- Teks
- Sejarah
On October 30, President Bush signe
On October 30, President Bush signed legislation
into law that makes it possible for recipients of
water from California's Central Valley Project to
resell that water. This legislation is controversial,
because it is expected to plant the seeds for the
development of a water market in California,
Among the most frequently cited objections to
using markets to allocate water are concerns that
the results would be unfair and disruptive: In particular,
opponents argue that a move to market
prices would mean a large shift in water from
farms to cities. This change in water allocation,
they argue, would lead to reduced agricultural
income and production, lower income in agriculturally
dependent communities, and higher
food prices. In the extreme, this stylized scenario
predicts a world with fountains in Beverly Hills
and desolation in California's central valley farming
region.
This vision of the distributional consequences of
a market system for water results, in part, from
putting together two statements about price determination
and drawing the wrong conclusion.
These statements are that (a) water is extremely
valuable, and (b) that the value of a commodity is
reflected in its price. Thus, the conclusion drawn
by some is that water prices would be high in a
market system and that low income and agricultural
consumers would be severely limited
in their abilities to purchase water.
This conclusion does not necessarily follow,
however. In fact, a similar debate took place in
the economics literature in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries before being put to rest by
Alfred Marshall. Known as the "Diamond-Water
paradox:' the issue sought to explain how the
observed price of water could be below that of
other commodities, such as diamonds, given
water's high value in sustaining life. Marshall's
solution to the paradox was to recognize that
prices reflect the value of the last, or marginal,
unit, not the value of all units consumed. He
demonstrated that a commodity that has high
value to society could have a low price if it
were available in sufficient supply.
As discussed in this Weekly Letter, this insight is
relevant to the current debate. The evidence sug~
gests that water markets would not lead to a high
price for water, because while urban users now
pay a significantly higher price than agricultural
users, that reflects differences invalues of the last
unit consumed by the two groups given artificial
restrictions on trading. In fact, the eyidence suggests
that water use patterns would not be affected
significantly, implying that the effects on agricurture
and agricultural communities would not be
large.
The paradox
The diamond-water paradox was puzzled over
for nearly a hundred years in the economics literature.
Adam Smith considered the issue in the
late eighteenth century, and David Ricardo spent
considerable effort trying to understand this
seemingly logical inconsistency with relative
price determination. Why would water, which
is essential to life, carry a price that is below that
of diamonds, whose use is far less critical?
Ricardo, the father of the labor theory of value,
tried to apply that theory to this case. He argued
that the cost of a commodity reflected the embedded
labor needed to bring that product to
market. Thus, he argued that water was relatively
cheap because it required less labor effort to
acquire than did diamonds.
While seeming to solve the dilemma, it was left
to Marshall to develop the correct answer to the
paradox. Marshall's answer can be seen in the
figure. Supply and demand curves for diamonds
(good 1) and water (good 2) are shown in the
two panels of the figure. As shown in the figure,
prices are determined where supply and demand
intersect in each market (points B and G), and
given the low quantity of diamonds, the equilibrium
price of diamonds exceeds that of water.
The important factor to note is that this is a marginal
condition. Prices measure the value of the
final unit consumed. The total value derived from
use is measured by the area under the demand
Figure 1
into law that makes it possible for recipients of
water from California's Central Valley Project to
resell that water. This legislation is controversial,
because it is expected to plant the seeds for the
development of a water market in California,
Among the most frequently cited objections to
using markets to allocate water are concerns that
the results would be unfair and disruptive: In particular,
opponents argue that a move to market
prices would mean a large shift in water from
farms to cities. This change in water allocation,
they argue, would lead to reduced agricultural
income and production, lower income in agriculturally
dependent communities, and higher
food prices. In the extreme, this stylized scenario
predicts a world with fountains in Beverly Hills
and desolation in California's central valley farming
region.
This vision of the distributional consequences of
a market system for water results, in part, from
putting together two statements about price determination
and drawing the wrong conclusion.
