Gyroscopic Investing

Pointedstick wrote: So when someone says that bottled water tastes better than tap water, are their taste buds lying to them (having been duped by advertising, presumably )?

In areas where the municipal water quality is actually really bad, are people buying bottled water still braindead idiots?

Very possibly yes depending on quality of tap water. This is testable....people say they can tell the difference between American and Mexican (real sugar) Coca-Cola....yet the tests suggest otherwise....same with expensive wine and stuff that comes out of a walmart box.  I also recently read that America is a dumping ground for rancid olive oil as well because we cant distinguish between fresh and rotten olive oil.

I can't help but be a little put off by your blithe dismissal of so many people's opinions as the results of low intelligence or susceptibility to greedy outsiders eager to make a buck. How do you go through life harboring such disrespect for your fellow man? It must be awfully isolating to look at a group of people and (even subconsciously) imagine, "most of those people are ignorant fools."

I have come to view most of mankind like this:


Again, if it is "much more efficient and cost effective for a society to supply the basic commodity product of clean water", why have they not done so in a manner that makes people avoid alternatives? I personally am not satisfied by the quality of the water my local monopoly government sells to me. I don't buy bottled water but I run all my tap water through a filter before I drink it because otherwise it tastes strongly of minerals. Am I just a brainwashed idiot? Are all the people in government who should improve this situation braindead idiots? Are you just a trailblazer for having come to the completely obvious conclusion that government should sell to everyone at extremely low cost the highest-quality, best-tasting, most mineral-free water that can possibly be supplied?

No...Im considering buying a filter because my water kind of sucks. I don't want to have to add another contraption to my life. I would be happy to pay an additional .00005 of a penny per gallon on my water rate for my municipal water company to provide me water that didn't contain arsenic or other heavy metals that I have to filter out when they are capable of doing that. Run that shit through another filter before you send it my way. I think most consumers would support that.....why hasn't it happened. The hell if I know....maybe because it makes too much sense?

MangoMan wrote: MG is right. You aren't going to stop people from buying bottled water by providing better tap water. The tap water in the Chicago area is pretty good straight out of the tap. Nonetheless, I installed a filtered water system at my office similar to the one I have at home. But the staff buys bottled water by the case and clogs up the refrigerator with it anyway. They won't even brew coffee with the filtered tap stuff. Ugh.

MachineGhost wrote:

MangoMan wrote: MG is right. You aren't going to stop people from buying bottled water by providing better tap water. The tap water in the Chicago area is pretty good straight out of the tap. Nonetheless, I installed a filtered water system at my office similar to the one I have at home. But the staff buys bottled water by the case and clogs up the refrigerator with it anyway. They won't even brew coffee with the filtered tap stuff. Ugh.

And this is why legislation to change behavior is sometimes effective.  Damn, did I just say that out loud?  lol.

Kshartle wrote: There are many different bottled water companies. They compete with price and quality. The same would happen with pipes and bringing water to your home or business.

Pointedstick wrote: Doodle for president!!! "you're all a bunch of ignorant monkeys and I know what's best for you!"

doodle wrote: Hahahaha 

Look Im not saying people CANT buy bottled water. Buy it all you want....Im just saying that in a first world country everyones water should be as good as Chicagos is. I shouldn't have to filter or buy bottled water in the richest country on the planet in the 21st century.

doodle wrote: Anyways, here is the problem.

Im sitting at work thirsty and I want a glass of water. I have an immediate need. There are two options....pay 1.50 for a stupid bottle of water out of the vending machine or go to the drinking fountain and drink some foul tasting arsenic water. So I make the quick choice and just spend the 1.50 to get a bottle of water. I would prefer however to take that 1.50 and pay a very minor fraction of that and have the water company just filter the water again before they send it out...but that purchase option is not available to me. My needs as a consumer are not being met. I want to vote with my money but the damn drinking fountain doesn't have a payment mechanism on it for cheap fresh water so I have to go with the company that is trucking the stupid stuff in and charging a markup of like 20 billion percent on one of the worlds most simple basic commodities.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Hahahaha 

Look Im not saying people CANT buy bottled water. Buy it all you want....Im just saying that in a first world country everyones water should be as good as Chicagos is. I shouldn't have to filter or buy bottled water in the richest country on the planet in the 21st century.

Heh, I actually do understand what you're saying. But consider how you're expressing it. You've basically said, "I want something to be better, but I'm not willing to pay more for it, and I also am ignorant of the technical details of what it would take to improve it." You're an engineer's worst nightmare! 

But I guess you are also ignorant of the human factors relating to why it's not already better or how you would go about persuading people to start improving it so I guess you're a manager's worst nightmare as well!

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Anyways, here is the problem.

Im sitting at work thirsty and I want a glass of water. I have an immediate need. There are two options....pay 1.50 for a stupid bottle of water out of the vending machine or go to the drinking fountain and drink some foul tasting arsenic water. So I make the quick choice and just spend the 1.50 to get a bottle of water. I would prefer however to take that 1.50 and pay a very minor fraction of that and have the water company just filter the water again before they send it out...but that purchase option is not available to me. My needs as a consumer are not being met. I want to vote with my money but the damn drinking fountain doesn't have a payment mechanism on it for cheap fresh water so I have to go with the company that is trucking the stupid stuff in and charging a markup of like 20 billion percent on one of the worlds most simple basic commodities.

