# Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farmers?



## vicb (17 October 2006)

Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farmers?


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2006)

*Re: Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farms?*

  

Danger Will Robinson!!!







I have lost friends over this discussion...potential powderkeg!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 October 2006)

vicb said:
			
		

> Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farmers?



no bludy way!! if those idiots are stupid enuf - no, idiotic enuf - no imbussilic enuf to go on the land in the first place - they deserve all they get   Why don't they just go on the dole like me and my brother.  Its bludy easy mate - you just take a break from the pub for a few hours and queue up for a handout.  As far as Im concerned the centre of aus can be given back to the blacks!  (editors note -   )


----------



## MalteseBull (17 October 2006)

yes cause if nothing is done about the issue we will all be affected indirectly whether it be through what we consume at the shops to the overall economy health

but then again... considering the situation of most farms and the annual rainfall they should move to locations where there is a greater supply of rain...

remember goyder's line?


----------



## BSD (17 October 2006)

According to John it is all about sustaining the national psyche (ie. Liberal Votes):

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...rms-howard-vows/2006/10/16/1160850872586.html

*John Howard has quashed any suggestion that farmers could be paid to leave land rendered unproductive by climate change, saying fewer farmers would damage Australia's psyche.*

What a fool. 

He sounds like a French Politician defending the butter lakes of Europe or a Florida Republican defending the Sugar subsidies in the US. 

Who else gets a free ride under this 'psyche' concept?

Aussies are obsessed with property and renos - are we to bail out the real estate agents and carpenters when the property market has troubles? Interest rate subsidies for apartment flippers?

Are the farmers seriously going to be paid by our government to farm unproductive dirt?

Will Geelong Grammar be laden with welfare kids?

Does this mean we no longer have an argument against trade subsidies at the WTO?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 October 2006)

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/sa/content/2006/s1767060.htm


> Greens: 'Exit with dignity strategy' for farmers
> By Annabelle Homer, Tuesday, 17/10/2006
> 
> Green's MLC, Mark Parnell, believes that at the end of the driest winter on record, priority must be given to the creation of a co-ordinated and well-funded 'exit with dignity' strategy for farmers currently doing it hard.
> ...




bound to happen I guess - there'll be tradeoffs. 
(whatever happened to "we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the deserts, we shall fight in the dried up creekbeds !!" - maybe there's too much fighting going on already)


----------



## NettAssets (17 October 2006)

MalteseBull said:
			
		

> yes cause if nothing is done about the issue we will all be affected indirectly whether it be through what we consume at the shops to the overall economy health
> 
> but then again... considering the situation of most farms and the annual rainfall they should move to locations where there is a greater supply of rain...
> 
> remember goyder's line?




Where Wayne comes from there hasn't been a complete crop failure in recorded history - this year nada - nothing growing. Where do they move to?

Where I am a little closer to Perth most will be in a break even situation or a little less. Once again a very reliable area but this year pretty tough. 
It's not only the farmers though. I am a contract fertilizer spreader, This year my June july Aug gross income was about 10% of normal (it didn't even cover my upfront fuel purchase) and there I am (like the farmers) just waiting for rain - I cant get another job because if it rains we are needed instantly. 
There are a lot of folk in similar situations all through the little towns -  mechanics etc who would in a normal year be comfortable but when things are tough the money is not there to spread around. 
Personally I think some sort of tax free drought savings scheme both for farmers and those reliant on seasonal income would be more equable than a hand out. It must have some sort of loan componant to assist those who get hit before they have had time to build up a drought defence. 
Regards
NA


----------



## vicb (17 October 2006)

The Goydor line -


"Goyder's Line is a boundary line across South Australia at an approximate rainfall boundary indicating the edge of the area suitable for agriculture. North of Goyder's Line, the rainfall is not reliable enough, and the land is only suitable for grazing on a long-term sustainable basis. The line traces a distinct change in vegetation between the scrub bushes known as mallee to the south and the arid salt bush to the north. This change forms a line across the state. Goyder's line almost exactly represents the demarcation of a long-term average of 10 inches (254mm) of rain per year.

With barely 30 year's knowledge of this new country to go on, farmers needed reliable information. In 1865 Goyder provided it. He discouraged farmers from planting crops north of his line, declaring this land suitable only for light grazing. However farmers were optimistic. 1865 was a year of bumper rains, so many ignored Goyder and headed north, starting farms and planting crops. Just a few years later many had to abandon their farms. Goyder was proved correct and the land was indeed unsuitable for crops. Many farmhouse ruins can still be seen near Goyder's line.

There have been periods of development north of the line, but invariably nature has won out. Entire towns and farms were abandoned when there was a return to longer-term average rainfall. The line has proven remarkably accurate, an amazing feat since it was surveyed in just two months in 1865 by George Woodroffe Goyder, then the surveyor-general of South Australia.

Goyder's line starts on the west coast near Ceduna and goes south-east across Eyre Peninsula to strike Spencer Gulf near Arno Bay. It continues from near Moonta north to Crystal Brook and Orroroo then south-east past Peterborough and Burra to the Victorian border near Pinnaroo, crossing the Murray River south of Blanchetown. Much of the land immediately north of the line is covered by saltbush. Agriculture is possible near the Murray River further upstream only because of irrigation using water drawn from the Murray.

It is easy to see Goyder's line when flying over this area. The change in flora is very distinct when one knows what to look for.

Goyder's Line became a National Trust of Australia Heritage Icon in 2003, joining other South Australian icons such as Humphrey B. Bear, brush fencing, and Penfolds Grange Hermitage wine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goyder's_Line

Thanks


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 October 2006)

NettAssets said:
			
		

> 1. I am a contract fertilizer spreader, This year my June july Aug gross income was about 10% of normal (it didn't even cover my upfront fuel purchase) and there I am (like the farmers) just waiting for rain - I cant get another job because if it rains we are needed instantly.
> 2. There are a lot of folk in similar situations all through the little towns -  mechanics etc who would in a normal year be comfortable but when things are tough the money is not there to spread around.




NA, admiration due to you and those like you man.  As if most of us are qualified to comment.  One question mate - If you had a son, would you be recommending he take up the reins when you retire?

PS Was it Goyder who predicted (back in the late 1800's) - probably not but someone did , about 1890?  ask cog, he'll remember lol - that 
a) Australia's population would stop growing at 20 million ( i.e. todays pop), and
b) that water would be the limiting factor.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 October 2006)

NettAssets said:
			
		

> Personally I think some sort of tax free drought savings scheme both for farmers and those reliant on seasonal income would be more equable than a hand out.
> NA



NettAssets makes a great point - it isn't just the farmers. Every regional area is reliant upon primary production industry to various extents. When the seasons are good the farmers and graziers spend in those economies. Everyone shares in the spoils in the good times. In the drought times - everyone in the town, from the local mechanic, hairdresser, car dealership and publican feels it in one way or another. 

I agree that there are a number of farms that are not viable - rain or no rain and by propping then up with crutches is not the answer. But financial assistance to primary producers is a serious issue that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. 

Duckman


----------



## BSD (17 October 2006)

Rural output is less than 5% of GDP

Why should a minority be kept in a very strong relative wealth position to sustain groups of unsustainable communities?

If the money was spent on buying people out and maybe subsidising an industry of the future to which we actually have the chance of succeeding-in, wouldn't we all be better off?

We cannot find employees for mining communities but we are subsidising rice farms in deserts to ensure some kid can pull a beer in a rural community.

I dont for a moment think it is easy/nice/simple - but it has to happen.


----------



## twojacks28 (17 October 2006)

the government has to provide support to drought stricken farmers. for the first time in many years and possibly in history australia is faced with an agricultural recession in the near future. without support the industry is going to be crippled.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 October 2006)

BSD said:
			
		

> Why should a minority be kept in a very strong relative wealth position to sustain groups of unsustainable communities?
> 
> If the money was spent on buying people out and maybe subsidising an industry of the future to which we actually have the chance of succeeding-in, wouldn't we all be better off?
> 
> We cannot find employees for mining communities but we are subsidising rice farms in deserts to ensure some kid can pull a beer in a rural community.




Couple of questions BSD?

Who are in a "very strong wealth position?"
Who said anything about sustaining unsustainable communities?
What industries of the future are you talking about for say.....Berrigan NSW, Dalby,QLD and Dimboola VIC.

And don't get me started on mining communities. Your post surprises me because you actually sounded like you knew what you wre talking about - until that comment. The mining industries just suck the life blood out of the small regional communities and then move on when the $$$$$$ run out leaving relative ghost towns with little improvement in infrastructure/standard of living/community resources. My point is that - when seasons are "normal" primary production pumps money around everyone - mining doesn't do that.    

What will you eat when the last farmer shuts the gate to become a telemarketer?


----------



## BSD (17 October 2006)

Duckman#72 said:
			
		

> Who are in a "very strong wealth position?"
> 
> Who said anything about sustaining unsustainable communities?
> 
> ...




Strong wealth positions are plentiful for many of those groups with their hands out.

How much is the property/plant/land cruisers worth of the grain farmers saying they "used to fill 12 of those silos - this year only 2". 

Are these assets  worth more than the wealth of a concretor who is unemployed because of a housing downturn?

Don't even get me started on the enormous cotton and grazing concerns I have been exposed too in QLD.

The Farm Management Deposits have been full for years and we are supposed to bail them out because they finally had to spend some of their tax free money. Many brag about their ability of not having paid tax for decades. 

Who pays the fees for all the 'bush' kids in the Geelong Grammars etc?

Perhaps, people should move out of Dalby etc if they want to work. Nobody in the cities is guaranteed a lifestyle beyond the dole. If there is no work in Dalby, move to Brisbane. 

I would love to live in the Whitsundays - but I cannot make any money up there in my line of work, so I cant choose where I live. 

Not easy - but necessary. 

The money spent on encouraging such movements would make more sense than sustaining lifestyles that obviously do not work economically. How many years must we wait for a successful crop before we pull the pin?

Mobility is also probably part of the answer to some of your concerns in the mining vs agriculture argument. 

If the government funded the training of Dalby residents to work in the mines in Central QLD - the GDP of Australia would be boosted (and so would the living standard of the Dalby resident). Skilling people is more important than subsidising them. 

Why should a couple of rich families support a town of 1950's shopkeepers and publicans?

As for food, plenty of Asian and South American econonomies seem to be able to produce food cheaper than us, we keep hearing how the rural sector needs to be protected/funded to compete, maybe the consumer and tax payer need to be protected from our rural sector? 

Prices may need to rise - so what, why do we deserve anything at less than it actually costs?

At least a telemarketer can buy a loaf of bread without borrowing off the government with an interest free loan.


----------



## Julia (17 October 2006)

I have much sympathy with BSD's views.

Can someone please tell me exactly what drought relief to farmers actually consists of?

Julia


----------



## chansw (17 October 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> I have much sympathy with BSD's views.
> 
> Can someone please tell me exactly what drought relief to farmers actually consists of?
> 
> Julia




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20596580-29277,00.html

*Drought relief generous, Howard says*
October 17, 2006

THE Government's expanded drought relief package would be generous but would not go overboard, Prime Minister John Howard said today.

Mr Howard yesterday announced an extra $350 million to help struggling farmers. Federal Cabinet is considering a further $400 million in aid. 

An announcement on the extra funding is expected within a week. 

Mr Howard told a private meeting of government members and senators today that while climate change was a long-term challenge, the drought required an immediate response. 

"The Government will be fair and will err on the side of generosity but won't abandon responsible decision-making," a joint partyroom spokesman quoted Mr Howard as telling the meeting. 

"In responding to the drought the Government will be using a commonsense approach." 

Treasurer Peter Costello said the drought was a serious economic issue and the Government was responding through income support and interest rate subsidies. 

Mr Costello scoffed at the decision by the state premiers last week to write to the Reserve Bank urging it to keep interest rates on hold. 

"This was nothing more than a stunt. State premiers have no responsibility for monetary policy in Australia, there's nothing they can do about it," the spokesman quoted Mr Costello as saying. 

"They should focus on what they actually do have responsibility for and carry out those responsibilities."


