4 ms·

Can someone explain the "invest on food because of water"? As many others I was startled by the mention at the end of the movie. I understand the reasoning beh

Can someone explain the "invest on food because of water"? As many others I was startled by the mention at the end of the movie. I understand the reasoning behind "water cannot be easily transported". But this part: What became clear to me is that food is the way to invest in water. That is, grow food in water-rich areas and transport it for sale in water-poor areas. This is the method for redistributing water that is least contentious, and ultimately it can be profitable, which will ensure that this redistribution is sustainable. With such a broad definition of "investing in water", my understanding is that his strategy becomes "invest in nearly everything". Water is needed for food production (which is already a very broad area for investment) but also in countless industrial processes: paper production, silicon chip, anything that uses water a solvent or as a way to cut through things... My reasoning can not be right because it would basically mean "invest in anything". Can someone please help me make sense of this?

msandford 11y ago
I think the idea is to invest in geographical regions that have plenty of water. I would read that as investing in land, actually, because in places with plenty of water the land is going to appreciate versus places without plenty of water.
- pitt1980 11y ago
  I don't have an opinion on whether that is or isn't a good strategy what I find interesting is that seems to be the converse of the historical trend of the last 30 years or so Rust Belt places like Michigan and Upstate New York, actually have a lot of water and have been losing population to places like CA, AZ, and Las Vegas which don't it seems like more people are less connected to water than they ever have been maybe there is a correction coming, maybe there isn't, I don't feel confident asserting a guess either way as to that
  - msandford 11y ago
    That the water rich places have been losing population to water poor areas would allow you to buy real estate in those locations below historical norms. If you buy into the "water will be more important in the future" hypothesis then it's probably a good bet. I agree that it's hard to know if a correction is coming. I suspect that it eventually will happen, but how far away that eventually is I don't want to speculate. Might be a couple of years, might be a couple of decades.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

msandford 11y ago

I think the idea is to invest in geographical regions that have plenty of water. I would read that as investing in land, actually, because in places with plenty of water the land is going to appreciate versus places without plenty of water.

pitt1980 11y ago
I don't have an opinion on whether that is or isn't a good strategy what I find interesting is that seems to be the converse of the historical trend of the last 30 years or so Rust Belt places like Michigan and Upstate New York, actually have a lot of water and have been losing population to places like CA, AZ, and Las Vegas which don't it seems like more people are less connected to water than they ever have been maybe there is a correction coming, maybe there isn't, I don't feel confident asserting a guess either way as to that
- msandford 11y ago
  That the water rich places have been losing population to water poor areas would allow you to buy real estate in those locations below historical norms. If you buy into the "water will be more important in the future" hypothesis then it's probably a good bet. I agree that it's hard to know if a correction is coming. I suspect that it eventually will happen, but how far away that eventually is I don't want to speculate. Might be a couple of years, might be a couple of decades.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]