Privatise Water?

bordsilver said:
Gino said:
That is a lot different from not being allowed to prepare your own water.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

I meant that giving water a price like Mr. Nestl argued for, intrinsically means you must buy water from someone if you want to drink. That natural water sources would need to be removed from the public commons due to their economic value to the regulators, like the recent initiatives to claim the storm water as a state asset. Meaning anyone sourcing, preparing and drinking their own potable water would be potentially conceived of as stealing and punished accordingly.

It's one thing to pay for the value added to something and being denied access to a fundamentally free, life sustaining product of the world we inhabit.
 
Gino said:
bordsilver said:
Gino said:
That is a lot different from not being allowed to prepare your own water.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

I meant that giving water a price like Mr. Nestl argued for, intrinsically means you must buy water from someone if you want to drink. That natural water sources would need to be removed from the public commons due to their economic value to the regulators, like the recent initiatives to claim the storm water as a state asset. Meaning anyone sourcing, preparing and drinking their own potable water would be potentially conceived of as stealing and punished accordingly.

It's one thing to pay for the value added to something and being denied access to a fundamentally free, life sustaining product of the world we inhabit.
Click to expand...
Oh. Well my earlier post should clear up any of those concerns (particularly that you "must" buy water from someone if you want to drink which is not what "Mr Nestle" is talking about). Whether the government steals someone's existing property rights without compensation is not a problem with having markets for water as the market is the natural and best thing and happens pretty much everywhere now. The problem is the corrupt person taking away property rights at the point of a gun. However, as Coase proved, any initial misallocation or theft of existing property rights will be sorted out relatively quickly.
 
Personally I think everyone should privatize their own water. A few water collection tanks around the house, and a good filtration system.
 
Apart from being a Bildeberger, this clown wants Monsanto crops as he believes its better than organic.

He is nothing more than another ar_ehole trying to tell everyone how they should live their life.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/04.13/nestle.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/029286_rainwater_collection_water.html

I don't have an issue with privatising water. Its already here.
However, my issue is having a god given right to help myself to my free water that has dropped out of the sky and landed in my pond and my watertank to use it for my aquaponics system, my fruit trees, washing my car and anything else I decide in my leafy neighbourhood.

It doesn't belong to anyone else.

Cheers markcoinoz
 
If it's not clear from my earlier posts, that silverbear cafe article is total scaremongering rubbish that doesn't pertain to the Nestle guy's views whatsoever. The only way that would possibly happen is if you had a global fascist government controlling your water not if you had everyday private markets.

As to the GM issue, all he was saying was that the EU effectively has an emotive permanent ban despite there being decades of real world experience and they should therefore be open to debating the removal of government controls on food supply. Labelling of your food products being GM-free is all that is required for consumers to make a choice and companies like Nestle will simply produce what the customer's want. They don't dictate what people should eat in any sense except by trying to provide good, cheap products to consumers and let consumers vote with their wallets.

He's fully for the total opposite of control and that's why I'm confused that the supposed free-marketers are advocating the opposite based on some impossible fear that an evil corporation will own every drop of water on the planet and deliberately deny access - i.e. advocating government control over what farmers can or cannot grow, government control over farm ownership, government control over what consumers can or cannot eat, government control over water supply (which is also inefficient), government intervention into labour markets, etc.
 
Big A.D. said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can confirm that Nestle' was responsible for the death of thousands of babies in the 1970's. I was back packing through Peru and Bolivia and the number of baby caskets stacked outside morturies was sad testiment to those swiss cheese scum bags.

They actually had sales people dressed up as nurses going out to the villages where there was no potable water telling mothers the formula would transform their baby into a healthy child. Because the mothers were mal nourished they thought they were doing the right thing.

When the evidence was clear they kept pushing their formula knowing full well the water the people were mixing the formula with was untreated.

Kind Regards
non recourse
 
nonrecourse said:
I can confirm that Nestle' was responsible for the death of thousands of babies in the 1970's. I was back packing through Peru and Bolivia and the number of baby caskets stacked outside morturies was sad testiment to those swiss cheese scum bags.

They actually had sales people dressed up as nurses going out to the villages where there was no potable water telling mothers the formula would transform their baby into a healthy child. Because the mothers were mal nourished they thought they were doing the right thing.

When the evidence was clear they kept pushing their formula knowing full well the water the people were mixing the formula with was untreated.

