Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 144 posts

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#131

Post by jieiieifnfj88 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #85
wavefunction wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or how they steal public water and sell it while also claiming to not be subject to the laws governing that water.[0] [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580

Are they really stealing it? The US Forest service seems to think they have a valid permit: Yet the firm's permit to operate this seven-mile pipeline in the mountains expired in 1988, though since it pays its yearly $524, the licence is still considered valid by the US Forest Service and by Nestle.... However, activists consider the permit expired and the US government is now reviewing Nestle's licence. A public comm…

Oh well ok then!

Because you know, the government would never engage in quid pro quo for the benefit of capitalism over humanity

Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this?

Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics?

The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy

But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!?

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#132

Post by Johnny555 »

jieiieifnfj88 wrote: post #131
Johnny555 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they really stealing it? The US Forest service seems to think they have a valid permit: Yet the firm's permit to operate this seven-mile pipeline in the mountains expired in 1988, though since it pays its yearly $524, the licence is still considered valid by the US Forest Service and by Nestle.... However, activists consider the permit expired and the US government is now reviewing Nestle's licence. A public comm…

Oh well ok then! Because you know, the government would never engage in quid pro quo for the benefit of capitalism over humanity Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this? Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics? The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs…

The original post said that they were "stealing" the water, which implies a violation of the law.

I was pointing that that they apparently had the legal right to the water.

Why can't local groups be given the tax benefits and other handouts to manage this? Are the people at Nestle THAT good at this? No one else can figure out the logistics?

What is the "this" you're referring to? Getting permits? Bottling water? Do you think "local groups" are less likely to be influenced by businesses and other special interests than federal agencies? Who would oversee all of these local groups to be sure they are operating fairly?

The whole notion that my community, a metro area of 3 million residents, multiple universities and tech companies, needs this redundancy

Again, you've lost me, what redundancy are you talking about?

But if Uncle Sam says so! Well who am I to question them!?

By all means, question the government, but why blame a company for operating under the conditions of the permit issued to them by the government agency that regulates the resource?

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#133

Post by njarboe »

cwkoss wrote: post #74
throwaway0255 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: Saying water isn't a human right is different than saying not everyone should have access to water. I generally agree that water isn't a right. I think it's a misuse of the word "right" and a misapplication of the concept of a "right". Rights define what you're free to do for yourself, and the various ways in which those freedoms can't be infringed upon by others. For example, you have a right to free s…

I think the key point of contention is about rainwater harvesting. Making rainwater harvesting illegal (and thus forcing people to overpay a monopolized water system) is arguably a violation of human rights. It is a prohibition of what you are 'free to do for yourself', that forces people to pay for something they need to survive (and could otherwise get for free). However, I agree on the haziness around the issue. M…

In the US people have mineral rights to the earth under the surface of their property. This can be separated from the surface rights and sold off. If one buys just the surface rights, then the entity that has the mineral rights can, in most cases, access your surface to extract their minerals. Not reading the fine print on your title and having someone want to exercise their mineral rights is a serious issue in the US. I would definitely be very wary of buying land without the mineral rights.

But the right to use water that lands on your property? Never heard of "rain water rights". Unless it was previously declared somehow, forcing you not to collect rainwater would highlight the need for the right to bear arms. I would like to know more about how that came about in those cases.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#134

Post by lethargic_meat »

mrgordon wrote: post #115
brm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have a point on water, but... Where are his statements on their practices regarding infant formula, the use of child slavery for chocolate, the use of general slavery in their seafood production in Thailand, and the intimidation of workers who wish to unionize in India?

brm hits the nail on the head. Their infant formula practices alone are horrible enough to boycott their entire business. For anyone that isn't familiar, they convince people in developing nations to switch to free infant formula so they stop breastfeeding long enough that they stop lactating and must purchase expensive formula instead. The mothers often can't make the formula hygienically either due to poor quality…

I wonder how much this was a case of poor planning and how much actual corporate malice.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#135

Post by kalleboo »

lethargic_meat wrote: post #134
mrgordon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

brm hits the nail on the head. Their infant formula practices alone are horrible enough to boycott their entire business. For anyone that isn't familiar, they convince people in developing nations to switch to free infant formula so they stop breastfeeding long enough that they stop lactating and must purchase expensive formula instead. The mothers often can't make the formula hygienically either due to poor quality…

I wonder how much this was a case of poor planning and how much actual corporate malice.