These statements are that (a) water is extremely
valuable, and (b) that the value of a commodity is
reflected in its price. Thus, the conclusion drawn
by some is that water prices would be high in a
market system and that low income and agricultural
consumers would be severely limited
in their abilities to purchase water.
This conclusion does not necessarily follow,
however. In fact, a similar debate took place in
the economics literature in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries before being put to rest by
Alfred Marshall. Known as the "Diamond-Water
paradox:' the issue sought to explain how the
observed price of water could be below that of
other commodities, such as diamonds, given
water's high value in sustaining life. Marshall's
solution to the paradox was to recognize that
prices reflect the value of the last, or marginal,
unit, not the value of all units consumed. He
demonstrated that a commodity that has high
value to society could have a low price if it
were available in sufficient supply.
As discussed in this Weekly Letter, this insight is
relevant to the current debate. The evidence sug~
gests that water markets would not lead to a high
price for water, because while urban users now
pay a significantly higher price than agricultural
users, that reflects differences invalues of the last
unit consumed by the two groups given artificial
restrictions on trading. In fact, the eyidence suggests
that water use patterns would not be affected
significantly, implying that the effects on agricurture
and agricultural communities would not be
large.
The paradox
The diamond-water paradox was puzzled over
for nearly a hundred years in the economics literature.
Adam Smith considered the issue in the
late eighteenth century, and David Ricardo spent
considerable effort trying to understand this
seemingly logical inconsistency with relative
price determination. Why would water, which
is essential to life, carry a price that is below that
of diamonds, whose use is far less critical?
Ricardo, the father of the labor theory of value,
tried to apply that theory to this case. He argued
that the cost of a commodity reflected the embedded
labor needed to bring that product to
market. Thus, he argued that water was relatively
cheap because it required less labor effort to
acquire than did diamonds.
While seeming to solve the dilemma, it was left
to Marshall to develop the correct answer to the
paradox. Marshall's answer can be seen in the
figure. Supply and demand curves for diamonds
(good 1) and water (good 2) are shown in the
two panels of the figure. As shown in the figure,
prices are determined where supply and demand
intersect in each market (points B and G), and
given the low quantity of diamonds, the equilibrium
price of diamonds exceeds that of water.
The important factor to note is that this is a marginal
condition. Prices measure the value of the
final unit consumed. The total value derived from
use is measured by the area under the demand
Figure 1
0/5000
Pada 30 Oktober Presiden Bush menandatangani undang-undang
menjadi undang-undang yang memungkinkan untuk penerima
air dari California Central Valley proyek untuk
menjual air. Undang-undang ini kontroversial,
karena diharapkan untuk menanam benih untuk
pengembangan pasar air di California,
antara yang paling sering dikutip keberatan terhadap
menggunakan pasar untuk mengalokasikan air yang memperhatikan bahwa
Hasilnya akan tidak adil dan mengganggu: khususnya,
lawan berpendapat bahwa pindah ke pasar
harga berarti pergeseran besar dalam air dari
peternakan ke kota. Perubahan ini dalam alokasi air,
mereka berpendapat, akan mengakibatkan berkurang pertanian
pendapatan dan produksi, menurunkan pendapatan di pertanian
masyarakat yang bergantung pada, dan lebih tinggi
harga pangan. Di ujung, ini bergaya skenario
memprediksi dunia dengan air mancur di Beverly Hills
dan kehancuran di California central valley pertanian
region.
visi ini akibat distribusi
sistem pasar untuk air hasil, dalam bagian, dari
menyusun dua pernyataan tentang penentuan harga
dan menggambar kesimpulan salah.
pernyataan ini adalah bahwa air () adalah sangat
berharga, dan (b) yang nilai komoditas
tercermin dalam harga. Jadi, kesimpulan yang diambil
oleh beberapa adalah bahwa air harga akan tinggi
pasar sistem dan bahwa pendapatan rendah dan pertanian
konsumen akan sangat terbatas
dalam kemampuan mereka untuk membeli air.