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 October 2006)

At some point we're going to have to face the real issue - population.

Problems like the ones we are having aren't confined to Australia. Throughout much of the world, agriculture is dependent on unsustainable drawdown of ground water (notably US wheat production), use of petroleum etc. *Quite simply, we're living off our capital rather than income and at some point that capital runs out*.

Add to that over fishing, land degradation and so on. And of course climate change.

So either we radically change agriculture or the global population will decline along with food availability.  

So the real question, the much harder one, is not about farmers in the bush growing food and whether we ought to prop them up. No, it is about mothers giving birth in the cities (globally) and whether we ought to be limiting that in some way. That's a far harder question that few are willing to even discuss, let alone propose action on.

In my opinion, anyone under 50 is likely to live long enough to see very serious discussion on the population control issue. Either that or outright war over all kinds of resources, food included. Wars do, of course, have the effect of reducing population if they are big enough and are thus terrifyingly effective when food is the underlying issue at stake.

Ulitmately, the entire notion of infinite growth on a finite planet just doesn't stack up and we're only beginning to see the first signs of the limits being reached with water. Just wait until it's an actual food shortage... 

If nothing else, the whole situation highlights just how profoundly ridiculous the notion of ethanol replacing petrol really is. Your car "eats" in 3 weeks what you do in a year. That's an awful lot of extra food we're going to have to grow if biofuels are to even partially replace petrol. And that's without even mentioning aeroplanes, trucks, trains, industry etc that also use oil. Obviously it makes sense to use agricultural wastes to produce ethanol, but it doesn't make sense to use good wheat, fruit etc - we need that to eat.


----------



## juddy (17 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Either that or outright war over all kinds of resources, food included.





no need for wars, we are surrendering our resources in peace time.


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> At some point we're going to have to face the real issue - population.
> 
> Problems like the ones we are having aren't confined to Australia. Throughout much of the world, agriculture is dependent on unsustainable drawdown of ground water (notably US wheat production), use of petroleum etc. *Quite simply, we're living off our capital rather than income and at some point that capital runs out*.
> 
> ...




10/10


----------



## Bloveld (17 October 2006)

BSD said:
			
		

> Strong wealth positions are plentiful for many of those groups with their hands out.
> 
> How much is the property/plant/land cruisers worth of the grain farmers saying they "used to fill 12 of those silos - this year only 2".
> 
> ...





So the government gives the farmers a couple a billion dollars.
Is that gonna be any skin off your nose?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> 1. Quite simply, we're living off our capital rather than income and at some point that capital runs out.
> 2. No, it is about mothers giving birth in the cities (globally) and whether we ought to be limiting that in some way. That's a far harder question that few are willing to even discuss, let alone propose action on.
> 3. or outright war over all kinds of resources, food included. Wars do, of course, have the effect of reducing population if they are big enough and are thus terrifyingly effective when food is the underlying issue at stake.
> 4. Ultimately, the entire notion of infinite growth on a finite planet just doesn't stack up and we're only beginning to see the first signs of the limits being reached with water. Just wait until it's an actual food shortage...



1. and we're living off our capital cities.
2. mate the good news is that China and India are trying - and when we are 20 million (still) in about 2040 odd, China will be 1.48 billion (= 74:1) - Aussie Women shouldnt feel guilty about trying to procreate imho. (unless they'll late for work more than twice in a week )
3. yep youre right - almost there with fishing as you say - if not war then fish battles on large scale
4. I'm betting you 'll be proved at least 12% right within 12 months ! any takers ? (sorry m8 Im not being flippant - its deadly serious - trouble is I completely agree with you, and Im trying my damndest not to panic.)    12/10

PS good luck kids, it was too hard for us - please just...sort it out !!!


----------



## Bobby (17 October 2006)

Bloveld said:
			
		

> So the government gives the farmers a couple a billion dollars.
> Is that gonna be any skin off your nose?



 Hello Blow,

Care to extrapolate on this? Your reasoning please.
Now I'm on side with you on this, so just open your thoughts of why you think what you think?

Bob.


----------



## Julia (18 October 2006)

chansw said:
			
		

> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20596580-29277,00.html
> 
> *Drought relief generous, Howard says*
> October 17, 2006
> ...




Thanks for that reference chansw, but what I'd like to know is what that actually represents for an individual farmer,  i.e. is it the equivalent of putting them on the dole, is it a lump sum interest free loan, just what exactly?

Julia


----------



## Happy (18 October 2006)

> From ABC,  October 18, 2006.
> Academics question 'silly' EC funding
> 
> Researchers at the University of New England have criticised the use of Exceptional Circumstances (EC) drought funding, claiming it is keeping poor drought managers on farms.
> ...





Only consolation is, we keep non performing politicians for years too.

We support with wealfare payments any individual in need, so why not failure farmers?


----------



## nioka (18 October 2006)

It's obvious from the discussion on this subject that most of the posters don't have any real knowledge of the facts. Do yourself a favour and meet some of the people involved and aquaint yourself with the real facts.


----------



## Happy (18 October 2006)

With respect to your implied deep knowledge of the subject.

Doing something, doesn’t necessarily mean that you know what you are doing and it doesn’t also mean that you should be doing it in a first place.

Let’s get of farmer’s back for a while, as it looks like delicate subject.

A lot of people have children and one would assume that this is natural and everybody is equally suited to have them, well I’ll disagree here too.


----------



## ghotib (18 October 2006)

The NSW 7.30 Report story last night about drought included an interview with the head of Water Services Australia, which is a peak body for water services around the country. He commented that "The CSIRO predicted what we're actually experiencing now about in about 2050. So this has really been a dramatic change, it's been a wake-up call for the whole industry and if we get a repeat of this into the whole future it really is a quite scary scenario."

A bit after that the reporter says, "There's a growing belief among scientists that rainfall across the south of the continent has moved south, leaving mainland dams dry while more rain falls on the ocean and Tasmania. And there's been a similar rainfall movement along the eastern seaboard. In the nation's fastest growing region, from Sydney to south east Queensland, rain is falling on the cities but not within the dam catchments.". 

This southerly shift in the rainfall has been one of the predicted results of global warming for at least 10 years, so I'm assuming it's at least part of what the peak water body is worried about.

Even if some farmers have made mistakes, it seems unreasonable to blame them for being affected by a global phenomenon that their government has been refusing to acknowledge, let alone act on. 

Whether drought relief in its present forms will be effective for farmers or the nation as a whole is another question. I wish I could believe that some government was asking it. 

7.30 report story: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1767281.htm 

Ghoti


----------



## Happy (18 October 2006)

This is no brainer, to protect from drought for good, would be desalination on continent scale as first choice.

We would have to worry again in maybe million year’s time if ocean water increases salt content due to –over use-.

Instead of being of assistance to anybody and everybody we could plough all our money to water projects, and continent type reticulation, similar to electrical grid would be nice to have.

Allan Jones is talking about it for years. But like south-north railway link was a 100 years project, this will be –talking issue-  for many years, before somebody does something.

Actually Libya, Israel and Saudi Arabia lead in desalination projects, maybe time to follow them?


----------



## ghotib (18 October 2006)

What's the proposal: to send desalinated water from the coasts inland, like a sort of super-Snowy scheme? 

But what about the salt degradation of irrigated land, and inland rivers for that matter, that we already have? That's a terrible unintended consequence of the irrigation schemes that looked like a permanent solution 50 years ago. 

It's hard enough to be sure how engineering systems are going to behave: that's why we now insist on elaborate testing and standards for cars, chemical plants, aircraft, airconditioning systems &c &c &c. I think we need to recognise that natural systems have much more complex interactions than engineering systems. 

When we change a natural system, like a water cycle, the rational attitude is to expect our predictions to be incomplete and be alert for unexpected effects from the beginning. Side effects might turn out to be good, but very often they're worse than the original problem. Ignoring them is no help.

Ghoti


----------



## Duckman#72 (18 October 2006)

BSD said:
			
		

> Strong wealth positions are plentiful for many of those groups with their hands out.
> 
> How much is the property/plant/land cruisers worth of the grain farmers saying they "used to fill 12 of those silos - this year only 2".
> 
> ...




I agree with some of your comments BSD, but your extremist views let you down. I agree - you should not sustain business that will never be viable - full stop - regardless of whether they are in the business of primary production or not.  But you make it sound as if all of Australia's agricultural industry should just pack up shop now.  

I am not a bleeding heart for primary producers - I know they get a very good deal from the ATO. Between the 5 year Averaging Provisions, Forced Sale and Double Woolclip relief, accelerated Water Conveyancing claims, Farm Management Deposits and 100% claims for Erosion and Pest Control expenditure they have got a fair bit to be satisfied with. On top of this a grazier over 55 years of age can sell his $2M property that he bought 10 years ago for $800,000 and not pay a single $ in capital gains tax by using the CGT rollover relief clauses. Yes - some farmers haven't paid tax in years, some farmers have paid a heap and some have paid a bit. Just like any walk of life.

Your comments about a "couple of rich families supporting a town of 1950's shopkeepers" highlights your bias and stereotypically views of regional Australia. There are many regional towns that are quite progressive and modern in the outlook and for their regions survival. Yes - most towns have their "1950's characters" but don't mistake them all for country hicks. You say you have been exposed to primary production - I'd say McLeod's Daughters would be about the extent of it. 

As for primary producers living for the "lifestyle"?? Yes you are probably correct - most people prefer to live 100km away from the nearest hospital, shops and schools because of the "luxury" factor. Haven't seen many cattle properties for sale in the Whitsundays lately. While we are on schools, I can see that the Geelong Grammar issue is really bugging you. What is the story - didn't you get accepted? There are plenty of country kids that don't get privileged schooling.

Do you know what you have to go through to be eligible for Drought Relief Payments? Do you know what income and drought criteria you have to meet for your property to be considered to be in exceptional circumstances? Are you aware of the asset and income limits Centrelink takes into account for primary producers?

Yes - I know some people rort the system - get over it. Based on your assumptions, just because some people get Jobsearch that are well off we should cut the whole thing.  

You suggest that prices may rise and that would be a good thing - why should something be cheaper than what it is worth. I completely agree, BUT - make sure that the price increasde gets passed onto the producer!!! ASk a grazier or sheep farmer about prices of cuts of meat at Woolies and then ask how much he gets at the yards and meatworks.

As for your suggestion that we get people from Dalby working in the mining industry. That will be great in 10 years time when we have 100,000 unemployed dragline operators running around the place. 

I am not for opening the purse strings and giving Agricultural Australia a free reign but I am not in the same corner as BSD who can only see black and white on this issue.

Regards

Duckman


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 October 2006)

http://www.abc.net.au/southeastsa/stories/s1768122.htm - the suicide risk in the bush ....


> ................Drought communities must be on 'sucide watch'
> Wednesday, 18 October  2006
> With drought conditions showing no signs of abating in South Australia, farming communities need to be on "suicide watch", one of the state's high-profile religious figures has warned.
> "The drought and the consequences over the next few years are going to be so severe, and I think we've all recognised that, that depression and anxiety are only going to increase," says Monsignor David Cappo, Commissioner for Social Inclusion.
> ...





Another bit of news tonight - obesity is costing Australia $4billion per year - now Im willing to bet that there's only a small percentage of country folk contributing to that sum as well.  For a start there arent (m)any doctors to go to in the first place, ill or otherwise.

Y'know it's the dangedest thing - but I spent some time in HK, and there almost everybody is thin.   Sure there are exceptions to the rule.   But it's true that Aus is closer to USA on this one.   I've also been to USA - and the size of the helpings sheesh - a "coffee" served in a milk shake container etc  Not that fattening - but typical.  Strange behaviour - unless you are feeling unloved I guess. (who nose)


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 October 2006)

Smurf
Since you are the laterest lateral thinker I can think of ....
I keep having this dream - a plan to use trains with special baffled trucks ...to train the water to the west.  Granted it's only going to help a very few local communities -  but better that than nothing.  Maybe top up a reservoir or two, flush out some algae ( we've still got that to look forward to in mid summer).  
PS My wife says - you're not having another wet dream are you !! ahhh go back to sleep !


