any way, disparage the quality of that thought, even though I am certain that you've reached entirely erroneous conclusions. Can I convince you of the fact that that's entirely possible? I think so.
Think about the matter of "breaking water down
into hydrogen and oxygen." By now, you've realized you msde a mistake on that score. Why?
The simple answer is that, for one reason or
another, you weren't in possession of certain specific information and had gathered, somewhere, an erroneous impression. That's really no biggie, either; nobody knows anything until they learn it one way or another--and we all learn more or less of different matters.
It's somewhat the same with regard to economic knowledge. But worse--much, much worse. Why? It's not exactly a conspiracy but the fact is that most connected with what is called "the educational process" are, in fact, employees of one government agency or another. Most are not trying to miseducate (though some are)--they've simply been educated to believe the mush they peddle. In my own case, I was 35 years old before I ever had even the faintest clue that I didn't know anything worth knowing about a large area of
human behavior except various ideas I'd picked up one place or another and could now see were quite wrong.
You've raised the point that people don't think about how the little actions they take "all add up." What I'd like to explain is that they most certainly DO. To a great extent, we could liken all people--literally everyone on earth--to a giant computer network in which each individual was "plugged in" and sharing data across the entirety. That's what "the market" is, Bill: it enables everyone, to a degree (and with lags in time), to know nearly everything he needs to know about how all other value what he, himself is in the process of valuing. It is not only unlikely but virtually impossible for a bureaucrat or even a team of them, with the greatest intellectual resources available to their command, to make decisions for the future more "intelligently" and prudentially than that amorphous mass, the market.
Think about it: the market and its prices are characterized by almost constant changes in either direction, "fine adjustments" to the best valuational efforts of everyone on the planet.
But "stability" (lack of change) is something the government is wont to brag about, even when they haven't really achieved it. No matter how smart they may seem on some matters, they're "dumb as
a box of rocks" on this stuff. But even further--they've got their "thumb on the scale" like a crooked butcher: they'd have no job if you could figure out for yourself how much you'd be willing to pay for water or tons of other things people think they're regulating or conserving for them.
Do yourself a favor. Read Henry Hazlitt, ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON. It's right on this site for free and it won't even take long. Then, come back and tell us if you think a little differently.
Published: January 14, 2006 4:40 PM
I sort of saw that smiley, but couldn't tell where his tounge was, but hey, the rest of my response could have gone to all the other statests that have commented on this blog. If Andrius was just joking, then my appologies.
Published: January 14, 2006 7:45 PM
I just received the following from Beatrice Jones of the City of Hardeevile, South Carolina:
Published: January 15, 2006 1:19 PM
"But because municipal water systems have created artificial shortages, other means become necessary. One regulation piles on top of another, and the next thing you know, you have shower commissars telling you what you can or cannot do in the most private spaces."
Mr. Tucker,
I couldn't agree more. I live in the Great Lakes region and we're well into a decade of drought with the Lakes down several feet. My community lies just west of the Lake Michigan watershed which means municipalities here are prohibited by international treaty from pumping water out of Lake Michigan. This county (Waukesha County, Wisconsin) is undergoing a gradual conversion from cropland to residential suburb and I think it's fair to say the majority of homes are equipped with water-saving devices since they're newly constructed.
Still we are encouraged to conserve water and it reminds me of Jimmy Carter telling everyone to put on a sweater during the last severe oil crisis.
Most water is supplied by private wells here because we are mostly rural, but as development spreads away from the Lake more communities are being added to the sewer/water "grid" and homeowners are forced by law to pay the assessment.
How can private competition help us? Where is the Home Depot of water supply & distribution? My county executive is telling us to conserve, but if I can afford to pay for a green lawn, take a longer shower, or wash my car every day then I want to be able to do that. Do you know of any companies that bid on municipal water/sewer contracts? I'd like to avert a crisis like the one I see coming if my local government continues to mismanage the water supply. We have no grocery-supply problem in this country because government isn't involved in that and I wonder how different the Western US water crisis would be if government were out-of the water business.
Thank you for the thoughtful article. It helped to clarify just how close tyranny is on an everyday basis. We must be constantly vigilant of defending individual liberty - even in the shower!
Published: March 29, 2006 7:57 AM
Just found this article/blog tonight. Very interestingm even for a very-much-not-a-libertarian-rather-a-progressive-liberal like myself. I successfully hacked one of my showers....purely for experimental purposes, of course. The other one has what looks to be a 'permanent' flow reducer, so I'll have to get a new shower head. Thanks for the info!
Published: December 23, 2008 8:27 PM