kesimpulan ini tidak selalu mengikuti,
namun. Pada kenyataannya, sebuah perdebatan yang serupa terjadi di
Sastra ekonomi di kedelapan belas dan
berabad-abad kesembilan belas sebelum diletakkan untuk beristirahat oleh
Alfred Marshall. Dikenal sebagai "berlian air
paradoks:' masalah cuba menjelaskan bagaimana
diamati harga air bisa di bawah
komoditi lainnya, seperti berlian, diberikan
air tinggi nilai dalam mempertahankan kelangsungan hidup. Marshall's
solusi paradoks adalah untuk mengenali bahwa
Harga mencerminkan nilai terakhir, atau marginal,
unit, bukan nilai Semua unit yang dikonsumsi. Ia
menunjukkan bahwa komoditas yang tinggi memiliki
nilai kepada masyarakat bisa memiliki harga yang rendah jika itu
tersedia dalam cukup pasokan.
seperti yang dibahas dalam Surat ini mingguan, wawasan ini adalah
relevan saat ini perdebatan. Sug bukti ~
gests bahwa air pasar tidak akan menyebabkan tinggi
harga untuk air, karena sementara pengguna perkotaan sekarang
membayar harga yang signifikan lebih tinggi daripada pertanian
pengguna, yang mencerminkan perbedaan invalues terakhir
unit yang dikonsumsi oleh dua kelompok diberikan buatan
pembatasan pada perdagangan. Pada kenyataannya, eyidence menunjukkan
bahwa air menggunakan pola akan terpengaruh
secara signifikan, menyiratkan bahwa efek pada agricurture
dan masyarakat pertanian tidak akan
besar.
Paradoks
paradoks berlian air yang bingung atas
selama hampir seratus tahun dalam ekonomi sastra
Adam Smith dianggap masalah dalam
akhir abad kedelapan belas, dan David Ricardo menghabiskan
banyak upaya berusaha memahami hal ini
kelihatannya Logis inkonsistensi dengan relatif
penentuan harga. Mengapa akan air, yang
sangat penting untuk kehidupan, membawa harga yang di bawah itu
berlian, yang digunakan jauh lebih penting?
Ricardo, ayah dari teori nilai, tenaga kerja
mencoba menerapkan teori bahwa kasus ini. Ia berpendapat
bahwa biaya komoditas tercermin tertanam
tenaga kerja yang diperlukan untuk membawa produk tersebut ke
pasar. Dengan demikian, ia berpendapat bahwa air adalah relatif
murah karena dibutuhkan sedikit usaha kerja
memperoleh daripada berlian.
sementara tampak menyelesaikan dilema, Ianya ditinggalkan
untuk Marshall untuk mengembangkan jawaban yang benar untuk
paradoks. Marshall's jawaban dapat dilihat dalam
angka. Kurva permintaan dan berlian
(good 1) dan air (baik 2) yang ditampilkan di
dua panel gambar. Seperti yang ditunjukkan pada gambar,
harga ditentukan mana pasokan dan permintaan
berpotongan di setiap pasar (poin B dan G), dan
diberikan jumlah rendah berlian, keseimbangan
Harga berlian melebihi yang air.