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 October 2006)

http://www.abc.net.au/water/stories/s1767730.htm
An interesting read - a particular cotton farmer who is being accused of stealing water and causing troubles for others.


> Cubbie (newbie cotton grower) - "I mean we've we're six years in now, this is the sixth year that we've been drought-stricken here.
> "Over that six-year period we've averaged about 12 per cent production per year on average over six years, so it's hard."
> Mr Grabbe expects little sympathy but he hopes his dry dams will help make a point to a public sceptical about his enterprise."






> Impact
> Cubbie aims to correct accusations from the past, claims that it funelled the Culgoa River into its storages after a flood two and a half years ago, denying water to graziers downstream.
> Pop Petersen, from Brenda Station, says Cubbie has a diversion channel three times the width of the river.
> "And the water was roaring in through there, and what doesn't go into the diversion channel gets backed up by their weir so they got the bulk of it."
> ...




Well there's gotta be a case for first-in-bestdressed (last-in-first-out?) under these circumstances.  IMHO. That is, if it comes to people being "asked" to leave (which appears to be the case).  
PS I'm not being lol - word escapes me - state based bias lol -  I just detect a sniff of self interest that doesnt belong in the bush. Maybe Im naive.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 October 2006)

2020hindsight said:
			
		

> Smurf
> Since you are the laterest lateral thinker I can think of ....
> I keep having this dream - a plan to use trains with special baffled trucks ...to train the water to the west.  Granted it's only going to help a very few local communities -  but better that than nothing.  Maybe top up a reservoir or two, flush out some algae ( we've still got that to look forward to in mid summer).
> PS My wife says - you're not having another wet dream are you !! ahhh go back to sleep !



I can see it getting to the point where we have to truck / rail in water to towns for human consumption if the drought continues. Already a few places are looking at that.

For interest, the current situation with the major city, hydro-electric and Murray River water storages is as follows. 

Capital City storages

Sydney - 41.0% full(1)
Melbourne - 44.5%(1)
Brisbane - 26.1%(1)
Perth - 32.4%(1,2)
Adelaide - 58.1%(1,2)
Canberra - 46.5%(1)
Hobart - over 80%(2)


Hydro-electric and irrigation storages

Hydro-Electric Corporation (Tas) - system total energy in storage - 35.3% (3)

Snowy Hydro - System total - 19.0%
                   - Blowering reservoir (discharge to Murrumbidgee) - 43%
                   - Lake Eucumbene (main storage for power generation) - 16.5%

Southern Hydro (Vic) - Lake Eildon (a major irrigation storage) - 19.0%
                             - Dartmouth (a major Murray River storage) - 50.0%

Other - Hume reservoir (important Murray River storage) - 14%
         - Burrinjuck reservoir - 31%
         - Lake Victoria - 80%
         - Menindee Lakes - 13%
          (Total Murray-Darling Basin Commission storage - 34%)

Notes:

1 - Water restrictions in place.

2 - The storages are not the city's sole source of water. Perth - ground water, Adelaide - Murray River (major source of supply), Hobart - River Derwent (major source of supply). Most of Hobart's storages are able to be filled via pumping from the Derwent during Winter when water demand is low and as such the present storage level is not a valid reflection of recent (very low) levels of rainfall.

3. Hydro Tasmania storages are managed to long term and seasonal minimum target levels by varying the rainfall (cloud seeding), production from Bell Bay thermal power station (BBPS) and interstate trade via Basslink. Such operations have been significant in recent years such that the present storage position is a reflection of the combined effects of system inflows (natural plus seeded), BBPS operation and interstate trade rather than being a reflection of water inflows alone. The present target level is 41%.


----------



## merec (20 October 2006)

My 2cents worth.
Don't forget in this country food is relatively cheap ,we sell first quality premium wheat overseas and in return we buy 2nd and 3rd grade grain based ingredients for local production.This adds to our 2nd grade grain pool.
Try and buy a serious 1st grade quality side of beef in australia you will find it is more expensive than the BI-LO special,overseas buyers will snap it up like there's no tomorrow and pay premium money therfore lower quality meat is sent to local markets and requires less profit margin.
It all comes down to the accountant in canberra who sits in his little office and decides if subsidies are cost effective and the politicians who don't want to explain to you and me why our snags are going up in price.

Yes subsidies do keep unproductive farmers on the land but only for the short term but thats good for when they crash and burn they really crash and burn.Thats when good long term farmers can have a good day at a clearing sale.

It's just the circle of farming life.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 October 2006)

Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> I can see it getting to the point where we have to truck / rail in water to towns for human consumption if the drought continues. Already a few places are looking at that. Capital City storages
> Brisbane - 26.1%(1)....



 Thanks Smurf - you are a fountain of knowledge no question.  
Those stats are frightening enough - but I'm sure you'd agree that in the country the situation is far far more serious (man o man)


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 October 2006)

Son I recall a good year maybe two -you were just a child at my knee
and the land that we see which Ill give to you is the same that was given to me
In those years my boy we'd just fenced the back paddock with gum posts and strained the barbed wire 
But then son no sooner we took a break - than that was the year of the fire.

Son I recall another year on, we spent all our funds on planting
The sun got so hot that the calves dropped dead, and the dogs just sat around panting
We watched as the shoots came up and then wilted, and fell back as infants slain
And that was the year that the billabong silted, and the decade without any rain.

Son I must leave now, good luck on this plot, just bury me, six feet of toil
Near where my father was laid to rot, though his soul lives on in this soil
The year that he died son, the rainclouds went mad, and wept till the land became mud
And it kept on raining till good turns bad - and that was the year of the flood.

Son I must leave now, good luck on this plot, I hope it gets kinder with time
Son dont forget that the sheep must be shot, when the salty ground looks like lime
Son dont forget that the first sign of strife is dead trees - like those over there - 
And son, for God's sake - though it costs you your life - dont pass to your son to bear.

PS written since my post 25 mins ago - sorry but I really sympathise with these people.  But it's not entirely original.  I was in a poets club - rural origins , and I heard a lady recite a poem which includes the lines "that was the year of the fire" etc.  It was enough to make you weep.  She'd actually been there you see.   Yet she read it with such a total absence of self-pity. Such marvellous people those bushies.  And as I suggested somewhere else , - at least in past wars - the first to volunteer for active service (always assuming that there was a legitimate call to arms).


----------



## Julia (20 October 2006)

We can always depend on our politicians for offering profound insights.
The following is a quote from Nick Minchin yesterday:

"Drought is caused by lack of rain".

Julia


----------



## FXST01 (20 October 2006)

Simply put, yes they do deserve it


----------



## vicb (12 August 2007)

So now the drought is over should investors get it?


----------



## nioka (12 August 2007)

vicb said:


> So now the drought is over should investors get it?



I did not know the drought was over. Is it?. 10 years of drought for some, one bad week on the ASX can't see the comparison. The Broncos got beaten today too, should they get it as well. Although you could ask Johnnie as he is desperate to get reelected so he could have plenty of handouts.


----------



## insider (12 August 2007)

Relief for the farmers ends up as profit for woolworths and coles


----------



## grace (26 December 2007)

Interest subsidies artificially prop up property prices.  Property prices need to be adjusted for the probability of droughts.

Interest subsidies also benefit those who are in over their heads.  Bad operators can benefit from it!  Good operators often miss out. 

Whatever happened to doing a due dilligence when you buy a business?  Unheard of when it comes to buying a farm.  A soil test might be about the limit of it.  

Disclosure:  we are farmers!


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2007)

assistance is the equivalent of unemployment benefits

people on the land have been the first to volunteer for active duty in (legitimate) calls to arms

global warming and climate change mean that reasonable expectations are shifting - much like the sands of the average desert 

give em a break - especially the ones that are down to sub-subsistence income.


----------



## Julia (26 December 2007)

grace said:


> Interest subsidies artificially prop up property prices.  Property prices need to be adjusted for the probability of droughts.
> 
> Interest subsidies also benefit those who are in over their heads.  Bad operators can benefit from it!  Good operators often miss out.
> 
> ...



Grace, your post is interesting. How are you doing where you are?
It sounds as though your efficiency/due diligence is meaning you are surviving reasonably well.

Your comment "good operators often miss out" reminds me of how self funded retirees don't get most of the benefits (discounted rates, rego, pharmaceuticals, electricity etc) available to people on government pensions.
Seems to me that some 'reward' for having been prudent enough to provide for onself should be available.  Same principle as you seem to be describing.

Do you feel subsidies encourage people to remain in unsustainable situations, or that it really doesn't make much difference?


----------



## The Once-ler (27 December 2007)

Drought assistance is very much asset and income tested. So I don't believe it is being abused. Not many farmers get drought assistance. It's a bit of an urban myth that they are all on it. Generally, if you qualify, your in that bad a situation, your probably going out of the industry anyway.

Drought assistance is basically just welfare for farmers. Everyone else in society is entitled to be able to eat if they have no income. If farmers couldn't get drought assistance, then it would mean in reality that every other person in this land is entitled to welfare except if your a farmer, your not.

I would like to see the welfare paid back in a good time. I think that would be fair.


----------



## nioka (27 December 2007)

insider said:


> Relief for the farmers ends up as profit for woolworths and coles



So does any other benefits like pensions, sole parents benefits, baby benefits, unemployment benefits. Why not just ban Coles and Woolies?

 Farmers prop up woolies by producing a lot of produce at below cost. Ban farmers and put up Woolies costs, is that an answer.

 If farming is such a good perk then have a go, if you can't fight em join em.


----------



## ithatheekret (27 December 2007)

I vote yes ,

save the farmer , not the institution or corporate holdings , that may be split into smaller corporations etc. , there's was a corporate decision and a loss can be written of and negatively geared .

A viablity test must be done on each application for relief , not on need , but on economical viablity of the farming enterprise applying .

But , the rural belts feed the cities , ensure its supply line  .


----------



## pan (27 December 2007)

it is one of the major incomes for australians, i think the government should do all it can to help the farmers


----------



## numbercruncher (27 December 2007)

Yes Farmers should for sure receive finacial help if needed, means tested and they must take into account the Viability of the Farm in Question, some farms have been so devastated by this draught that they will never be viable productive entitys again.


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2018)

Tamworth


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

IMV drought assistance should be conditional on proper land management.

Don't clear fell, retain a minimum number of trees per hectare, let native grasses grow, don't plant water thirsty crops in dry areas and then over depend on irrigation from drying up rivers etc.

Of course that won't go down well with the "don't tell us what to do with our own properties" set, but the rest of us can say "if you want our money, take care of OUR land".


----------



## Tisme (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> IMV drought assistance should be conditional on proper land management.
> 
> Don't clear fell, retain a minimum number of trees per hectare, let native grasses grow, don't plant water thirsty crops in dry areas and then over depend on irrigation from drying up rivers etc.
> 
> Of course that won't go down well with the "don't tell us what to do with our own properties" set, but the rest of us can say "if you want our money, take care of OUR land".




Driving out towards Kingaroy there are plentiful examples of land mismanagement ....angering really when you have spent sometime on viable farms.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

I don't know the answer to this question,

I know when the guy that owns the local cafe goes bust and loses his business, his house and his wife people just shrug and say business is tough, you took the risk, The same applies to farming.

The ones I really feel sorry for are the animals that are out there dying of hunger and thirst, at the end of the day whether the farm is boom or bust, those animals have a terrible end.

People were actually spreading a photo around face book showing that a farmer was forced to shoot his flock of sheep due to the drought, and people were saying "Poor sheep", But in reality the only reason the farmer is upset is because the sheep are dying on his farm and not in the slaughterhouse, he is upset about his balance sheet not the death of the sheep.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> But in reality the only reason the farmer is upset is because the sheep are dying on his farm and not in the slaughterhouse, he is upset about his balance sheet not the death of the sheep.




Yes and no. It's more merciful to shoot them than let them starve to death.

Things are better these days because prices are reasonably high so some farmers can sell their stock and ride out the drought. Of course when the drought breaks everyone will be trying to restock and the prices will shoot up.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes and no. It's more merciful to shoot them than let them starve to death.