Violations can be excused the first time, but after 40 years of malice, it's safe to say it's just evil.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#136

Post by scandox »

slavik81 wrote: post #114
sbierwagen wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying 36 million gallons of water "is nothing" is certainly a bold stance. The federal government is charging Nestlé $524 for 36,000,000 gal of water. I just checked, and that same amount of water would cost me $303,689 from my local utility. I entirely fail to see why Nestle should get a huge discount for water that is then sold to American citizens at $1.79 a gallon, for a 122,976% markup.

The price you're quoting from your utility likely includes water treatment, transport of the water to your home, transport of wastewater from your home, and wastewater treatment. I would be surprised if you're paying anything significant for the water itself. It very well may be that Nestle (and many other companies) are under-paying for their water rights, but I don't think you're comparing apples to apples.

Have to agree. The greatest terminology blunder made in the modern world has been to talk about "water rates", "water charges" or even mentioning "water" in this regard. We should always be talking about Pipes.

Disclaimer: Nestle are utterly evil

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#137

Post by scalesolved »

mrgordon wrote: post #115
brm wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He might have a point on water, but... Where are his statements on their practices regarding infant formula, the use of child slavery for chocolate, the use of general slavery in their seafood production in Thailand, and the intimidation of workers who wish to unionize in India?

brm hits the nail on the head. Their infant formula practices alone are horrible enough to boycott their entire business. For anyone that isn't familiar, they convince people in developing nations to switch to free infant formula so they stop breastfeeding long enough that they stop lactating and must purchase expensive formula instead. The mothers often can't make the formula hygienically either due to poor quality…

It's absolutely disgusting, I struggle to comprehend how someone can be become detached enough to promote this as a strategy.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#138

Post by Mediterraneo10 »

ams6110 wrote: post #124
manachar wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using your definition, there's no such thing as human rights. Life, liberty, and property are all things that are only guaranteed by societal standards and enforcement. Murder, theft, and enslavement is the norm where the rule of law and enshrinement of rights are absent. Much of the US enslaved human beings for hundreds of years - liberty is clearly only something we get by being a member of a specific society.

You've got it backwards. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are inherent in being human. Governments can only take them away, they do not confer them.

> Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are inherent in being human.

.

The conventional Enlightenment-era arguments for natural rights, like those which inspired the American Founding Fathers, claimed that those natural rights were endowed by a Creator. Unfortunately, over the following two centuries-plus, fewer and fewer people accept the existence of a Creator that can endow such rights. Meanwhile, the study of homo sapiens as a social animal has proceeded apace, and it is clear to many – if not most – people today that “rights” are a rather arbitrary thing that human beings in groups posit for utilitarian reasons, but they have no foundation beyond that.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#139

Post by jrimbault »

scalesolved wrote: post #137
mrgordon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

brm hits the nail on the head. Their infant formula practices alone are horrible enough to boycott their entire business. For anyone that isn't familiar, they convince people in developing nations to switch to free infant formula so they stop breastfeeding long enough that they stop lactating and must purchase expensive formula instead. The mothers often can't make the formula hygienically either due to poor quality…

It's absolutely disgusting, I struggle to comprehend how someone can be become detached enough to promote this as a strategy.

It starts with good intentions I guess/hope ?

"They're so poor, some of them can't even lactate enough to feed their babies, we should sell them cheap formula so they can compensate"

Then the cheap formula becomes itself problematic because they hadn't realized that water itself was dirty and their cheap formula wasn't as good as the expansive one.

Post reply on HN