Nestlé CEO says that water should not be a public right

[Omnis]

I have to pay the government to keep my water running. It's not a right. I'd rather pay the cheapest price I can get. If a company can do that for me, then that'd be fantastic.

If it weren't for private companies selling potable water, millions of people would be dead around the world.

 

[Famine]

Rich people can become rich for many different reasons, very few of them actually includes being careful with money.

That seems like a fantastic way of getting poor.

To acquire lots of currency, you have to retain it and use it to make more of it. You don't get or stay rich by throwing it away. It's not a dark art.

Once they get rich, they do tend to brag about it by getting expensive stuff, a lot of which are catastrophic for the environment in one way or another.

And excellent for employment.

Remember, for every rich guy who blows £1m on an Aston Martin, there's 150 people directly employed to make that Aston Martin (by the rich people who own Aston Martin, for reference) and thousands of others in the supply chain.

Just take gold for an example, it's not just expensive because it's desirable, it's mainly expensive because it's so hard to get hold of.

Uh... no. It's mainly expensive because it's so useful. This form of communication wouldn't exist without gold.

Pay-for-use reduces the use from the poor people, because in relation to their economy it is a huge cost. For the rich people, pay-per-use has no effect what so ever, because for them the tiny amount of money they'd have to pay doesn't have any effect on their economy.

Which is cobblers.

Paying for what you use makes everyone more careful about what they use. At 1c/litre who will notice their water bill first, a millionaire household churning through a thousand gallons of water a day ($14,700/yr - 0.015% of income) or an average ($70,000 combined income) one using five hundred gallons a week ($975/yr - 0.014% of income)?

What happens if each cuts their use by 10% to save money? We get an extra 2,600 gallons in the system (five weeks' average use) annually from the average people and an extra 36,000 gallons in the system (a year and a half average use) from the millionaires.

In fact, pay-per-use can even have the opposite effect, as that would make water a status symbol. Similar to when rich brats go to the restaurant, ordering the most expensive champagne and then telling the waiter to pour it out in the sink - only to show off that the money they just spent on the most expensive champagne doesn't mean anything to them because they're so rich. But perhaps that's just a Swedish phenomenon (it's even got a word, "vaska" in Swedish).

It's not, but it is an irrelevant one. Do poor folk only drink the champagne they need to drink?

The only way par-per-use would work is if it was related to the income, but then it would be like a tax, wouldn't it?

Pay-per-use works on everything you choose to buy already. It's only related to income in the sense that you can only afford to buy what you can only afford to buy - though credit cards and loans have helped build the debt crisis off the back of folk who don't get that.

I pay the amount of water I use. There's a counter which measures how many water you used and you have to pay it every three months together with stuff like trash etc. I don't quite understend what you mean.

And who do you pay for this? A private industry you have chosen or a local monopoly authority that sets its own prices without competition?

Because there's no competition in certain regions and some companies like to make illegal deals (oh how shocking). Like I wrote, it was tested and it didn't work out.

It sounds like it wasn't tested at all. In fact it sounds like a monopoly - which is quite like having it governmentally controlled.

If a company like Nestlè has control over water supplies in certain regions, you won't see any competition there. Even if there are different companies involved, they'll all be a part of one, big company, which will control the market.

Since it works exactly like that for food, supermarkets, cars, fuel, alcohol, clothing...

 

[Ranman20]

Why would Mr.Nestle ever think of doing something illogical and moronic? What's the point of privatizing something so vital that could wipe out humanity? People could die without water, not many people can afford water. I think he is just a simpleton.

He needs to stick a Nestle Crunch up his ass.

 

[Motorcycle54]

. Suppose that you'd have to pay for every liter of water you use, that would not take away the over-use of water. It would only take it away from the poor people, while it's telling the rich people to go ahead and use whatever they want.

This reminds me of a story from Israel: A school was having a hard time with parents coming late to pick up their children. They tried appealing to the parents sense of justice and even shaming them but nothing worked. They decided to charge the parents money on a scale according to how late they were. The result? The number of late arriving parents increased!

Freed from shame or guilt, they treated the school staffs waiting time as a mere commodity, and thought no more about it. Because they could afford not to care.