Ofcourse it is, But my point is that we shouldn't be breeding these animals into a life where their only options are .

1, Being Killed in a slaughter house
2, starving to death 
3, being shot



> Things are better these days because prices are reasonably high so some farmers can sell their stock and ride out the drought.




Thats my point, the farmers are always ok, but either way, boom or bust the animals meet a horrific end.

People are crying about farmers having to shoot their flock, and they act like they feel sorry for the animals, but either way they end up dead in horrible circumstances, the only reason we hear about it at the moment is because the farmers are taking a financial hit to their balance sheet.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2018)

I used to be a strong supporter of growing food in Australia, helping out in times of drought and so on.

Then I became aware that more than a few farmers will not employ local workers on their farms. Nope, they insist on using a labour hire company who won't employ anyone who doesn't wish to hand back a considerable portion of their pay for accommodation provided by the same company. That rules out anyone already living locally in practice.

Since becoming aware of that I've been more than happy to eat food grown in most countries (with a couple of notable exceptions) and wouldn't pay a cent extra to buy Australian.

I'll support the farmers when they support their own local communities. And no, it's not just one or two it's a reasonably widespread issue with this use of labour hire firms locking locals out of the work.

If the farmers want a share of my taxes then it's time to do the right thing and give Australians a fair go for the available work on the farms.

That said, for those who can prove they have consistently supported their local communities then I'm fine with the idea of government assistance. That rules out more than a few however.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I used to be a strong supporter of growing food in Australia, helping out in times of drought and so on.
> 
> Then I became aware that more than a few farmers will not employ local workers on their farms. Nope, they insist on using a labour hire company who won't employ anyone who doesn't wish to hand back a considerable portion of their pay for accommodation provided by the same company. That rules out anyone already living locally in practice.
> 
> ...




These farm subsidies... do they only go to privately operated farms - mom and pop operation. Or as long as you own a farm, big multinational "farmers" are treated the same as local ones?

Seeing how food security is important, I'd be happy with tax subsidies being loaned at zero interest during tough times. To just give it away when the going get tough but then when the profit rolls in, it rolls in... doesn't sound right.

Anyway, as an aside, in Flint Michigan, USA... the city shut down some 1,800 house hold per year because they couldn't afford to pay their water bills. Never mind the water is lead contaminated, still after these years... but residents still got to pay for it. 

Those that don't gets their water turned off. 

Then a few miles away, Nestle' gets to pump water from the aquifer as much as they like for a massive $400 per year. Now that's a mate's rate.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Thats my point, the farmers are always ok, but either way, boom or bust the animals meet a horrific end.
> 
> People are crying about farmers having to shoot their flock, and they act like they feel sorry for the animals, but either way they end up dead in horrible circumstances, the only reason we hear about it at the moment is because the farmers are taking a financial hit to their balance sheet.




So you would be happy with grain and vegetable farmers getting assistance, but not meat and livestock producers ?

How about wool and cotton producers ?


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Then a few miles away, Nestle' gets to pump water from the aquifer as much as they like for a massive $400 per year. Now that's a mate's rate.




People crying about nestle's water business are idiots.

Water is free, the cost you pay is for the purification and delivery.

The people that are using water at their homes, get a water bill that pays for all the infrastructure that the local water company built to collect, clean and distribute the water to your house.

When you buy a bottle of water from Nestle, you are paying nestle for the use of the infrastructure that the they built to collect, clean and distribute the water to you in a bottle at a convenient location, any extra charge that the government charged Nestle for the water would flow through to the end customer.

Either at home or in a bottle, you are paying for the cost to get the water to you, and a profit margin to the company that made it possible via investing in infrastructure and stock.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you would be happy with grain and vegetable farmers getting assistance,




Where did I say that that?



> but not meat and livestock producers ?




I think those businesses are fundamentally immoral, and I want the public to move away from consuming meat from animals over time, and the farmers will naturally adjust to producing other things.


> How about wool and cotton producers ?




Wool is just as immoral as eating meat, cotton is ok.

Using animals for clothing is not necessary, 

Take a look at where the feathers in down jackets and blankets comes from, the geese are plucked alive.

When you look behind the curtain, and see the suffering that comes from these everyday items, you will be shocked.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> People crying about nestle's water business are idiots.
> 
> Water is free, the cost you pay is for the purification and delivery.
> 
> ...




Yea, if I own businesses like Nestle', i'll call them idiots too. Maybe. If I'm a prick.

So if SydneyWater switch your home's tap to a polluted source to save themselves money. Then after you and your neighbours found out because you guys got sick, hair falls out, your kids got lead in their blood etc.

After that you protest, a few sacrificial lamb got fired. The pipes now leached out lead and rust, water still can't be consumed.

But since "it's safe" to shower in they still bill you for it.

That would be fine and fair with you is it?

And if you're too broke to pay the bills... broke because, I don't know, you spent your meagre wage buying freaking bottled water from Nestle' to drink and cook with... it's just stupid and idiotic to complain because.... why?

Because some "capitalist" made "an investment" in pipes and pumps? Paying practically nothing for your city's water supply.

Learn history mate. If capitalists keep this kind of nonsense up, soon enough they'll lose everything. 

Not everything should be privatised. Not every money-making scheme and capital expenditure are "investment". Not all profits are good.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Where did I say that that?




So you don't want grain, fruit and veggie farmers to get assistance ?



> Wool is just as immoral as eating meat, cotton is ok.




Cotton is one of the most water hungry crops around. It's planted in naturally dry areas and the rivers are plundered for the water to feed it, depriving the townspeople of the water they need.  Aerial spraying of the crops and the spread of pesticide causes illness in the surrounding communities. There is nothing moral about that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2018)

Putting aside the emotion in all of this I'll note that Lake Eucumbene, the principle storage in the Snowy scheme, is presently 21% full.

I will note also that the Bureau of Meteorology's outlook is strongly toward lower than average rainfall over the next 3 months across Vic and especially NSW.

I will note that the period after that is Summer when steamflows are generally minimal anyway.

Now the politicians, farmers and others can argue all they like about how much water to release but quite simply if it's not there then it can't be released. 21% at what is plausibly the beginning of a drought not the end is more than a tad concerning. It'll likely rise a bit over spring yes but it's starting from a very low base with a poor outlook.

Thankfully there's more water in other places, Dartmouth dam is 89% full for example, but ultimately we're still heading into what looks like it's going to be an extended dry season with not a lot of water around in some places.

Apparently the lakes near Broken Hill also have not much water in them so I've read.


----------



## moXJO (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you don't want grain, fruit and veggie farmers to get assistance ?
> 
> 
> 
> Cotton is one of the most water hungry crops around. It's planted in naturally dry areas and the rivers are plundered for the water to feed it, depriving the townspeople of the water they need.  Aerial spraying of the crops and the spread of pesticide causes illness in the surrounding communities. There is nothing moral about that.



I think cotton is one of the reasons water up north isn't flowing downstream? Farmers were complaining not enough water was being released.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yea, if I own businesses like Nestle', i'll call them idiots too. Maybe. If I'm a prick.
> 
> .




I don't own any Nestle shares, (outside of my superfund allocation in the global index)



> So if SydneyWater switch your home's tap to a polluted source to save themselves money. Then after you and your neighbours found out because you guys got sick, hair falls out, your kids got lead in their blood etc.




Thats got nothing to do with Nestle, Nestle is a competing distribution model, and I would probably be happy to be able to get clean bottled water if I found out Sydney water was distributing toxic water.






> That would be fine and fair with you is it?




Where did I say that?


----------



## moXJO (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Where did I say that that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Was that coming out of china? 
They have some of the cruelest practices I've ever seen there.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So you don't want grain, fruit and veggie farmers to get assistance ?
> .




I am happy to by my food on the free market, that allows the most productive farmers from the most productive regions to thrive.

If you read Back my opening statement was -

*"I don't know the answer to this question,
I know when the guy that owns the local cafe goes bust and loses his business, his house and his wife people just shrug and say business is tough, you took the risk, The same applies to farming.
*


> Cotton is one of the most water hungry crops around. It's planted in naturally dry areas and the rivers are plundered for the water to feed it, depriving the townspeople of the water they need. Aerial spraying of the crops and the spread of pesticide causes illness in the surrounding communities. There is nothing moral about that.




It wouldn't be as water hungry as wool, think about all the water it takes to grow the feed the sheep eat, and the water the sheep drink.

There is nothing "Fundamentally immoral" with growing cotton, can it be mismanaged yes?, but there is something fundamentally wrong with exploiting animals.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Was that coming out of china?
> They have some of the cruelest practices I've ever seen there.




Yes, but they are plucked alive in multiple countries.

I would also argue that the "Responsible sourcing" where the animal is killed first, is also not much better, you are still taking an innocent animal and exploiting it for its body parts.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I don't own any Nestle shares, (outside of my superfund allocation in the global index)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why wouldn't it have anything to do with Nestle'?

You heard of that butterfly effect?

Nestle' pays a grand total of $400 for however many millions of barrels their pump can take out each year.

That $400 doesn't go far towards the city's water, or any, infrastructure now does it?

With less cash, the city's manager, with a lot less brain and zero conscience, decided to switch the supply source to a known polluted river.  etc. etc.


Now... if you're a scheming capitalist, which I'm sure Nestle' is not and I'm just making all these up... But if profit is your motive, shareholder return is your incentive... Would you see the need for a city to invest in new water infrastructure or doesn't mind it being run down so you can sell more water right in your backyard?

And if you have cash and a few lobbyist come calling. 

That's not cynicism man, that's just business getting rid of a competitor.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Why wouldn't it have anything to do with Nestle'?
> 
> .




Why should nestles bottled water customers subsidise the local water company's customers ?




> Nestle' pays a grand total of $400 for however many millions of barrels their pump can take out each year.




Yeah, and the local water company probably pays $0



> That $400 doesn't go far towards the city's water, or any, infrastructure now does it?




The *cities water infrastructure* should be funded by the customers *using the cities water infrastructure*.

The *bottled water infrastructure* should be funded by the customers *using the bottled water*.

Make sense?

Both distribution models should have access to the water resource, with perhaps some sort of rationing if there is a shortage.





> With less cash, the city's manager, with a lot less brain and zero conscience, decided to switch the supply source to a known polluted river.  etc. etc.




Well that was silly, if not criminal, but again nothing to do with nestle.


----------



## moXJO (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> .
> I would also argue that the "Responsible sourcing" where the animal is killed first, is also not much better, you are still taking an innocent animal and exploiting it for its body parts.



I agree, they have plenty of non animal products they can use in this day and age.
Even turning pineapple leaves into leather.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Why should nestles bottled water customers subsidise the local water company's customers ?
> 
> 
> Yeah, and the local water company probably pays $0
> ...





Why should water be free for privately owned for-profit companies to make profit off again?

That's like giving land away for free because it's what goes on top of it that makes it valuable.

How do you turn the city's resident's subsidising Nestle' to Nestle' customers subsidising the local resident if they're forced to pay for the main ingredient of their product? Where's the subsidy to Nestle' you're asking? By not charging for the city's water.

Citizens needing water to survive is very different from corporations needing water to make a profit. And decent law that weren't written by corporations will see it that way.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 August 2018)

Wish the drought would end.
We are getting strong northerly's from that perpetual high pressure system centred on the northern half of NSW. It's effecting my son's football.
Realistically though, I can't see it raining up there this year until maybe summer. If you look at the satellite views the ground which was green a few years ago now looks dryer than a Saudi desert


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Why should water be free for privately owned for-profit companies to make profit off again?
> .




Nestle isn't using the water them selves, they are purifying it, bottling it and distributing it to the general population, and charging a fee for that service that covers the cost of capital they have employed and a profit margin and they pay tax on that profit..

Any extra money that the governments charged Nestle for access to the water would have to be passed along to the consumers.

Does the city charge a fee to the water company for access to the water?




> How do you turn the city's resident's subsidising Nestle' to Nestle' customers subsidising the local resident if they're forced to pay for the main ingredient of their product?




How are the cities residents subsidising Nestle?




> Citizens needing water to survive is very different from corporations needing water to make a profit.




