Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by JulieW, Apr 19, 2013.
A view from the happy half of the EEU
I couldn't finish watching it
His obviously a party member .
Awesome. I love that guy. 100% agree with everything. All three are the only sensible and moral solutions.
Surprised to hear you say that. He's exactly the opposite IMO.
Pro-choice in food supply. Pro-privatisation of scarce resources. Pro-labour market deregulation. All very sensible, welfare enhancing, ethical stances based on recognising private property rights.
Fresh water; a tragedy of the commons.
What an absolutely ludicrous piece of corporate propaganda.
Nestl is an evil corporation.
And that's not a euphemism for "big company"; they aggressively market their infant formula to mothers in developing countries as a better alternative to breast milk, despite the fact that they know most of the women can't read the instructions, they know many of the women don't have clean water to mix the formula, they know infant formula doesn't have the same antibodies produced by breast milk and they know that after thirty f---ing years of doing this that children in those countries being fed Nestl infant formula are up to 20 times more likely to die than children being fed breast milk.
Nestl literately kills babies through their inappropriate marketing.
And the guy who runs the company reckons water should be privatised because - obviously - they can make a shitload of money doing it...which they do, being the largest bottled water company in the world.
Nestl is the kind of company that would make Soylent Green if they thought they could get away with it.
No. Screw them. Water belongs to everyone.
who you calling common ? us ute drivers (pickup truck for our american friends) resemble that remark .Thats it no invite to the ute muster or desperate & dateless ball for you this year :
Are you sure you understand what the word 'literal' means?
Yes, I am.
It didn't use the word "literally" by mistake, it was deliberate.
Nestl knows that children die as a result of being fed their products. They simply don't care.
I had to have a feed & re-read everything again to make sure .
His a low life dog that should be kicked in the gutter
somewhere like the slums of India / Africa
If I ever met him , I'd be-little him into his next life . ( I have a blackbelt in "VERBAL BALLICKING")
His next gig should be as human guinea pig in a chemical lab somewhere
These poor excuse for human beings exist here in Australia too, a while ago I saw an advertisement billboard in Brisbane from the University of Queensland advertising for their BUSINESS faculty
"Are you ready for the water crisis?"
So after thirty years mothers in these countries are still so stupid that they take no notice of their mothers, their friends, their midwives etc? Are you kidding me?
And no scarce resource "belongs to everyone". If it's scarce it needs to be rationed.
I don't see why there is such a knee jerk reaction against this.
If the price rises high enough, it'd become economical (and profitable) to desalinate seawater; wholesale adoption would secure human water supplies for centuries.
Australian farmers are willingly paying for water rights because they're choosing to run farms on a continent where fresh water is scarce compared to demand. Buyers of produce ultimately pay for the water used.
Millions of consumers are already buying a product (bottled water) when they can receive an comparable good (municipal water) for 1/100th of the price.
Did you get a few seeds in your cones tonight bord ? This is one time I can actually fully agree with AD.
About which bit? Dumb inconsiderate mothers knowingly ignoring the experience of the people around them to spend money to kill their babies because some company puts an advert on a billboard?
No that you seemingly advocate the privatisation of water by a multi national company that only has profit as a motive ( and Kills babies). Go take a look at that commie pilgers War on Democracy to see what happens when you privatise water.
Farmers pay for a water right, not for the water itself, if they use less they don't pay any less, would you be happy paying for the rain that falls from the sky onto your land ? Because that is how it will end up.
In some US states it is illegal to harvest rain water that falls on your property.
Also some US states privatised water in the city..The idea was that it would free up the burden on city hall.
Only trouble was that the companies that bought the water supply was more interested in making profit than keeping the supply chain in good repair.
In the end when the companies had milked the citizens for all they could, they went bankrupt leaving city hall with the burden of bringing the water supply back to its original state.
Privatise Water at your own peril!
Regards Errol 43
Of course I advocate having a market for water. The "evil multinational" is totally irrelevant. We have markets here in Australia right now. The only clean water you can drink is that which you buy, purify yourself or capture that which naturally enters the domain of your private property.
What's the big deal? Water isn't scarce but clean and/or usable water in the location and quantities that you want it is scarce. It takes effort and other resources to make/transport clean/usable water so it should be priced in exactly the same way as food and air are currently priced in exactly the same circumstances today. No one has a "right" to take the fruits of orher people's labour.
To be clear, this should be a natural part of the property right associated with a piece of land but like any other part of divisable property should be allowed to be sold if the landholder chooses.
Separate names with a comma.