 

[Famine]

This reminds me of a story from Israel: A school was having a hard time with parents coming late to pick up their children. They tried appealing to the parents sense of justice and even shaming them but nothing worked. They decided to charge the parents money on a scale according to how late they were. The result? The number of late arriving parents increased!

Freed from shame or guilt, they treated the school staffs waiting time as a mere commodity, and thought no more about it. Because they could afford not to care.

That's free education for you. Without the power to exclude the children because of their "right" to public schooling, the staff are less even than commodity. They're effectively babysitting slaves.

Why would Mr.Nestle ever think of doing something illogical and moronic? What's the point of privatizing something so vital that could wipe out humanity? People could die without water, not many people can afford water. I think he is just a simpleton.

On most of this planet, they'll die much, much quicker without clothes and housing. So, I assume you've never lived in a private property or bought clothes from similarly illogical, moronic people selling them?

He needs to stick a Nestle Crunch up his ass.

I'm so glad we waited four hours for that "contribution".

 

[Ranman20]

On most of this planet, they'll die much, much quicker without clothes and housing. So, I assume you've never lived in a private property or bought clothes from similarly illogical, moronic people selling them?I'm so glad we waited four hours for that "contribution".

I guess you can say I leave on private property and own clothes from luxary brands but in the end it doesn't mean much. Moving on, you are one clever guy. You always have something up your sleeve for every post in any thread. Your like a know it all type of person.

 

[Motorcycle54]

Your like a know it all type of person.

Famine knows what he knows. He also knows what he doesnt know. But he also doesnt know what he doesnt know, which is quite different indeed, and I admire him for it.

 

[Lizard]

This thread surprises me.

We are seen as a country that provides a lot at the cost of the state compared to other countries yet I have always taken paying for tap water as pretty standard.
We have a meter in the cupboard under the stairs.

 

[Omnis]

Now we know why Obama is the President.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

Who the hell hired this guy?! Water is probably the most important thing for our bodies. We need it to survive! Good thing he's fired.

 

[F1 fan]

Good thing he's fired.

He stepped down...

 

[dautolover]

Pay-for-use reduces the use from the poor people, because in relation to their economy it is a huge cost. For the rich people, pay-per-use has no effect what so ever, because for them the tiny amount of money they'd have to pay doesn't have any effect on their economy. In fact, pay-per-use can even have the opposite effect, as that would make water a status symbol. Similar to when rich brats go to the restaurant, ordering the most expensive champagne and then telling the waiter to pour it out in the sink - only to show off that the money they just spent on the most expensive champagne doesn't mean anything to them because they're so rich. But perhaps that's just a Swedish phenomenon (it's even got a word, "vaska" in Swedish).

It would help to know what you mean when you say "pay for use." Like going to the liquor store and buying a water bottle?

Do rich people become rich by wasting their money on resources? If anything, pay-for-use reduces use by the wealthier - unless they see some benefit from paying more (like toll roads, which are often quieter and quicker than non-toll routes) - because they will end up paying the most.

It's unfair to "ask" someone to pay for something they don't use, regardless of their income. Tax-funded utilities "ask" everyone to pay for a resource regardless of their use of it - fundamentally the least fair method of all.

The problem is that water isn't like, I don't know, your cell phone minutes. Everyone uses water. Everyone. Hence, the discussion of water being a public vs. private good.

You may be right in stating that these companies have managed to bring the price down of water... maybe that's true. The discussion here, though, (and noting all the distinctions you provided in your first post) is whether a company like Nestle can claim, rightly, that the water it finds at a lake or running down a river, is theirs if they treat it with whatever water treatment system they have. That's the whole gist of privatization of water: selling water as if it's your own.

What Nestle should be saying, I think, is that treatment of water should be privatized, but not the water itself. And that should be the case because water is unlike your computer or your PS3 (i.e. if you get the parts of a ps3, build it, and sell it, then sure, it's YOUR product). But with water, not really buying into that argument that it belongs to any one person. It belongs to the public. Thus, no one person can claim a right to it.

This reminds me of a story from Israel: A school was having a hard time with parents coming late to pick up their children. They tried appealing to the parents sense of justice and even shaming them but nothing worked. They decided to charge the parents money on a scale according to how late they were. The result? The number of late arriving parents increased!

Freed from shame or guilt, they treated the school staffs waiting time as a mere commodity, and thought no more about it. Because they could afford not to care.

