6 ms·

> Water should have a cost when it is scarce Practically it has a cost anyway - somebody has to pay for taking it from somewhere, storing it, cleaning it, maki

> Water should have a cost when it is scarce Practically it has a cost anyway - somebody has to pay for taking it from somewhere, storing it, cleaning it, making it available. But this cost and especially the cost of the final consumer cannot be dictated by a free market - never. This would effectively mean that some people might be unable to access clean water at some point b/c they don't have enough money or no money at all. > Pelagrino bottle doesn't impact an African kid getting water even a little bit Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence.

microcolonel 9y ago
> Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence. Michigan is not in Africa.
- blubb-fish 9y ago
  Nestlé is a global corporation. So you have to look at it from a global perspective instead of narrowing down your focus on some random city in the US. It's an attack at humanity not just on Michigans.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    But Nestlé extracting fresh water in Michigan is not depleting the fresh water supply of any place in Africa, right? Water scarcity in another region of the world is not a reason to reduce or stop extraction in Michigan. How many ways should I put this?
    - blubb-fish 9y ago
      There is a direct connection from Michigan to Africa - its name is Nestlé.
icelancer 9y ago
>>Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence. If the water was bottled somewhere close to Africa, you might be right, I guess.
- blubb-fish 9y ago
  Water is bottled in Africa! But before it is bottled it is turned into Coca Cola. In a lot of African areas Coca Cola is cheaper than clean water! Just think about the health impact. Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > In a lot of African areas Coca Cola is cheaper than clean water! Just think about the health impact. If it really is cheaper than potable water (enough to be considered an alternative!), then I'm sure that hydration concerns come well before dietary planning concerns. What on earth is wrong with Coca Cola producing a finished soda product at a lower cost than competing water products? > Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped. Why should it be stopped? People buy the water, people who want the water buy it. People will buy water whether it's Nestlé's product or Coca-Cola's. If they want to buy it from Nestlé, what is your problem with that? Food is a commodity, food is not a right; but food is a necessity. Ideally people are fed, people make a serious effort to make this happen. Water is a commodity, not a right; whether or not it is a necessity has no bearing. When you see farmers selling agricultural products in a marketplace it must make your blood boil. To think that they would make an effort to transform the natural resources of the land into a branded product and sell it; the nerve!
    - blubb-fish 9y ago
      if you buy water and turn it into coca cola then you have to put a margin on the price for the energy and resources needed to produce cola! isn't that obvious? what you don't get is that you have to distinguish between two prices: - price for buying water from a source - price for buying water in a shop Nestlé will buy cheap water from a source - and not just part of it but pretty much all of it. then sells it overpriced as cola. obviously if Nestlé would sell water immediately after buying from a source and just bottling it - then it would have to be cheaper than Cola (b/c of less processing). but if Nestlé would buy all the water and just resell it - then this would be obviously crooked - the people's water source should not depend on a corporation who is bribing the elite and politicians for an exclusive access to that resource. got it? and to state that it doesn't matter if the primary fluid source of a human being is Cola or water and to deny health affects or downplay them - that's ridiculous.
rhino369 9y ago
The flaw in your reasoning is that corporations don't control access to water. In some states they can take whatever they want, but so can anyone else.

microcolonel 9y ago

> Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence. Michigan is not in Africa.

blubb-fish 9y ago
Nestlé is a global corporation. So you have to look at it from a global perspective instead of narrowing down your focus on some random city in the US. It's an attack at humanity not just on Michigans.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  But Nestlé extracting fresh water in Michigan is not depleting the fresh water supply of any place in Africa, right? Water scarcity in another region of the world is not a reason to reduce or stop extraction in Michigan. How many ways should I put this?
  - blubb-fish 9y ago
    There is a direct connection from Michigan to Africa - its name is Nestlé.

icelancer 9y ago

>>Actually very much - if a large corporation controls access to water effectively than this might very well be a consequence. If the water was bottled somewhere close to Africa, you might be right, I guess.

blubb-fish 9y ago
Water is bottled in Africa! But before it is bottled it is turned into Coca Cola. In a lot of African areas Coca Cola is cheaper than clean water! Just think about the health impact. Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > In a lot of African areas Coca Cola is cheaper than clean water! Just think about the health impact. If it really is cheaper than potable water (enough to be considered an alternative!), then I'm sure that hydration concerns come well before dietary planning concerns. What on earth is wrong with Coca Cola producing a finished soda product at a lower cost than competing water products? > Nestlé buys water then turns it into something trademarked and sells it. That's free market - and it's a huge shit and should be stopped. Why should it be stopped? People buy the water, people who want the water buy it. People will buy water whether it's Nestlé's product or Coca-Cola's. If they want to buy it from Nestlé, what is your problem with that? Food is a commodity, food is not a right; but food is a necessity. Ideally people are fed, people make a serious effort to make this happen. Water is a commodity, not a right; whether or not it is a necessity has no bearing. When you see farmers selling agricultural products in a marketplace it must make your blood boil. To think that they would make an effort to transform the natural resources of the land into a branded product and sell it; the nerve!
  - blubb-fish 9y ago
    if you buy water and turn it into coca cola then you have to put a margin on the price for the energy and resources needed to produce cola! isn't that obvious? what you don't get is that you have to distinguish between two prices: - price for buying water from a source - price for buying water in a shop Nestlé will buy cheap water from a source - and not just part of it but pretty much all of it. then sells it overpriced as cola. obviously if Nestlé would sell water immediately after buying from a source and just bottling it - then it would have to be cheaper than Cola (b/c of less processing). but if Nestlé would buy all the water and just resell it - then this would be obviously crooked - the people's water source should not depend on a corporation who is bribing the elite and politicians for an exclusive access to that resource. got it? and to state that it doesn't matter if the primary fluid source of a human being is Cola or water and to deny health affects or downplay them - that's ridiculous.

rhino369 9y ago

The flaw in your reasoning is that corporations don't control access to water. In some states they can take whatever they want, but so can anyone else.