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

21–30 of 144 posts

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#21

Post by Eridrus »

dkhenry wrote: post #16
diogenescynic wrote: post #2

That's a major bummer. Nestle is one of the most evil companies there is--their CEO once said water isn't a human right. Nestle uses cocoa from slave labor and bottle water in drought stricken communities and national forests on expired permits, and do shady stuff like hiring the regulator who gave them their water license. Very few companies are as vile and amoral as Nestle. Unfortunately, this will taint Blue Bottl…

You can do much better the Philz, depending on where you are at there are lots of good options. In you're in the bay area look up Four Barrel, they roast great beans and their SF coffee shop is really nice.

I miss Four Barrell since moving out of SF. I don't really understand why they don't seem to be doing as well as Blue Bottle or Stumptown or even Ritual.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#22

Post by Alex3917 »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

> He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed.

Sounds like a good case for cap-and-trade. That is, don't allow people to withdraw groundwater faster than it's being replenished, and don't allow people to withdraw enough surface water to harm fish populations. And then let folks trade their allocations.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#23

Post by jakelarkin »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

rather have underpriced water be available to people for gardening, washing cars, swimming pools than it be given away for free in corrupt government contracts to a mega-corporation so they can grow rice in the California desert or bottle ground water and sell it at inflated prices.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#24

Post by spike021 »

Eridrus wrote: post #21
dkhenry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do much better the Philz, depending on where you are at there are lots of good options. In you're in the bay area look up Four Barrel, they roast great beans and their SF coffee shop is really nice.

I miss Four Barrell since moving out of SF. I don't really understand why they don't seem to be doing as well as Blue Bottle or Stumptown or even Ritual.

What about Sightglass?

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#25

Post by brm »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

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?

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#26

Post by ceejayoz »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

> He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed.

They could start with themselves. They pay $200/year to suck 130M gallons of Michigan water, and fight attempts to charge a fair rate for it.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/why_nestle_pays_...

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#27

Post by minikites »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

What about all of their other corporate abuses, including pitching infant formula as safer and better than breastfeeding (an outright lie no matter how you spin it)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#Baby_milk_...

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#28

Post by ChuckMcM »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

Small nit, some folks without water for 'gardening' can't live. See some of the city farms for examples of this.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#29

Post by baddox »

throwaway0255 wrote: post #19
diogenescynic wrote: post #2

That's a major bummer. Nestle is one of the most evil companies there is--their CEO once said water isn't a human right. Nestle uses cocoa from slave labor and bottle water in drought stricken communities and national forests on expired permits, and do shady stuff like hiring the regulator who gave them their water license. Very few companies are as vile and amoral as Nestle. Unfortunately, this will taint Blue Bottl…

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…

You're explicitly making a semantic argument. When people say "water is a human right" or "Internet is a human right," all they mean is that governments should use public funds to improve (or guarantee) access to those things.

Of course you're correct about the way the word "right" is generally used in philosophy and ethics. But that's absolutely not the definition being used here.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#30

Post by ErikVandeWater »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

And I don't get exactly what it means to declare water a human right. There are certainly people in the world not getting the clean water they need. But how do you solve this? You set up an international agency to acquire water for them. But where do you get the funding for this agency? If it really is a _human_ right, is this agency above local laws? What are the restrictions on this agency? Can this agency ban the building of a dam that would deprive even one person of a suitable source of water?

It's weird because other rights are what others _can't_ do to you, but this right is what others _must provide_ you. Who and how just aren't clear.

Post reply on HN