faktor yang penting untuk dicatat adalah bahwa ini adalah marjinal
kondisi. Harga mengukur nilai
akhir unit yang dikonsumsi. Total nilai berasal dari
penggunaan diukur dengan daerah di bawah permintaan
gambar 1
menjadi undang-undang yang memungkinkan untuk penerima
air dari California Central Valley proyek untuk
menjual air. Undang-undang ini kontroversial,
karena diharapkan untuk menanam benih untuk
pengembangan pasar air di California,
antara yang paling sering dikutip keberatan terhadap
menggunakan pasar untuk mengalokasikan air yang memperhatikan bahwa
Hasilnya akan tidak adil dan mengganggu: khususnya,
lawan berpendapat bahwa pindah ke pasar
harga berarti pergeseran besar dalam air dari
peternakan ke kota. Perubahan ini dalam alokasi air,
mereka berpendapat, akan mengakibatkan berkurang pertanian
pendapatan dan produksi, menurunkan pendapatan di pertanian
masyarakat yang bergantung pada, dan lebih tinggi
harga pangan. Di ujung, ini bergaya skenario
memprediksi dunia dengan air mancur di Beverly Hills
dan kehancuran di California central valley pertanian
region.
visi ini akibat distribusi
sistem pasar untuk air hasil, dalam bagian, dari
menyusun dua pernyataan tentang penentuan harga
dan menggambar kesimpulan salah.
pernyataan ini adalah bahwa air () adalah sangat
berharga, dan (b) yang nilai komoditas
tercermin dalam harga. Jadi, kesimpulan yang diambil
oleh beberapa adalah bahwa air harga akan tinggi
pasar sistem dan bahwa pendapatan rendah dan pertanian
konsumen akan sangat terbatas
dalam kemampuan mereka untuk membeli air.
kesimpulan ini tidak selalu mengikuti,
namun. Pada kenyataannya, sebuah perdebatan yang serupa terjadi di
Sastra ekonomi di kedelapan belas dan
berabad-abad kesembilan belas sebelum diletakkan untuk beristirahat oleh
Alfred Marshall. Dikenal sebagai "berlian air
paradoks:' masalah cuba menjelaskan bagaimana
diamati harga air bisa di bawah
komoditi lainnya, seperti berlian, diberikan
air tinggi nilai dalam mempertahankan kelangsungan hidup. Marshall's
solusi paradoks adalah untuk mengenali bahwa
Harga mencerminkan nilai terakhir, atau marginal,
unit, bukan nilai Semua unit yang dikonsumsi. Ia
menunjukkan bahwa komoditas yang tinggi memiliki
nilai kepada masyarakat bisa memiliki harga yang rendah jika itu
tersedia dalam cukup pasokan.
seperti yang dibahas dalam Surat ini mingguan, wawasan ini adalah
relevan saat ini perdebatan. Sug bukti ~
gests bahwa air pasar tidak akan menyebabkan tinggi
harga untuk air, karena sementara pengguna perkotaan sekarang
membayar harga yang signifikan lebih tinggi daripada pertanian
pengguna, yang mencerminkan perbedaan invalues terakhir
unit yang dikonsumsi oleh dua kelompok diberikan buatan
pembatasan pada perdagangan. Pada kenyataannya, eyidence menunjukkan
bahwa air menggunakan pola akan terpengaruh
secara signifikan, menyiratkan bahwa efek pada agricurture
dan masyarakat pertanian tidak akan
besar.
Paradoks
paradoks berlian air yang bingung atas
selama hampir seratus tahun dalam ekonomi sastra
Adam Smith dianggap masalah dalam
akhir abad kedelapan belas, dan David Ricardo menghabiskan
banyak upaya berusaha memahami hal ini
kelihatannya Logis inkonsistensi dengan relatif
penentuan harga. Mengapa akan air, yang
sangat penting untuk kehidupan, membawa harga yang di bawah itu
berlian, yang digunakan jauh lebih penting?
