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

41–50 of 144 posts

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#41

Post by thedaniel »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #36
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly. I often hear this whole "water a human right" argument from the left and when asked about what would change they really can't answer that. I think everyone knows how water is essential for the human life but declaring it a human right won't change anything. After all what would we do the next day after making it a human right?! Send the US Army to Malawi bearing Super Soakers?

The next day, we'd severely punish entities whose profit-seeking actions denied people fresh water.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#42

Post by zjaffee »

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.

There are a few coffeeshops in LA that brew four barrel coffee, I think it's a result of how Four Barrel mostly just sells beans instead of opening their own shops everywhere.

Additionally, Stumptown as well as Intellegencia are both owned by the same private equity firm that owns Peet's, Blue Bottle also got a ton of outside investment to allow them to grow as rapidly as they did, in addition to having a successful business of delivering their cold brew to peoples homes.

The thing about the food industry is that it has really high startup costs that take a very long time to pay off, so opening up a new store using the profits from existing stores isn't really all that easy to do without having a hundreds of stores already.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#43

Post by Eridrus »

spike021 wrote: post #24
Eridrus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That list is entirely based on my personal preference for coffee which does not particularly like Sightglass or Verve. There is no objectivity here :)

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#44

Post by ythn »

Armisael16 wrote: post #35
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Positive rights are very much a thing - we have a positive right to at least some education in the first world.

They exist, yes, (and I've even heard some ridiculous ones like the human right to internet access), but how do you make the "rights" a reality?

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#45

Post by santaclaus »

spike021 wrote: post #24
Eridrus wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Sightglass

I'm serious considering leaving my current job because the office coffee moved from Sightglass to some over-roasted junk from somewhere in Marin county...

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#46

Post by jamestimmins »

Armisael16 wrote: post #35
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Positive rights are very much a thing - we have a positive right to at least some education in the first world.

I personally distinguish between 1)Human Rights, 2) rights as a member of a specific society, and 3) simply things that are "right" to do for peoples in the moral sense.

1. Something that can't be taken away by someone else.

2. A contract between an individual and the country/state with which they are a citizen. In return for paying taxes and following laws, they can expect services, utilities, military, education, etc.

3. These things are not something you're entitled to morally (like water, as there's no one to sue if you don't have water in your region), but societies should recognize the need for water, and thus it is moral and right to help ensure that all people have access.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#47

Post by ShabbosGoy »

jakelarkin wrote: post #23
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.

You didn't hear it from me, but the first person to make a market for water futures will be very wealthy.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#48

Post by tylerhou »

zjaffee wrote: post #40
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 that even by your definition water is a human right. Should we not have access to plumbing anymore lets say, and there was a freshwater lake near where we lived, we should be allowed to get our water from it and no other human should stop us from doing so simply because they said that they owned it.

You're arguing that if there's an available source of water, people should be able to take from it as they choose. But then what incentivizes me to build a plumbing system (which, if I should build, I would claim that I owned) if anyone could just take from it?

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#49

Post by Armisael16 »

jamestimmins wrote: post #46
Armisael16 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Positive rights are very much a thing - we have a positive right to at least some education in the first world.

I personally distinguish between 1)Human Rights, 2) rights as a member of a specific society, and 3) simply things that are "right" to do for peoples in the moral sense. 1. Something that can't be taken away by someone else. 2. A contract between an individual and the country/state with which they are a citizen. In return for paying taxes and following laws, they can expect services, utilities, military, education, e…

If you do that you're using words differently than many other people, the UN included. By your definition the right to a fair trial isn't a human right (which isn't a particularly widely held opinion).
Post reply on HN