Kind Regards
non recourse
Click to expand...

I think emotions are clouding your perception NR. You well know that there are a multitude of factors that cause child mortality. Although you saw caskets you did not see the cause of those caskets. If you'd happened to have travelled through there before the "swiss cheese scum bags" deliberately set out to kill babies then you would have seen even more caskets. Death rates were falling and falling fast during the 70's because of a wide range of interventions some of which were no doubt due to basic nutrition. (A baby's birth weight can be one of the biggest predictors of infant mortality.)

6824_child_mortality.png


Note: I am not saying that certain interventions that should have been beneficial did not work as intended because of local circumstances. Hence, some babies that should have survived by nutritional intervention may have had less success than anticipated because some infants died anyway from, say, diarrhea related to poor water quality.

But I would bet that any such flaws in the interventions would have been noticed and corrected within a few years (or were still effective enough for the cost that they continued despite any secondary problems). So effectively calling them evil capitalist baby killers is a lie in the first instance and for anyone to pretend that they are STILL deliberately doing it some 30 years later is utter crap.
 
Tax on Rain:
http://www.gazette.net/article/20130405/NEWS/130409397/-1/the-x2018-rain-tax-x2019&template=gazette

In 2010 the Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency ordered Maryland to reduce stormwater runoff into the Chesapeake Bay so that nitrogen levels fall 22 percent and phosphorus falls 15 percent from current amounts. The price tag: $14.8 billion.

And where do we get the $14.8 billion? By taxing so-called "impervious surfaces," anything that prevents rain water from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater run off. In other words, a rain tax.

And who levies this new rain tax? Witness how taxation, like rain, trickles down through the various pervious levels of government until it reaches the impervious level me and you.

The EPA ordered Maryland to raise the money (an unfunded mandate), Maryland ordered its 10 largest counties to raise the money (another unfunded mandate) and, now, each of those counties is putting a local rain tax in place by July 1.

So, if you live in Montgomery, Prince George's, Howard, Anne Arundel, Carroll, Harford, Charles, Frederick, Baltimore counties or Baltimore city, you'll be paying a rain tax on your next property tax bill.

Well, you ask, "How on earth can the government know how much impervious surface I own?" Answer: It's not on earth, it's in the sky. Thanks to satellite imagery and geographic information systems, Big Brother can measure your roof and driveway (and you thought drones were only used for killing terrorists).

OK, once the counties raise this money, how is it spent? The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to "monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces." In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

It can also be spent on "public education and outreach" (whatever that means) and on "grants to nonprofit organizations" (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).

If I asked you to guess which Maryland county is already levying a rain tax on its citizens, you'd correctly answer "Montgomery," the "more taxes, please" jurisdiction that collected a $17 million rain tax last year. So, since Montgomery County already has a rain tax in place (but only on residences) let's take a peek at the future. Here's how Montgomery County is spending some of its rain tax:

"(The county) holds workshops and training events to help residents understand how various projects work. Projects such as rain gardens, conservation landscaping, rain barrels and cisterns, drywells and tree planting are then offered to be installed on properties that qualify, based on the County's assessment."
Click to expand...

" The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. "
- George Orwell '1984'
 
^ As ridiculously bureaucratic and inefficient as it is, this was a tax designed to reduce excess nutrients flowing into the Bay (presumably sparking algal blooms or something) from changes in the way storm water runoff was happening compared to, say, 20 years ago, as a result of changes in the urban landscape? Is that right?
 
bordsilver said:
^ As ridiculously bureaucratic and inefficient as it is, this was a tax designed to reduce excess nutrients flowing into the Bay (presumably sparking algal blooms or something) from changes in the way storm water runoff was happening compared to, say, 20 years ago, as a result of changes in the urban landscape? Is that right?
Click to expand...

Yes that appears to be the premise for the tax.

The primary question is why is the cost placed upon the community and not on the industry/activity causing this pollution.
I see this as a mindset and policy problem (as the Orwell quote was intended to underline). When the fiat system becomes a closed loop with no circuit breakers (i.e. the population works to service/monitor the population and is paid and taxed in an almost zero sum game, and is ruled from above whilst the food industry acts like a feed lot, then the aim is achieved.
 
^ I'm not going to bother watching that because Bolivia had significant govt corruption and a bunch of other issues as part of the whole process. Compare Chile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top