Did it ever occur to you that a cash subsidy might be a lot more acceptable and humane answer that the current water subsidy?
You're framing this as a question of "should we give these peasants free water, OR just let them starve?" That's not what's being debated, and is disingenuous at best.
This is what I understood was being debated: industry requires a lot of water, and they can pay it 10 times what the peasants pay for it. But, currently, they aren't allowed to buy the water that is needed for farming, which is the same as giving a subsidy to peasants. Instead, we should let the market decide, ie, let industry buy the water and leave the peasants without it. What will the peasants do then? Why, they are free to move to the cities and become industry workers; perfect market solution.
> which is the same as giving a subsidy to peasants.
Correct. It is a large subsidy to the peasants.
> Instead, we should let the market decide, ie, let industry buy the water and leave the peasants without it.
Yes, but with the money, which as earlier discussed is worth several times more than its value in subsistence agriculture. The person you were originally replying to was complaining that a 90% discount on the sale of water was essentially an extremely inefficient cash subsidy; the obvious solution is replacing it with an efficient cash subsidy. That's hardly humane.
> What will the peasants do then? Why, they are free to move to the cities and become industry workers
If that was a practical solution at the required scale, they'd have already done it. Hence why a subsidy is needed.
You're framing this as a question of "should we give these peasants free water, OR just let them starve?" That's not what's being debated, and is disingenuous at best.