Aren't the people that provide the capital needed to supply that water deserving of a return on that capital employed?

You are essentially saying that its immoral to charge for electricity because the company that owns the solar panels generating the electricity is getting their sunshine for free.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Nestle isn't using the water them selves, they are purifying it, bottling it and distributing it to the general population, and charging a fee for that service that covers the cost of capital they have employed and a profit margin and they pay tax on that profit..
> 
> Any extra money that the governments charged Nestle for access to the water would have to be passed along to the consumers.
> 
> ...




Dude, Nestle' (somehow) got permission to pump all the water it wants from the aquifer for free ($US 400 per year). 

If Nestle' weren't doing that, it's possible the city and its residence can also have permission to pump it out and distributed it through the city's pipeline. That might be more economical for the residents.

But for some reason they didn't want to compete with Nestle'. So the water was pump from Lake Michigan [from memory]. That proves some $2M too expensive when a nearby river can be had for cheap. 

Now, if Nestle' were charged a fair price for that limited/finite water deep under the city's land. The city might have cash from tax owed to them for what is a common resource... use those cash to upgrade, or bare the additional costs, so that the city's (mainly poor) residents don't have to be poisoned with lead.


In Nestle' not being charged a price for the water... and as you're saying, if they were charged they'll pass on the cost to their consumers... Isn't that the resident subsidising Nestle' and its consumers?

And man, water is not sunshine. 

The sun rises everyday, it's renewable and plentiful in pratically the entire globe. 

Water is a scarce resource. Some 1 billion people in the world do not have access to clean drinking water. They all have access to sunshine. 

There are such things as a commonweal.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There is nothing "Fundamentally immoral" with growing cotton, can it be mismanaged yes?, but there is something fundamentally wrong with exploiting animals.




I agree, but I don't think it's appropriate to reward mismanagement.


----------



## PZ99 (9 August 2018)

I think the total revenue from the fines handed down to the banks et-el should go to a slush fund and divvied out to the farmers )


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree, but I don't think it's appropriate to reward mismanagement.



Neither do I.


----------



## Value Collector (9 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Dude, Nestle' (somehow) got permission to pump all the water it wants from the aquifer for free ($US 400 per year).
> 
> If Nestle' weren't doing that, it's possible the city and its residence can also have permission to pump it out and distributed it through the city's pipeline. That might be more economical for the residents.
> 
> ...




Dude, the water company pays nothing for its water either.

When you quote $2M as the cost the city pays for pumping their water, that is the running cost of running their pumps and related infrastrute.

It’s not a $2M water access fee, both Nestle and the water company have large infrastructure and energy costs related to pumping the water.

Nestle probably spend $2 Million or more pumping water too.

Why should the water company be allowed to free access to the water while The bottling company has to pay? Both are supply water to the population.


----------



## luutzu (9 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Dude, the water company pays nothing for its water either.
> 
> When you quote $2M as the cost the city pays for pumping their water, that is the running cost of running their pumps and related infrastrute.
> 
> ...




 Wot. 

How come oil, gas, miners etc. all pay a royalty but water is a free for all? 

I don't know the details of Flint's public water company vs Nestle', but let's assume that they both are charge the same nothing for the water they pump. 

It could be argued that since a publicly owned, ie. gov't owned, water company distributing water to the population has more right to free water than a for-profit, privately owned corporation. 

The two are not the same entity.

Gov't corporation... yes, if the gov't charge themselves for the water, the residents will be the one ending up paying for it as they all basically consume it. So it is a public good to not charge. Keep it as cheap as possible.

For profit corporations... they're selling it to their consumers. Not all of whom are the local resident, or the state or national citizens. So in them not being charged for water, the entire public is subsidising nestle's shareholders' and consumers. 

And as we know, corporate profit is a funny thing when it comes to tax time. It also have a habit of going elsewhere instead of directly benefiting the local resident.


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Wot.
> 
> How come oil, gas, miners etc. all pay a royalty but water is a free for all?
> 
> ...




Firstly in a lot of states in the USA you don’t pay a royalty on oil and gas, if you can drill it from your property it’s yours, mineral rights come with land ownership.

Secondly, royalties are a form of taxation, and generally governments are ok with taxing minerals and oil, but most governments see drinking water as a human right, so don’t subject it to taxation, they only charge for the service of purifying and distributing it, which takes capital, and those providing the capital deserve to earn a return on the funds they lay out.

Even state run water systems rely on private funding, most are funded via municipal bonds, so the investors earn money on their capital via interest payments.

Or are you against bond holders earning interest too?

Anyway, the way I see it, if you are pumping water to supply drinking water to the public, then any amount the government charges you to access the water is a government tax on drinking water, which in my view is silly.


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Firstly in a lot of states in the USA you don’t pay a royalty on oil and gas, if you can drill it from your property it’s yours, mineral rights come with land ownership.
> 
> Secondly, royalties are a form of taxation, and generally governments are ok with taxing minerals and oil, but most governments see drinking water as a human right, so don’t subject it to taxation, they only charge for the service of purifying and distributing it, which takes capital, and those providing the capital deserve to earn a return on the funds they lay out.
> 
> ...




Where did you get the idea that I'm anti-capitalist? 

So if investor put out the cash "to create jobs" and do all that great things for humanity, sure they ought to get a return. 

But when they are underhanded and screw people over (legally or otherwise), that's not being a capitalist, that's just screwing people over for money. 

And it's not just a moral stance etc., it's so that you do not kill the host. Shouldn't do it because you end up losing everything. 

So for the likes of Nestle' to pump water at the cost of its "capital" to run the pump and fill the bottles etc., paying nothing for the water, all the while their neighbours are literally getting poisoned. That's not right dude. And no glossy ad about Nestle' bringing water to humanity is going to be swallowed by those in Flint. 

There's a perfect example in the 90s in some S/American country where a foreign equity firm got some deal with the gov't to own the city's water. They then set about milking it. Charging what turned out to be some 1/3rd the average person's wage to buy water. 

The pitchforks came out and the investors ran home to Washington, asking for help to get their money back.


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> So if investor put out the cash "to create jobs" and do all that great things for humanity, sure they ought to get a return.
> 
> 
> .




So you don't think employing people, and pumping water from under ground, purifying it and bringing it to the cities in convenient handy packs is a good thing?




> But when they are underhanded and screw people over (legally or otherwise), that's not being a capitalist, that's just screwing people over for money.




There is nothing underhanded, and they aren't screwing people over you just like to interpret things that was for some reason.

Nestle aren't even the biggest player in this market, they have 10% market share, if they were making unusually high returns on their capital you can bet the other players in the market would be under cutting them, Coke and Pepsi for example have huge water businesses.

I am not sure if you have been to the USA, but if you have ever been to wall mart etc, you will see bottled water is super cheap. 

Any way I am out of this convo.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I am not sure if you have been to the USA, but if you have ever been to wall mart etc, you will see bottled water is* super cheap.*




According to the Australian Museum the cost of tap water is 1 cent per litre compared to bottled water which costs $2.53. It might not sound like a lot, but if you consider that around 600 million litres of bottled water is consumed by offices and residences across Australia per year it all adds up. That’s over 1.5 billion dollars spent just on bottled water, all whilst you’re already paying for an unlimited supply of water through your building’s mains supply.

If every business and resident across Australia switched all their water consumption over to tap water, the cost would drop from the staggering 1.5 billion dollars per year to the much more acceptable 6 million dollars per year. We’re sure homes and businesses can put that money to better use than paying for something that’s already being dispensed in their building.

As if you needed any other reason to drop that bottle, there’s also our green earth to think about.







According to The Australian museum, manufacturing the plastic bottles that are used in Australia each year calls for more than 400,000 barrels of oil to be used. And unfortunately, approximately 7 billion of these recyclable plastic water bottles end up in landfills or our oceans every year.

You might not even consider it, but it also takes water to make water. According to the Pacific Institute, it takes 3 litres of water to produce just 1 litre of bottled water. And guess what? 45% of the world’s bottled water actually comes from municipal water supply systems (also known as “tap water”). That’s right, major bottled water companies get about 55% of their water from natural springs but the rest is essentially tap water that is treated in their plants and filtration systems.






* Under your tap is an endless supply *


Many may argue that taste and overall quality of city water is a reason to not drink straight from your tap. However, you can actually convert that same source of water into clean, pure tasting water with each glass.

There are numerous filtration systems that will help remove the impurities that are known to swim around in your tap-water-filled glass. These filtration systems are water coolers that connect directly to your building’s water line and will filter the water before it hits your cup. Not only will you stop adding plastic jugs or bottles to landfills but your company or home will save money as well.

Plus, if you use your building’s tap water at work you won’t have to worry about the many inconveniences that bottled water brings, such as:


running out of water,
lifting those heavy bottles,
finding a place to store full and empty plastic bottles,
and interruptions of your busy work day for water delivery.
With that being said, not all mains fed water coolers strive to meet the qualities that we deliver here at Waterlogic with our coolers. We understand it’s all about having the right filtration to meet your water needs and we provide what is needed for your drinking glass.


*Carbon Filtration:* Our carbon filters purify your water to remove contaminants, chlorine and other waterborne bad tastes and odors. Carbon makes for the ultimate filter because it’s amazingly porous, so it grabs and holds onto impurities from pesticides to lead, petro-chemicals to microscopic cysts, and removes toxins and discoloration, leaving you with clear, fresh water.
*UV Purification:* Our UV purification system places the UV lamp inside the bottleless water cooler in order to destroy the DNA core of contaminants, eliminating E. Coli, Salmonella, Hepatitis and other water impurities. The water in the tank receives powerful doses of UV energy, wiping out bacteria but doing nothing to alter the fresh, cleansed taste of every inviting drop you drink.
*Firewall*: We took our already great UV technology and made it even greater with our patent technology, FirewallTM. With Firewall, not only does the water dispenser have the carbon filtration and the UV Purification but it also has a UV lamp positioned at the point of dispense, obliterating germs milliseconds before the water lands in your cup. This technology gives you 99.9999% purity, 100% of the time.





Our water dispensers can kill 99.9999% of bacteria in your tap water... find out more!
* Conclusion *


Overall, we know that sometimes bottled water is thought to be a necessity in order to get clean, purified water at home or for your employees, but that’s just not true. In terms of purification, Waterlogic water cooler systems can provide you with even better water quality then a purchased water bottle. By using your own purified tap water instead of purchasing bottles you’re contribute to being eco-friendly, save your company money and save yourself (or another employee) the headache that is brought on by all the inconveniences of water delivery.

Plus, with almost the majority of bottled water coming straight from municipal source that has been filtered – why not cut out the middle-man and purify your tap water with a quality system.

// Apologies for the advertisement I thought it was just an analysis of tap v bottled water. But I would say that the facts still hold up.


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't think employing people, and pumping water from under ground, purifying it and bringing it to the cities in convenient handy packs is a good thing?
> 
> There is nothing underhanded, and they aren't screwing people over you just like to interpret things that was for some reason.
> 
> ...




I'm just taking a holistic view of the water market. Flint and Nestle' was just an example that I've heard of. 

Yea, Nestle' will say the same thing you're saying... that if there are taxes or more expense on the water it pumps, it'll pass that on to consumers. So keep the fee close to zero, Nestle' makes money by bringing good quality stuff to consumers dying of thirst for its goods.

Well, who else is paying for that low, low prices Nestle' is getting?

The Flint residence. 

How?

No cost to Nestle' also mean less revenue to the City for its infrastructure. Less fees mean short cuts, higher prices for the city's residence. 

But that's not Nestle's problem. It just pumps the water out. Ship all over the States, along with its profit.

And if you run Nestle's water division, and the city's water infrastructure crumbles, will you be in a hurry to help them fix that competitor? You would probably do all you can, legally (or not, depends on who's watching), to destroy that competitor.

This is why, I reckon, the US have over 3,000 of its cities' water infrastructure contaminated at level above Flint. And nobody's doing anything about it. People living there know to buy bottled water for their food stuff. 

There are public interests and there are things privateers can do well. We shouldn't think that private enterprises have the same interests as public ones. 

Anyway...