The number of late arriving parents increased? So it just drove people out of schools (the number one reason I'm against privatization of schools, btw). This comes from someone whose mother was unable to afford continuing to school because her parents were too broke to pay for things like books, school supplies, etc.

 

[Famine]

The problem is that water isn't like, I don't know, your cell phone minutes. Everyone uses water. Everyone. Hence, the discussion of water being a public vs. private good.

Except we're talking about purified water.

Water is a natural resource that a significant portion of the planet has easy - very easy - access to, without anyone else's labour being required. Purified water is a technological advancement. It's a product. It has enabled us to live longer, less disease-prone lives and it takes money, time and manpower to produce. You don't have the right to someone else's labour for free...

Just as though everyone uses food, refined food is a product. Grow your own wheat and make your own bread, but don't expect steak tartare to be provided "for the public good".

You may be right in stating that these companies have managed to bring the price down of water... maybe that's true. The discussion here, though, (and noting all the distinctions you provided in your first post) is whether a company like Nestle can claim, rightly, that the water it finds at a lake or running down a river, is theirs if they treat it with whatever water treatment system they have. That's the whole gist of privatization of water: selling water as if it's your own.

The water in a lake or river belongs to whomever owns the land where these features can be found. If that's Nestle, that's Nestle. If it's me, it's me. If it's public land, it's no-one.

 

[Jet Badger]

I don't really know in what way is water supposed to be taxed?
People are paying a fixed tax per cubic meter of tap water. That makes sense because someone and somehow through something has to deliver that water to you and that takes resources and money.

Same with bottled water. Someone had to put it in there and put a shiny label on it. Again, money.

BUT. If the idea is that you dig yourself a well in your back yard and a company accuses you for 'stealing' because water, in general, is someones exceptional property, then that's screwed up.

We have a 'private' 60m well in our land. We paid a quite large sum of money to get it to be there, the labor and resources of the people who dug it is what we paid for, after that, all the water that is coming from it is free. I cannot see how water in general could be privatised. Maybe only in a completely rotten capitalism. Though I agree, for people who use tap water, competing companies could offer better price and quality, but only in ideal conditions.
I'll give you an example: Recently in my country the electricity supply system was revorked. It gave people the right to decide from what provider they get their power. The problem is that the only electricity provider company opened several smaller ones thus providing 'the freedom of choice'. In reality the only thing that happened was that the prices increased and the monopoly remained...

 

[sumbrownkid]

^The only proper way to tax someone on water is on amount used.

 

[shortcake57]

Access to water is not a right. A right is "something to which one has a just claim... the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled." An individual's rights include the property that is his or hers and pursuit of a life--not survival. One is not entitled to anything that would infringe on another's rights.

Food, water, healthcare... all of these things are necessary for survival, yes. But the government doesn't exist to ensure that we live long, happy lives; it exists to protect our rights and safeguard our liberty so we are free pursue those lives the way we want to.

Not only does a public water supply go beyond the appropriate scope of government in its attempt to "improve our lives", it limits our liberty by artificially creating a monopoly.

 

[niky]

You seriously believe a private company, who is after money will ask less than a goverment?

Private companies, in a competitive market, can provide services while spending less than the government.

What they charge, is another thing, altogether.

But it's false economy to say that government-provided services are cheaper. They are not. While governments don't charge "profit", the inadequate charge by the water utility (i.e.: you are paying too little for water), collections shortfalls and the need for payments to go to the government coffers before going back out to the government-owned utilities incurs revenue loss. In the end, it will not be enough, so taxes not directly related to water still have to be set aside to fund it.

-

And in the end, that will also not be enough. I didn't really know anything about the water infrastructure in the US going into this post, but I'd bet you it's falling apart. A cursory look at reports, and... yup. It is. Because people don't pay enough for water.

The discussion here, though, (and noting all the distinctions you provided in your first post) is whether a company like Nestle can claim, rightly, that the water it finds at a lake or running down a river, is theirs if they treat it with whatever water treatment system they have. That's the whole gist of privatization of water: selling water as if it's your own.

