Should the Australian Government provide drought relief funds for farmers?

[Value Collector]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Where did I say that that?



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.


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.

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

 

[Value Collector]

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]

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]

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



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.


Where did I say that?

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]

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]

.
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]

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


Yeah, and the local water company probably pays $0


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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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 are the cities residents subsidising Nestle?




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.

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]

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]

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]

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

Neither do I.

 

[Value Collector]

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.

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.