This is interesting because I'm not sure if this shows that people actually prefer buying water to getting it free, or an effort to eat healthier. For example, if someone is used to buying soda with lunch, it's easier to switch to water than stop buying a drink all together

Comparison to other luxury items is valid, however it seems especially lucrative when you consider that water is needed to live, and not usually $80. It doesn't make sense with the law of supply and demand

I think economic models like these would show a high opportunity cost for focusing on the environment at the expense of the economy or industrial side

I also think it's worth noting that a lot of companies prefer not to plan for things they see as rare- it's just like the article about airline companies not preparing for a global pandemic. My question is, do companies count climate change as a freak accident (like if your shop burned down) or a potentially preventable thing (your shop burned down due to the california wildfires).

Like the stimulus check and rent forgiveness, I wonder how much this will help the industry. Obviously, $50 billion is a huge help in the meantime, but it could be 5 years before air travel is what it used to be, and this bailout could just be kicking the problem further down the line

I'm interested in the types of policies this looked at. Especially during the democratic primaries, there were countless different types of redistributive policies

could there be a lurking variable here with regards to the government? For example, sometimes in high inequality countries, the cause for high inequality is a corrupt government, which leads to countless other issues

What about when there's a surplus of something? Like back in March when oil was negative.

Would that make this situation a "win" for the pizza place, even though they're losing money?