Companies already do that. I'd say that once you've treated the water, you have the right to sell the treated water. Nothing prevents the customers from accessing public sources of water and treating it themselves (Looking at the Oregon case, the problem was not that the pirvate land-owner was collecting water, it was that he was storing enough of it (millions of gallons) to qualify as a "reservoir")

Water is cheap. And free. Pumped water costs money. And potable water costs even more. A fact I am painfully aware of, having sat in on several proposals for water purification systems for charity projects. Payment for water ALWAYS has to be factored into these charity projects, to make them self-sustaining, otherwise you've just thrown money down the drain on something that won't last more than a few years.

-

I believe access to water is a right. But unless you live by a mountain spring, actually getting clean, potable water costs money. In the end, someone has to pay for it. Whether it's the person drinking, a private charity or other taxpayers, that cost cannot be avoided.

 

[Azuremen]

Typical capitalist. Doesn't give a damn about what everyone else has as long as he gets whatever he wants.

Typical liberal. Doesn't give a damn about the fact resources have to come from where and paid somehow.

Honestly, I see a lot of people just jumping into this thread without having read anything at all. Potable water isn't everywhere, and as Famine and others have pointed out, distribution isn't cheap to setup. I also don't see people declaring electricity being a "right" when a lot of people in the world depend on it to not freeze to death. Or, amusingly, places where they use it to boil water to make it potable due poor infrastructure.

 

[-Cheezman-]

The funny thing is people talking about competition. As if no such thing as a duopoly or oligopoly has ever existed in the history of business, ever.

With something as necessary as water, it's pretty easy to price fix and get away with it. Why? People will pay that price to survive.

 

[niky]

In my experience, people without money will simply drink dirty water.

-

An oligopoly is easier to manage if the resource being sold can be denied to others. As it is, everyone has equal opportunity and access to raw ingredient for drinking water... water. Once you start talking oligopoly and price fixing, we enter the realm of large-scale distribution, with high barriers of entry due to the high cost of infrastructure. (oil is perhaps the best example). The high cost of entry is then reflected in the price of the product, and even then, if your costs are much lower, you can undercut the competition (see how non-traditional sources like shale oil are now undermining the price of foreign crude).

Most of our third-world water potable projects are small scale in nature, and can easily be replicated by the clients in question if they had some $50-100k. Heck, you can set up a small pump and purification system for under $10-15k, if you already have a source of electricity.

 

[MisterWhiskers]

I understand money, but people first. Without water, we would get thirsty, crazy, then madly insane. The fact that they care more about money than people's needs is disgusting. I'm not saying that they are mean...

 

[Azuremen]

I understand money, but people first. Without water, we would get thirsty, crazy, then madly insane. The fact that they care more about money than people's needs is disgusting. I'm not saying that they are mean...

Did you, I dunno, bother reading any of the thread before posting? Did you even watch the video?

Niky, change the thread title I say, as it is just too sensationalist.

 

[niky]

Make a thread title clearer? And miss all the discussion by people who come in indignant that anyone would suggest that purifying water costs money?

That would be too logical.

 

[dautolover]

Except we're talking about purified water.

Water is a natural resource that a significant portion of the planet has easy - very easy - access to, without anyone else's labour being required. Purified water is a technological advancement. It's a product. It has enabled us to live longer, less disease-prone lives and it takes money, time and manpower to produce. You don't have the right to someone else's labour for free...

Just as though everyone uses food, refined food is a product. Grow your own wheat and make your own bread, but don't expect steak tartare to be provided "for the public good".The water in a lake or river belongs to whomever owns the land where these features can be found. If that's Nestle, that's Nestle. If it's me, it's me. If it's public land, it's no-one.

Except, you can take this scenario a step backward and ask whether someone can actually profit off of something that is freely available to everyone. Not only this, but can someone claim right to a resource that is public (shared). You, yourself, allude to it, in your second paragraph; it's not so much about the end product (purified water). It's about claiming one's right to a river, a lake, or some other piece of land was originally part of a community. "If it's public land, it's no-one." Except, when it comes to water, it is public. And you don't have the exclusive right to something that belongs to everyone.

Access to water is not a right. A right is "something to which one has a just claim... the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled." An individual's rights include the property that is his or hers and pursuit of a life--not survival. One is not entitled to anything that would infringe on another's rights.

Food, water, healthcare... all of these things are necessary for survival, yes. But the government doesn't exist to ensure that we live long, happy lives; it exists to protect our rights and safeguard our liberty so we are free pursue those lives the way we want to.