----------



## CanOz (10 August 2018)

I drink tap water in winter and filtered tap water in summer.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

CanOz said:


> I drink tap water in winter and filtered tap water in summer.




It's just bore and rainwater where I am.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2018)

So far as drinking the stuff is concerned, I see no point in the whole bottled water industry and consider it pretty much a scam really, albeit one that consumers have been willing to go along with.

If I'm going to pay a high price for liquid in a bottle then why on earth would I choose water which comes out of the tap at 0.1 cents per litre? If I'm going to pay an aorder of magnitude higher price then I'll get fruit juice, soft drinks, milk or alcohol which actually warrants being put in bottles not water which falls from the sky.

There's no reason to not drink the tap water in any Australian city and likewise it's find in developed countries overseas and many but not all third world countries also have tap water that's just fine.

The only real point I can see in bottled water is that it would be useful for governments, the UN and so on to have a few warehouses full of it to distribute when there's some sort of natural disaster. For that it makes sense but for anything else it's a silly concept in my view. Using resources and polluting for the sake of it really.


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as drinking the stuff is concerned, I see no point in the whole bottled water industry and consider it pretty much a scam really, albeit one that consumers have been willing to go along with.
> 
> If I'm going to pay a high price for liquid in a bottle then why on earth would I choose water which comes out of the tap at 0.1 cents per litre? If I'm going to pay an aorder of magnitude higher price then I'll get fruit juice, soft drinks, milk or alcohol which actually warrants being put in bottles not water which falls from the sky.
> 
> ...




Saw on one of our news channel a few years ago where some very enterprising Sydney businessman simply bottled the tap water and sell it to the likes of Woolies/Coles etc.

He didn't have "tap water" on the bottle for obvious reason. but yea, It's perfectly fine to do that and make a few hundred percent profit.


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> According to the Australian Museum the cost of tap water is 1 cent per litre compared to bottled water which costs $2.53. It might not sound like a lot, but if you consider that around 600 million litres of bottled water is consumed by offices and residences across Australia per year it all adds up. That’s over 1.5 billion dollars spent just on bottled water, all whilst you’re already paying for an unlimited supply of water through your building’s mains supply.
> 
> If every business and resident across Australia switched all their water consumption over to tap water, the cost would drop from the staggering 1.5 billion dollars per year to the much more acceptable 6 million dollars per year. We’re sure homes and businesses can put that money to better use than paying for something that’s already being dispensed in their building.
> 
> ...




Of course tap water is cheaper the bottled water, I was simply pointing out that bottled water in the states is super cheap compared to bottled water else where.

Which is a clear sign the market is competitive, and that makes it unlikely the companies involved are making excessive profits.


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> So far as drinking the stuff is concerned, I see no point in the whole bottled water industry and consider it pretty much a scam really, albeit one that consumers have been willing to go along with.
> 
> If I'm going to pay a high price for liquid in a bottle then why on earth would I choose water which comes out of the tap at 0.1 cents per litre? If I'm going to pay an aorder of magnitude higher price then I'll get fruit juice, soft drinks, milk or alcohol which actually warrants being put in bottles not water which falls from the sky.
> 
> ...




I drink tap water mostly to, but when you are thirsty you are thirsty, some times bottled water is just quick and easy, also sometimes in hotels etc I don’t really want to be drinking from the bathroom tap, so paying $3 for a 12 pack of water is better than catching a disease from a dirty faucet.


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So you don't think employing people, and pumping water from under ground, purifying it and bringing it to the cities in convenient handy packs is a good thing?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Dude, the cities water infrastructure should be paid for by the water charges levied on those connected to and using it.

If the city has been mismanaging their water infrastructure that’s not nestles fault, they aren’t even connected to it, t has nothing to do with them.

But,  nothing will convince you, you like to see the worst of people so as I said I am out


----------



## SirRumpole (10 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> I drink tap water mostly to, but when you are thirsty you are thirsty, some times bottled water is just quick and easy, also sometimes in hotels etc I don’t really want to be drinking from the bathroom tap, so paying $3 for a 12 pack of water is better than catching a disease from a dirty faucet.




To each their own.

But remember yo are contributing to the oil, electricity and water used to make the bottles, purify the water (if it actually is) , packing , storage and transportation, when a much cheaper alternative is available.

You could always fill a reusable plastic bottle with tap water and carry it with you. But whatever, maybe you have shares in a bottled water company.


----------



## Value Collector (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> To each their own.
> 
> But remember yo are contributing to the oil, electricity and water used to make the bottles, purify the water (if it actually is) , packing , storage and transportation, when a much cheaper alternative is available.
> 
> You could always fill a reusable plastic bottle with tap water and carry it with you. But whatever, maybe you have shares in a bottled water company.




As I said I only buy water bottles when staying in hotels where I don’t trust the tap that is 3 feet from the toilet.

If you really want to save resources and the environment go vegan, , The average meat eating diet consumes more resources than the bottled water does. the meat industry generates more greenhouse gases than the cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined.

But yeah, let’s all be misdirected by the water bottle industry.

I have no shares in bottled water companies outside my global index, and berkshires Coca-Cola holdings (that I know of)


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Dude, the cities water infrastructure should be paid for by the water charges levied on those connected to and using it.
> 
> If the city has been mismanaging their water infrastructure that’s not nestles fault, they aren’t even connected to it, t has nothing to do with them.
> 
> But,  nothing will convince you, you like to see the worst of people so as I said I am out




I'm surprised you could convince yourself that a for-profit corporation draining the city's aquifer and paying nothing for it is a great thing for... for everyone.

I didn't say Nestle' directly cause the mismanagement of Flint's water infrastructure. Just that when it got granted permission to pump as it pleased for nothing, it's going to affect the decision of its competitors and the resultant consumer. 

I think Smith call it the invisible finger raised up real high.


----------



## luutzu (10 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> To each their own.
> 
> But remember yo are contributing to the oil, electricity and water used to make the bottles, purify the water (if it actually is) , packing , storage and transportation, when a much cheaper alternative is available.
> 
> You could always fill a reusable plastic bottle with tap water and carry it with you. But whatever, maybe you have shares in a bottled water company.




I think he might be following Michael Bury's [that dude from The Big Short] advise and planning to to get into water. 

Him being a nice enough guy, he can't get into it if it's bad.


----------



## moXJO (10 August 2018)

Years ago I use to do the maintenance on the waterboards water tanks around various cities.

 Everyone would steal the aluminum roofing over the tanks.
Would always be finding dead stuff in them. They had signs up saying the water was electrified or some bs. But in another tank built into a hill, people would swim their horses in it. When I went in to look it was full of horse sht. Yummy.


----------



## Tisme (11 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Years ago I use to do the maintenance on the waterboards water tanks around various cities.
> 
> Everyone would steal the aluminum roofing over the tanks.
> Would always be finding dead stuff in them. They had signs up saying the water was electrified or some bs. But in another tank built into a hill, people would swim their horses in it. When I went in to look it was full of horse sht. Yummy.




Greenhill Reservoir in Brisbane was designated a dog park few years back. So people bring the dogs and the flies do the rest.  What kind of clout is brought to bear where pet animal faeces are introduced in the the drinking water supply for human consumption?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If you really want to save resources and the environment go vegan,




That's a deflection, although a relevant one. Many things can be done to reduce consumption of resources, including reducing the production of plastics.


----------



## Value Collector (11 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> That's a deflection, although a relevant one. Many things can be done to reduce consumption of resources, including reducing the production of plastics.




Yes, But I don't think forcing me to drink from the bathroom tap of a hotel is the best way, and as I said if you really want to make a big impact on the resources we use, then focus on the large pollution source first, which is the meat industry.

A meat eaters diet requires about 1,100 litres of extra water per day than a vegan diet.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Yes, But I don't think forcing me to drink from the bathroom tap of a hotel is the best way,




Pour the tap water into a kettle (which most hotels have), and make yourself a cup of tea.

Boiling the water will get rid of all the nasty bacteria.


----------



## Value Collector (11 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> I'm surprised you could convince yourself that a for-profit corporation draining the city's aquifer and paying nothing for it is a great thing for... for everyone.
> .




Mate, you know nothing about this.

1, Flint never has and never planned to use the aquifer that Nestles bottling plant used.

2, The contamination in the water was caused by the city not treating the water correctly and the fact the old pipes are made of lead.


----------



## Value Collector (11 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Pour the tap water into a kettle (which most hotels have), and make yourself a cup of tea.
> 
> Boiling the water will get rid of all the nasty bacteria.




I have done that before, it does take a while to sort that out though, waiting for water to cool down before you can drink it is a bit of a pain.

Also, my wife can be a bit fussy with the taste of the water in places where we travel sometimes. 

And at the end of the day, If I am buying a glass bottle of rum and 2 plastic bottles of coke, I can hardly justify not allowing her to get a few bottles of water. haha


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Mate, you know nothing about this.
> 
> 1, Flint never has and never planned to use the aquifer that Nestles bottling plant used.
> 
> 2, The contamination in the water was caused by the city not treating the water correctly and the fact the old pipes are made of lead.




No, the water from the river was polluted. That pollution and the chemical in it leaches the lead in the pipe system. Yes, most older water pipes have lead in them, but what was in the water leached it out a lot more than the usual clean water would.

Of course I don't know the contractual details and why or how Nestle got permission to pump. I'm not a resident of Flint and not an investigative journalist dude.

But that doesn't make the fact that Nestle paying practically nothing for the city's water while its residents (living on the wrong side of the track) are being poisoned a right and normal thing. Maybe it's "normal" in America. 

If you look it up, see how many of Flint's kids have elevated level of lead in their blood, and what the effect is on their health and mental development. Or a perfectly healthy young father got seriously sick, his hair falls out. Or people becoming too poor and broke they can't pay their water bill and have it shut off. 

I guess that's normal. Maybe they ought to be like Nestle' and set up their own pumping station. Well, just don't set it up where Nestle' got the rights to. 'cause that'd be theft.


----------



## Value Collector (11 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> No, the water from the river was polluted. That pollution and the chemical in it leaches the lead in the pipe system. Yes, most older water pipes have lead in them, but what was in the water leached it out a lot more than the usual clean water would.
> 
> Of course I don't know the contractual details and why or how Nestle got permission to pump. I'm not a resident of Flint and not an investigative journalist dude.
> 
> ...




As I said, If the water was treated correctly it would not have been a problem, the cities water company messed up, thats it, nothing to do with nestle. 

Nestle have been pumping the water from the aquifer for decades, long before this problem arose, they are 2 separate issues.

The flint water authority mismanaging the treat process and water sources has nothing to do with Nestles water business which is completely separate infrastructure pumping from a source the city would never have used in the first place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis#Financial_emergency



> But that doesn't make the fact that Nestle paying practically nothing for the city's water while its residents (living on the wrong side of the track) are being poisoned a right and normal thing. Maybe it's "normal" in America.




They aren't costing the city anything, the city wasn't using the aquifer and never planned to.

Nestle simply pump the water, purify it and then sell it to the population, earning a profit for the service.

Nestle is just a scape goat, even if nestle never had the bottling plant there to begin with this would have still happened, they didn't contribute to the problem at all.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Also, my wife can be a bit fussy with the taste of the water in places where we travel sometimes.




I'd have to say that's fair enough.

A lot of water is heavily chlorinated these days and tastes off if you are not used to it.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> As I said, If the water was treated correctly it would not have been a problem, the cities water company messed up, thats it, nothing to do with nestle.
> 
> Nestle have been pumping the water from the aquifer for decades, long before this problem arose, they are 2 separate issues.
> 
> ...




I don't think I ever blamed Nestle' for the damaged water infrastructure. Merely pointing out that for certain section of the city, their water are poisoned, shut off... and then there's Nestle' pumping it out for nothing.

And dude, there are plenty of land and resources the gov't does not plan to use right now, or ever. It doesn't mean it should be given away because of that current and foreseeable plan.

And if the city's water company is being charged nothing, it does not therefore follow that Nestle' ought to be given the same status. One is a public utility serving the public and local residents. The other is a multi-national, for-profit corporation serving their own consumer and shareholders. 