Ricardo, ayah dari teori nilai, tenaga kerja
mencoba menerapkan teori bahwa kasus ini. Ia berpendapat
bahwa biaya komoditas tercermin tertanam
tenaga kerja yang diperlukan untuk membawa produk tersebut ke
pasar. Dengan demikian, ia berpendapat bahwa air adalah relatif
murah karena dibutuhkan sedikit usaha kerja
memperoleh daripada berlian.
sementara tampak menyelesaikan dilema, Ianya ditinggalkan
untuk Marshall untuk mengembangkan jawaban yang benar untuk
paradoks. Marshall's jawaban dapat dilihat dalam
angka. Kurva permintaan dan berlian
(good 1) dan air (baik 2) yang ditampilkan di
dua panel gambar. Seperti yang ditunjukkan pada gambar,
harga ditentukan mana pasokan dan permintaan
berpotongan di setiap pasar (poin B dan G), dan
diberikan jumlah rendah berlian, keseimbangan
Harga berlian melebihi yang air.
faktor yang penting untuk dicatat adalah bahwa ini adalah marjinal
kondisi. Harga mengukur nilai
akhir unit yang dikonsumsi. Total nilai berasal dari
penggunaan diukur dengan daerah di bawah permintaan
gambar 1
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
On October 30, President Bush signed legislation
into law that makes it possible for recipients of
water from California's Central Valley Project to
resell that water. This legislation is controversial,
because it is expected to plant the seeds for the
development of a water market in California,
Among the most frequently cited objections to
using markets to allocate water are concerns that
the results would be unfair and disruptive: In particular,
opponents argue that a move to market
prices would mean a large shift in water from
farms to cities. This change in water allocation,
they argue, would lead to reduced agricultural
income and production, lower income in agriculturally
dependent communities, and higher
food prices. In the extreme, this stylized scenario
predicts a world with fountains in Beverly Hills
and desolation in California's central valley farming
region.
This vision of the distributional consequences of
a market system for water results, in part, from
putting together two statements about price determination
and drawing the wrong conclusion.
These statements are that (a) water is extremely
valuable, and (b) that the value of a commodity is
reflected in its price. Thus, the conclusion drawn
by some is that water prices would be high in a
market system and that low income and agricultural
consumers would be severely limited
in their abilities to purchase water.
This conclusion does not necessarily follow,
however. In fact, a similar debate took place in
the economics literature in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries before being put to rest by
Alfred Marshall. Known as the "Diamond-Water
paradox:' the issue sought to explain how the
observed price of water could be below that of
other commodities, such as diamonds, given
water's high value in sustaining life. Marshall's
solution to the paradox was to recognize that
prices reflect the value of the last, or marginal,
unit, not the value of all units consumed. He
demonstrated that a commodity that has high
value to society could have a low price if it
were available in sufficient supply.
As discussed in this Weekly Letter, this insight is
relevant to the current debate. The evidence sug~
gests that water markets would not lead to a high
price for water, because while urban users now
pay a significantly higher price than agricultural
users, that reflects differences invalues of the last
unit consumed by the two groups given artificial
restrictions on trading. In fact, the eyidence suggests
that water use patterns would not be affected
significantly, implying that the effects on agricurture
and agricultural communities would not be
large.
The paradox
The diamond-water paradox was puzzled over
for nearly a hundred years in the economics literature.
Adam Smith considered the issue in the
late eighteenth century, and David Ricardo spent
considerable effort trying to understand this
seemingly logical inconsistency with relative
price determination. Why would water, which
is essential to life, carry a price that is below that
of diamonds, whose use is far less critical?
Ricardo, the father of the labor theory of value,
tried to apply that theory to this case. He argued
that the cost of a commodity reflected the embedded
labor needed to bring that product to
market. Thus, he argued that water was relatively
cheap because it required less labor effort to
acquire than did diamonds.
While seeming to solve the dilemma, it was left
to Marshall to develop the correct answer to the
paradox. Marshall's answer can be seen in the
figure. Supply and demand curves for diamonds
(good 1) and water (good 2) are shown in the
two panels of the figure. As shown in the figure,
prices are determined where supply and demand
intersect in each market (points B and G), and
given the low quantity of diamonds, the equilibrium
price of diamonds exceeds that of water.