Not only does a public water supply go beyond the appropriate scope of government in its attempt to "improve our lives", it limits our liberty by artificially creating a monopoly.

That's all debatable. Especially since food, water, and healthcare ensure that you'll be free to pursue your life as you see fit. Equally, how a system designed to keep people from stealing your property allows you to stop worrying about taking care of trespassers by yourself (thus, enabling you to pursue your life as you see fit).

I also don't see people declaring electricity being a "right" when a lot of people in the world depend on it to not freeze to death. Or, amusingly, places where they use it to boil water to make it potable due poor infrastructure.

(Clean) water, electricity, food... among the things that people should have a right to. Just because the topic is limited to water doesn't preclude these other things from being thought of as a rights.

 

[Azuremen]

(Clean) water, electricity, food... among the things that people should have a right to. Just because the topic is limited to water doesn't preclude these other things from being thought of as a rights.

Of course people have a right to these things, but it does not mean they are entitled to produced products free of cost, which is what this entire thread is about.

So who pays for it then? Should we just let people have food at no cost to them? What about those that produce the food, or those than build and maintain infrastructure.

You seem to think there is no cost in providing these resources, or that the cost is negligible.

 

[Famine]

Except, you can take this scenario a step backward and ask whether someone can actually profit off of something that is freely available to everyone.

Of course they can.

Not only this, but can someone claim right to a resource that is public (shared).

There's no such thing as a public resource. Even the air isn't a public resource.

You, yourself, allude to it, in your second paragraph; it's not so much about the end product (purified water). It's about claiming one's right to a river, a lake, or some other piece of land was originally part of a community. "If it's public land, it's no-one." Except, when it comes to water, it is public.

Why is it automatically public land if it has water on it? That's nonsensical - all land has water on it, if you dig deep enough. Around here, the water table is about six to eight feet below my garden. I own my land (by agreement I have with the nice people at the bank).

Public land is land that is either not claimed by anyone (rare) or claimed by the state as public space with no permitted development. Nestle, or EA Games, or TimeWarner, or I may not ship up there with 40,000 skips and claim all the rainwater that falls into them - but if it does it on land that is owned by them, they can.

(Clean) water, electricity, food... among the things that people should have a right to.

Why?

You can make all of these things yourself. If you grow a carrot on your land with your carrot seeds, it's your carrot. If you're demanding other people work to provide you with them for nothing, you're promoting slavery by insisting you're entitled to other people's endeavours - if I grow a carrot on my land with my carrot seeds, it's not your carrot - and do you have a right not to be forced to provide your effort.

 

[BobK]

Interesting thread. I'll contribute later.

He needs to stick a Nestle Crunch up his ass.

Well that was certainly worth the wait.

Who the hell hired this guy?! Water is probably the most important thing for our bodies. We need it to survive! Good thing he's fired.

You do know he made that statement in 2005, right? And that he resigned not got fired in 2008, right? Actually, from your statement, no, I suppose you didn't know that. So how come I knew that? Hint: I actually read this thread. You should try it some time. It might help you avoid making more silly statements in the future.


Now, on the actual subject, my parents didn't pay for water. We got it from the well on the property. I have had a water bill for all my adult life. That's because I prefer to do that rather than dig my own well. Of course I could fill up some buckets at one of the local ponds/lakes/streams but that's a hassle that can get messy not to mention the storage space issue. Or the problems getting it into the hot water heater. Nah, I'll stick with my current system.

 

[Ranman20]

Well that was certainly worth the wait.

Did you read the other statement I posted, damn!

I'm tired of Famine always going deep into my post and asking questions about stuff I never mention.

 

[Famine]

If your opinion is strong enough to express, it's strong enough to be examined.

If you don't want it to be examined, you shouldn't express it - and that'd be a pity, as if none of us ever had our opinions examined, we'd never learn. If it doesn't stand up to that examination, you should probably change it.

 

[Ranman20]

If your opinion is strong enough to express, it's strong enough to be examined.

If you don't want it to be examined, you shouldn't express it - and that'd be a pity, as if none of us ever had our opinions examined, we'd never learn. If it doesn't stand up to that examination, you should probably change it.

Understood.