You can give benefit to the locals because the benefit stays there. You shouldn't give it away to those who will shift it away for profit and leave next to nothing for your goods.


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd have to say that's fair enough.
> 
> A lot of water is heavily chlorinated these days and tastes off if you are not used to it.



Doesn't the chlorine turn to gases when you boil?  
But the lead or whatever other metals stay in it?


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Doesn't the chlorine turn to gases when you boil?
> But the lead or whatever other metals stay in it?




Could be, I'm not a chemist. I always use a water filter with my home supply which is bore water. I haven't had the filtered water tested so maybe there are trace elements still in it.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2018)

moXJO said:


> Doesn't the chlorine turn to gases when you boil?
> But the lead or whatever other metals stay in it?




I heard that lead can't be boiled out. Saw a few protest placard saying the same when the city's managers advise Flint's residence to just boil the water before consuming it.

Heard estimates to replace Flint's water system would be around $250M. Where's the money for that, they say. 

But corporate tax cuts in the hundreds of billions and trillions is alright though. Trump just added some $70B to the Pentagon's budget in one single year. 

Plenty of money, just for some and not for everyone.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> I heard that lead can't be boiled out. Saw a few protest placard saying the same when the city's managers advise Flint's residence to just boil the water before consuming it.
> 
> Heard estimates to replace Flint's water system would be around $250M. Where's the money for that, they say.
> 
> ...




I don't really know how we got into a discussion about what is happening in the USA in a thread about drought assistance to Australian farmers.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't really know how we got into a discussion about what is happening in the USA in a thread about drought assistance to Australian farmers.




Water and privatisation. 

Australia has, from memory, two massive aquifers. They cover about 1/2 our landmass. 

With climate change and water becoming scarce. We can be sure those will be open up and shipped out. If we follow Flint's model where any corporation with a drilling bits and a pump can take as much as they like... well, advance Australia it's not going to be.


----------



## Value Collector (11 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> I don't think I ever blamed Nestle' for the damaged water infrastructure. Merely pointing out that for certain section of the city, their water are poisoned, shut off... and then there's Nestle' pumping it out for nothing.
> 
> And dude, there are plenty of land and resources the gov't does not plan to use right now, or ever. It doesn't mean it should be given away because of that current and foreseeable plan.
> 
> ...






So if you admit that nestle have nothing to do with causing the water problems, what’s the issue?

And the water source nestle use is one that the local water company never did use and never planned to use.

And nestle were just providing a service pumping the water out and distributing to the public from which they earn a reasonable return.

Why would you think anything immorral is happening, the only link is that they both happen to be water distribution models.

As I said in the USA you don’t even pay a royalty on oil in a lot of states, if the oil is sitting under the land you own, it’s yours.

Same with water, if it’s under your land you can pump it you just need a permit for certain amounts, and that permit costs $400.

Anyway I am really not responding to this rubbish anymore, the Nestle plant is just located near a poorly managed water system by chance, the mismanagement had nothing to do with them, and you are just saying because they happen to trade in the same commodity as the one some else mismanaged they should have been paying more for some reason.


----------



## Value Collector (11 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Water and privatisation.
> 
> Australia has, from memory, two massive aquifers. They cover about 1/2 our landmass.
> 
> With climate change and water becoming scarce. We can be sure those will be open up and shipped out. If we follow Flint's model where any corporation with a drilling bits and a pump can take as much as they like... well, advance Australia it's not going to be.




You are lying there, that isn’t the model, the company needs to apply for a permit, and then gets certain amount of gallons capacity allotted to them.

Whether they pay for that by the gallon is just a question of taxation, if they are distributing it as drinking water I don’t really agree it should be taxed.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> So if you admit that nestle have nothing to do with causing the water problems, what’s the issue?
> 
> And the water source nestle use is one that the local water company never did use and never planned to use.
> 
> ...




Neslte is not responsible, directly, as far as I know. That's not exactly the same as saying that Nestle's getting water for free has no effect whatsoever. 

Pretty sure I didn't say Nestle's is immoral and such. If anything, it does what it has to to make a buck. And if the policy makers decided that that's legal and perfectly alright, I guess nothing's wrong with that (unless you're the ones living in that part of the city being poisoned, literally).

Dude, I mentioned this not so much a criticism of Nestle' but a statement on the general social fabric, or whatever you call it. 

There is a lot wrong when it's perfectly legal for a multi-national corp. to get water for free, ship it all across the states, making "reasonable" profit... all while the inhabitant of that city gets their water turned off or forced to buy bottled for drinking, the rest they'll have to put up with or move somewhere else.

If you think it's normal and not important, alright. That's your problem.


----------



## luutzu (11 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> You are lying there, that isn’t the model, the company needs to apply for a permit, and then gets certain amount of gallons capacity allotted to them.
> 
> Whether they pay for that by the gallon is just a question of taxation, if they are distributing it as drinking water I don’t really agree it should be taxed.




it's not a model now but if Nestle in Flint becomes a model, and investors like yourself see nothing wrong with that model, then why should investors pay for water they pump out when it's free and flowing like sunshine.


----------



## explod (11 August 2018)

Whilst we have people without a place to sleep, particularly divorced and separated women around the 50 to 65 year mark with no support why should we support farmers at all. Surely the first object in society is that we all should have a home.

My Dad was a farmer, I grew up on the land, I witnessed the droughts begin in the 60s like never before.  My Grandfather (a wheat farmer) informed me well also.

When the sheep were trucked out of north Qld in 1968 (was a shearer there then) the experts said then that this country was not suitable for grazing.  Back then the sheep were digging into the soil to eat the root systems, which increased erosion off the banks of the easements and I could go on.

And there are so many good (green) alternatives.  But big industry has to be in it or the guvmint are not interested.

So as per my theme, just party.

Currently (off topic) I'm making my own battery backed air cooler, charged by an independent solar panel and a bike pedal generator for my exercise should do it well in a small insulated space.  Maybe not this summer but in my view its going to get very hot soon.


----------



## Tisme (12 August 2018)




----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> it's not a model now but if Nestle in Flint becomes a model, and investors like yourself see nothing wrong with that model, then why should investors pay for water they pump out when it's free and flowing like sunshine.




It’s not the model in flint either, nestle has a permit to pump a set amount of gallons per year, and that rate is set by the authorities.

They don’t have to pay for the water, but the amount of water they pump is limited to the permitted amount. 

You don’t seem to have a good understanding of the facts, or is it you are just twisting the facts to suit.


----------



## Value Collector (12 August 2018)

Tisme said:


>





It has me baffled why farmers keep attempting to raise animals that require a steady supply of hay, in areas that have a long history of not being able to produce a steady supply of hay.


----------



## luutzu (12 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It’s not the model in flint either, nestle has a permit to pump a set amount of gallons per year, and that rate is set by the authorities.
> 
> They don’t have to pay for the water, but the amount of water they pump is limited to the permitted amount.
> 
> You don’t seem to have a good understanding of the facts, or is it you are just twisting the facts to suit.




I don't lie dude. I might have an alternative interpretation of the facts   but that's just being... critical... in reading stuff. 

*Summary:*

Nestle' now only pays $200 a year to pump 100,000 times what the average resident in Flint consume.

The average resident pays $200 a month for their water (contamination comes free).

The residents are upset, for some reason. They complain because they're whinny. The board that granted Nestle' the largess says they can't make decision based on popular opinion. 

Corporation: 1
Democracy: Go fark yourself. 



https://www.sciencealert.com/flint-michigan-residents-clean-water-nestle-pump-gallons-cheap

*Flint Residents Struggle For Affordable, Clean Water, While Nestle Pumps Gallons of It Nearby*
Nestle pays only $200 a year.


CARLY CASSELLA
10 APR 2018


Last week, the state of Michigan approved a permit that would allow Nestle to significantly increase the volume of fresh water it currently pumps with no extra cost.

Four days later and 100 miles away, residents of Flint, Michigan were told they would no longer be receiving free bottled water from the government.

Naturally, many Flint residents were left wondering: why does a food and beverage giant get to bottle water for next to nothing, while residents are forced to pay for their right to lead-free water?

"We the citizens of Flint are unable to get water, but you can give Nestle water for free and force us to buy that back at a premium," said Flint resident, Anthony Paciorek.

"That ain't right."

While state officials have declared Flint tap water safe to drink, there are still thousands of lead pipes that remain in the city.

In fact, according to _The Washington Post_, more than 12,000 homes in Flint still have lead pipes that need replacing.

As a result, many residents remain worried by the quality of water in their homes, and they continue to rely on bottled water for their everyday needs.

Nevertheless, the governor of Michigan, Rick Snyder, announced on Friday that city residents would no longer receive free bottled water from the state.

Instead, residents will have to pay some of the steepest tap water prices in the country: around $200 per month for water they aren't even sure is safe to drink.


To put all of this into perspective, Nestle pays around $200 per year to pump almost 100,000 times the amount of water that the average Michigan resident uses.

And now, the company has been given the go ahead to pump nearly double that amount – with no additional cost, of course.

Even though over 80,000 people – including 9 Tribal Governments - have publicly protested Nestle's permit request, Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) said it could not base its decision on public opinion.

But that didn't stop residents and politicans from trying.

"... there needs to be a balance between the economic benefit of Nestlé and the responsibility of the MDEQ to protect Michigan's environment and natural resources," said Michigan state representative, Tim Sneller, in a recent opinion article.

"What's more, Nestle Waters' request comes at a time when Flint residents are being told their pipes will not be replaced entirely until 2020," he added.

"This means they will have to continue relying on bottled water for the next three years and likely even longer."

In light of the permit approval, residents of Flint have announced plans to boycott Nestle's products.

_Science AF is ScienceAlert's new editorial section where we explore society's most complex problems using science, sanity and humor._


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

And this....
400 gallons per minute. 200,000 per day? 

1 * 60 * 24 = 1,440 * 400 = 576, 000.   Oh, 9 hours a day only. 

$200 for the permit. Does that include the stamp and envelope with the inspectors being sent out to looksy?




https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...r-extraction-sparking-public-outrage/70004797
*Outrage ensues as Michigan grants Nestlé permit to extract 200,000 gallons of water per day*

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) granted Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. (Nestlé) a permit to increase its groundwater withdrawal for the purpose of bottling drinking water, according to a MDEQ statement on April 2.

Nestlé is authorized to begin withdrawing water at a rate up to 400 gallons per minute from the White Pine Springs well located near Evart, Michigan. Withdrawal may begin once the monitoring plan is in place and the baseline data is collected.

The MDEQ determined that the application met the requirements for approval under the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act.

However, more than 80,000 people have said they oppose the proposal, while only 75 people said they are in favor of it.

As Nestlé works to extract more clean water resources, residents in Michigan cities, most notably Flint, struggle to find what they believe to be affordable, safe water.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> I don't lie dude. I might have an alternative interpretation of the facts   but that's just being... critical... in reading stuff.
> 
> *Summary:*
> 
> ...




Nestle pays for a permit, to pump a set amount of untreated water from the ground, which they then pay a lot of money to treat, bottle and distribute.

There is no point comparing what nestles permit costs to water a city water user pays on their bill.

You are trying to compare the cost of a permit to produce a commodity, with the final retail rate of a delivered product.

And again, nestles system has nothing to do with the cities water  system, they aren’t using any city water infrastructure, it’s a completely different source, completely different(private) infrastructure.

If you are blaming nestle for the problem you are wrong.

If you think that nestle should be some how subsidizing the flint water Infrastructure just because they happen to be dealing in the same commodity, you are wrong.

If is mismanagement by the water authority and that’s it, put the blame where the blame lies.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> If you think that nestle should be some how subsidizing the flint water Infrastructure just because they happen to be dealing in the same commodity, you are wrong.




So really, there is nothing wrong with closing public roads and forcing people to take a private tollway is there ?


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Nestle pays for a permit, to pump a set amount of untreated water from the ground, which they then pay a lot of money to treat, bottle and distribute.
> 
> There is no point comparing what nestles permit costs to water a city water user pays on their bill.
> 
> ...




Things don't operate in a vacumn you know. They do affect each other. 