The important factor to note is that this is a marginal
condition. Prices measure the value of the
final unit consumed. The total value derived from
use is measured by the area under the demand
Figure 1
into law that makes it possible for recipients of
water from California's Central Valley Project to
resell that water. This legislation is controversial,
because it is expected to plant the seeds for the
development of a water market in California,
Among the most frequently cited objections to
using markets to allocate water are concerns that
the results would be unfair and disruptive: In particular,
opponents argue that a move to market
prices would mean a large shift in water from
farms to cities. This change in water allocation,
they argue, would lead to reduced agricultural
income and production, lower income in agriculturally
dependent communities, and higher
food prices. In the extreme, this stylized scenario
predicts a world with fountains in Beverly Hills
and desolation in California's central valley farming
region.
This vision of the distributional consequences of
a market system for water results, in part, from
putting together two statements about price determination
and drawing the wrong conclusion.
These statements are that (a) water is extremely
valuable, and (b) that the value of a commodity is
reflected in its price. Thus, the conclusion drawn
by some is that water prices would be high in a
market system and that low income and agricultural
consumers would be severely limited
in their abilities to purchase water.
This conclusion does not necessarily follow,
however. In fact, a similar debate took place in
the economics literature in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries before being put to rest by
Alfred Marshall. Known as the "Diamond-Water
paradox:' the issue sought to explain how the
observed price of water could be below that of
other commodities, such as diamonds, given
water's high value in sustaining life. Marshall's
solution to the paradox was to recognize that
prices reflect the value of the last, or marginal,
unit, not the value of all units consumed. He
demonstrated that a commodity that has high
value to society could have a low price if it
were available in sufficient supply.
As discussed in this Weekly Letter, this insight is
relevant to the current debate. The evidence sug~
gests that water markets would not lead to a high
price for water, because while urban users now
pay a significantly higher price than agricultural
users, that reflects differences invalues of the last
unit consumed by the two groups given artificial
restrictions on trading. In fact, the eyidence suggests
that water use patterns would not be affected
significantly, implying that the effects on agricurture
and agricultural communities would not be
large.
The paradox
The diamond-water paradox was puzzled over
for nearly a hundred years in the economics literature.
Adam Smith considered the issue in the
late eighteenth century, and David Ricardo spent
considerable effort trying to understand this
seemingly logical inconsistency with relative
price determination. Why would water, which
is essential to life, carry a price that is below that
of diamonds, whose use is far less critical?
Ricardo, the father of the labor theory of value,
tried to apply that theory to this case. He argued
that the cost of a commodity reflected the embedded
labor needed to bring that product to
market. Thus, he argued that water was relatively
cheap because it required less labor effort to
acquire than did diamonds.
While seeming to solve the dilemma, it was left
to Marshall to develop the correct answer to the
paradox. Marshall's answer can be seen in the
figure. Supply and demand curves for diamonds
(good 1) and water (good 2) are shown in the
two panels of the figure. As shown in the figure,
prices are determined where supply and demand
intersect in each market (points B and G), and
given the low quantity of diamonds, the equilibrium
price of diamonds exceeds that of water.
The important factor to note is that this is a marginal
condition. Prices measure the value of the
final unit consumed. The total value derived from
use is measured by the area under the demand
Figure 1
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.
- Teknik pembuatan batik print
- Mesmo sem olhar seus olhos, eu imagino c
- Just want to focus first business,,love
- Sim te amo muitooo...o melhor amor é aqu
- Batik print merupakan salah satu jenis b
- Thank you for accepting friendship
- Affair
- Trima kasih kembali
- Later
- Ok.kamu orang mana?
- Just
- Ok. you people where?
- Want
- Staatsrecht in engere zin
- Ingin
- complementary advantages and disadvantag
- Dengan
- Teknik Canting TulisTeknik canting tulis
- Terima
- Melengkapi kelebihan dan kekurangan satu
- Quick
- Neymar, the mythical Maracana and a look
- Semoga rencana manusia ini menjadi renca
- A quick