But alright, Nestle' just pump the state's water for nothing. Heck, they even have to "purify" it at a rate of 400 gallon a minute... do you realise how dirty and/or powerful a purifier must be to clean all that impurity out at that rate? 

Think of the costs and high investment Nestle must bare to bring water to humanity. And here I am giving Nestle a hard time about it.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> It has me baffled why farmers keep attempting to raise animals that require a steady supply of hay, in areas that have a long history of not being able to produce a steady supply of hay.




Hay supplies would be adequate if there wasn't a drought. There is a limit to how much hay you can store   but certainly some farmers over stock and hope and then complain when natural events disadvantage them.

A national drought strategy is needed, but it will never happen because once the drought ends the farmers will forget it ever happened and go back to the old ways.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2018)

I won’t claim any expertise on farming but knowledge of other things (eg water resources which is subject to the same issues with drought) tells me that it should be very possible to calculate the probability that any given level of hay can be produced on a particular farm.

You’ll have the 10% probability level, the 50%, the 80% and so on.

On the surface of it at least it all seems very doable to me if the required inputs are available which they would be to farmers.

Whether or not farms are actually run in such a scientific manner I don’t know but large scale water resources are.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Things don't operate in a vacumn you know. They do affect each other.
> 
> But alright, Nestle' just pump the state's water for nothing. Heck, they even have to "purify" it at a rate of 400 gallon a minute... do you realise how dirty and/or powerful a purifier must be to clean all that impurity out at that rate?
> 
> Think of the costs and high investment Nestle must bare to bring water to humanity. And here I am giving Nestle a hard time about it.




Seen the deal Adani got with water?


----------



## macca (13 August 2018)

Perhaps some farmers need to face reality, having driven through the drought area recently I was mystified to see so much stock still on some places

<<In NSW's central west, farmers Laurie and John Chaffey have seen and read the stories about farmers in drought shooting starving livestock that they cannot afford to feed. 

The Chaffeys don't ever want to be in that position, and that meant being prepared for this drought and future ones.>>

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/...armers-who-have-braced-for-the-big-dry/528308


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Seen the deal Adani got with water?




Yea, but don't know the exact figures. But water is plentiful while we can't get enough of coal though. 

You can replace water with drinking the refreshing coke; coal just have no alternatives.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yea, but don't know the exact figures. But water is plentiful while we can't get enough of coal though.



I recognise the sarcasm but it is worth pointing out that if properly managed water is indeed an abundant resource and a renewable one at that.

In contrast it’s a given that continued use will eventually exhaust all high grade deposits of metallic minerals and fossil fuels.

If someone’s left the hose running on the ground and the car engine idling then it’s the car that we should be rushing to turn off first not the water.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> I recognise the sarcasm but it is worth pointing out that if properly managed water is indeed an abundant resource and a renewable one at that.
> 
> In contrast it’s a given that continued use will eventually exhaust all high grade deposits of metallic minerals and fossil fuels.
> 
> If someone’s left the hose running on the ground and the car engine idling then it’s the car that we should be rushing to turn off first not the water.




I understand that water will be recycled. But mother nature doesn't always return it to where it was, or where we needed it. 

So while chemically and all that, the total amount of water the earth have will always remain the same. Just it'll be shifted to other parts of the world. 

And that, as far as human survival is concern, is more or less a non-renewable source if it's not managed properly.

For example, if water dries up across north America, the US will get a drought and currently suffers 100 major bushfire. 

The amount of water that's shifted from the US gets dumped on, say, Asia or Switzerland... landslides and flash flooding.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2018)

I’m referring to Australia here not globally.

There’s a perpetual drought in minerals, oil never rains from the sky etc, but if we’re short on water then that comes down to management in a country where we’ve had major flooding in recent memory and now there’s a drought. That scenario exists even within the same state eg Queensland.

The way we manage water is akin to living pay to pay and spending half the time broke dispite having an income which would be more than sufficient if better managed. We treat rain as thought we’ve won the lottery and then wring our hands in despair when the next drought arrives (and if history is any guide this one is most likely just getting started).

Surely there’s a way to do it better.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Hay supplies would be adequate if there wasn't a drought. There is a limit to how much hay you can store   but certainly some farmers over stock and hope and then complain when natural events disadvantage them.
> 
> A national drought strategy is needed, but it will never happen because once the drought ends the farmers will forget it ever happened and go back to the old ways.




That’s the issue though, regular  droughts are just part of the Australian climate, and always will be, so attempting to raise these animals is these drought prone regions has a lot of risk, for both the farmer and the animal.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> So really, there is nothing wrong with closing public roads and forcing people to take a private tollway is there ?




That’s not the case,

The correct analogy would be that the city mismanaged their roads, and was forced to close them due to their own incompetence, but a private company owned an alternative road across their own land.

Then people say “hey, shouldn’t we have been charging this company a fee to allow them to have a road, so then they could pay for our mismanaged roads”

Flint’s water problems would exist even if the nestle water plant didn’t exist.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> That’s not the case,
> 
> The correct analogy would be that the city mismanaged their roads, and was forced to close them due to their own incompetence, but a private company owned an alternative road across their own land.
> 
> ...




I heard that in the US, pretty much all toll road operators signed a deal with the relevant gov't that would not permit the gov't to build or improve roads that would compete with the toll roads.

That kind of fine-print doesn't exist? Or exist but for the benefit of everyone?

Dude, think about it. When a toll road operates it will cost everyone more. For one thing, those driving on it will obviously pay. 

Those choosing not to pay will congest local roads.

More congestion means more wear and tear. Can't fix it because of such non-competing clauses. Can't fix the roads because there are now less revenue. 

But sure, public employees are just lazy and incompetent. It's capitalists and investors that know how to save everyone.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> That’s not the case,
> 
> The correct analogy would be that the city mismanaged their roads, and was forced to close them due to their own incompetence, but a private company owned an alternative road across their own land.
> 
> ...





How?

If Flint were to charge Nestle a fee for the common state resources. That's not going to matter to their account balance? They'll just waste it anyway?


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> How?
> 
> If Flint were to charge Nestle a fee for the common state resources. That's not going to matter to their account balance? They'll just waste it anyway?




You could say that for any business, you could add an additional tax to any company,

Can we say-

eg. "flints water is crap because the farmers in the state haven't been paying for the water they draw from their dams etc, if we just charged every farm per litre for the water they draw from the rivers and dams, flints coffers would be over flowing in coin"

These farmers are using the states water to grow corn and rear chickens which they then sell *FOR PROFIT, *immoral bastards, people of flint have no drinking water due to the city's mismanagement while these farmers continue still pumping water, *FOR FREE *to raise chicken to sell *FOR PROFIT*.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> You could say that for any business, you could add an additional tax to any company,
> 
> Can we say-
> 
> ...




There's the common good vs private good. 

A case can be made for mom and pop farmers needing water, and getting it for next to nothing, or free. 

The average farmer is not the average Nestle'. 

And Nestle' is not paying any "additional" tax on their water. They're paying nothing for them. Is it immoral to ask them to pay for what is a common? 

If it is wrong in Nestle will simply pass on the cost to their consumers. Then why must Flint's residents subsidise Nestle and its consumers?

that's like asking Optus and Foxtel to not pay for its use of the poles because they'll just charge their consumers more anyway.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> The correct analogy would be that the city mismanaged their roads, and was forced to close them due to their own incompetence, but a private company owned an alternative road across their own land.




As far as I'm concerned it's the government's job, whether federal, state or local to provide essential services to the public in return for taxes, and not hive the job off to some private concern.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> As far as I'm concerned it's the government's job, whether federal, state or local to provide essential services to the public in return for taxes, .




And in this situation, local government failed, and supplied polluted water to the public.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> There's the common good vs private good.
> 
> A case can be made for mom and pop farmers needing water, and getting it for next to nothing, or free.
> 
> ...




There is farmers that are nearly the size of nestle, Mum and Pop farmers are almost a thing of myth these days.

and why should farmers get free water if a bottling plant can't


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> There is farmers that are nearly the size of nestle, Mum and Pop farmers are almost a thing of myth these days.
> 
> and why should farmers get free water if a bottling plant can't




They're French. Why would you give the Frenchy anything? We all know it's Freedom Fries or chips, no Frenchy fries.


----------



## Value Collector (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> They're French. .




They are global, Capitalism has moved beyond those imaginary lines politicians and like to draw on maps and the flags bogans wrap themselves in


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Yea, but don't know the exact figures. But water is plentiful while we can't get enough of coal though.
> 
> You can replace water with drinking the refreshing coke; coal just have no alternatives.




Once we rediscover what the ancients knew and transform CO2 into coal then bury it deep, we will be laughing.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> They are global, Capitalism has moved beyond those imaginary lines politicians and like to draw on maps and the flags bogans wrap themselves in




I don't think Capitalist/Capitalism ever have any national loyalty.

Why do you think the ancient Chinese put them filthy parasites on the lowest runk of the social ladder?

You know, let them make their money, tax it. But don't let society glorify in it lest they all turn to useless financial games and destroy all wealth and savings. 

Oh man, you wait 'til I get round to reading Marx.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> Once we rediscover what the ancients knew and transform CO2 into coal then bury it deep, we will be laughing.




Like the dinosaurs?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> They're French. Why would you give the Frenchy anything? We all know it's Freedom Fries or chips, no Frenchy fries.



You're not keen on France then I take it?


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> Like the dinosaurs?




We could farm people and sequestrate their bodies in big pits. 7bn people x 10kg of carbon is about two years of carbon burning so there's a solution right there.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> You're not keen on France then I take it?




It's my sense of humour 

I can't be racist against the French because there's some French blood in me. Yea, they were in the area.


----------



## luutzu (13 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> We could farm people and sequestrate their bodies in big pits. 7bn people x 10kg of carbon is about two years of carbon burning so there's a solution right there.




With a population of around 7.5B from that video, I take it the ones laughing are those remaining 500M? 

Why the trouble when those are the ones laughing right now though?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2018)

luutzu said:


> I can't be racist against the French because there's some French blood in me. Yea, they were in the area.



I've never had any trouble with the French.

Well apart from some outright crazy roundabout in Paris with traffic going everywhere and somehow confusing a fish with chicken in Angers but then I don't speak French and it all worked out in the end.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2018)

I wonder what happened to qldfrog. Used to like his posts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 August 2018)

Found in Scottsdale Tasmania among some bananas.

Seriously hope is all OK.

https://www.examiner.com.au/news/lo...d-frog-hitches-ride-to-scottsdale-in-bananas/


----------



## SirRumpole (16 August 2018)

Something else for VC and luutzu to argue about.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...kes-stand-against-bottle-water-brand/10127588


----------



## luutzu (16 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Something else for VC and luutzu to argue about.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...kes-stand-against-bottle-water-brand/10127588




Going to start charging for each episode soon


----------



## SirRumpole (31 August 2018)

Farmers eating themselves ?

Hay exported while domestic shortages increase.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-31/hay-redistribution-could-kill-industry-exporters-warn/10181948


----------



## Knobby22 (2 September 2018)

Been some good rains and more coming.
I know the fodder hasn't had a chance to grow but it's funny watching the news as hay is delivered to wet ground. 
The drought breaking doesn't suit the political agenda. What's Barnaby going to do?


----------



## noirua (2 September 2018)

Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farmers? 

Yes!

As long as they get loads of water and hay it doesn't matter who provides it or how much it costs. Send the bill to SirRumpole and compatriots.


----------



## CanOz (2 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder what happened to qldfrog. Used to like his posts.




Hes writing for zerohedge...


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Farmers eating themselves ?
> 
> Hay exported while domestic shortages increase.



Sounds like another market that doesn't work to allocate physical resources based on supply and demand but instead is all locked in.

This is starting to become a pattern. Water, gas, hay all much the same.

On a positive note, knowing that "efficient markets theory" is just a theory and not how things really work helps me make money in the markets so there's a positive from a personal perspective (albeit no involving water, gas or hay).


----------



## SirRumpole (2 October 2018)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-...s-fraught-but-farmers-say-its-broken/10326012


----------