If I were a crueler man, I would point out how you appear to be yearning for a free market in plumbed water, and how your actual problem is the unequivocal result of a government monopoly, with the private sector offering you an alternative that your choices demonstrate you are actually satisfied with.

MangoMan wrote:

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Doodle for president!!! "you're all a bunch of ignorant monkeys and I know what's best for you!"

Well, I prefer to be king...

Anyways, here is the problem.

Im sitting at work thirsty and I want a glass of water. I have an immediate need. There are two options....pay 1.50 for a stupid bottle of water out of the vending machine or go to the drinking fountain and drink some foul tasting arsenic water. So I make the quick choice and just spend the 1.50 to get a bottle of water. I would prefer however to take that 1.50 and pay a very minor fraction of that and have the water company just filter the water again before they send it out...but that purchase option is not available to me. My needs as a consumer are not being met. I want to vote with my money but the damn drinking fountain doesn't have a payment mechanism on it for cheap fresh water so I have to go with the company that is trucking the stupid stuff in and charging a markup of like 20 billion percent on one of the worlds most simple basic commodities.

So if you know this is a problem, why don't you bring free filtered water from home in a thermos?

doodle wrote: I AM willing to pay more for it!!! I would happily pay .0005 of a penny per gallon more not to have to buy bottled water or filter my water or all that other crap. Im saying that I cant easily vote that way with my money at this moment. I want to cram 1.50 into the water fountain to buy 1000 gallons of filtered water please......that option is not available to me. My ability to vote with my dollars is being constrained and Im forced to perpetuate a stupid system of buying my water out of a damn vending machine which is retarded.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: I AM willing to pay more for it!!! I would happily pay .0005 of a penny per gallon more not to have to buy bottled water or filter my water or all that other crap. Im saying that I cant easily vote that way with my money at this moment. I want to cram 1.50 into the water fountain to buy 1000 gallons of filtered water please......that option is not available to me. My ability to vote with my dollars is being constrained and Im forced to perpetuate a stupid system of buying my water out of a damn vending machine which is retarded.

Thank you for your ringing endorsement of my idea of multiple plumbed water pipes fed by multiple water companies that you can choose from among, with the option you are craving: to pay slightly more to the company that delivers you filtered water rather than arsenic-tasting water. I never thought I'd see the day!

Pointedstick wrote: Thank you for your ringing endorsement of my idea of multiple plumbed water pipes fed by multiple water companies that you can choose from among, with the option you are craving: to pay slightly more to the company that delivers you filtered water rather than arsenic-tasting water. I never thought I'd see the day!

doodle wrote: That is the height of Inefficiency. Just have the municipal water company run the water through another filter. Its not rocket science. The EPA should just raise water quality standards and test for them. There, problem solved....and the roads don't have to get torn up again.

Pointedstick wrote: Of course it's inefficient. Market competition by its very nature is inefficient compared to a single monopoly provider that gives everyone what they want. But as you've indicated, your local monopoly provider isn't actually giving you what you want. IMHO, that's the point at which maybe some inefficient market competition might start to deliver better results than trying to push the monopolist into doing what you want it to do.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: That is the height of Inefficiency. Just have the municipal water company run the water through another filter. Its not rocket science. The EPA should just raise water quality standards and test for them. There, problem solved....and the roads don't have to get torn up again.

So again, why haven't they done it?

Of course it's inefficient. Market competition by its very nature is inefficient compared to a single monopoly provider that gives everyone what they want. But as you've indicated, your local monopoly provider isn't actually giving you what you want. IMHO, that's the point at which maybe some inefficient market competition might start to deliver better results than trying to push the monopolist into doing what you want it to do.

doodle wrote: Good point...why? Why cant they deliver me water that doesn't contain heavy metals and pesticide residue? My guess is that the EPA should just raise standards (They are delivering me water within EPA guidelines...unfortunately those aren't too stringent it appears)...it would raise cost of water and people would bitch and moan probably....and still continue to buy contaminated bottled water even if the water that flowed out of the tap tasted better than Andean glaciar water......

doodle wrote:
Good point...why? Why cant they deliver me water that doesn't contain heavy metals and pesticide residue?

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Of course it's inefficient. Market competition by its very nature is inefficient compared to a single monopoly provider that gives everyone what they want. But as you've indicated, your local monopoly provider isn't actually giving you what you want. IMHO, that's the point at which maybe some inefficient market competition might start to deliver better results than trying to push the monopolist into doing what you want it to do.

If there was profit in it, don't you think the corporations would be engaging in their usual crony capitalism to take advantage of the opportunity?

MachineGhost wrote: But the problem is, of course, the capital investment required.  No profit-seeking organization is going to cover it.  There's not enough profit to be had anymore since most everyone is busy buying bottled water.  Easier to just go with the path of least resistance.  That's the "flaw" of unregulated capitalism.

Stewardship wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: But the problem is, of course, the capital investment required.  No profit-seeking organization is going to cover it.  There's not enough profit to be had anymore since most everyone is busy buying bottled water.  Easier to just go with the path of least resistance.  That's the "flaw" of unregulated capitalism.

A profit-seeking organization covers trucking in water, so why wouldn't they cover piping it (which we've established is more efficient)?  What if everyone could get Crystal Geyser water on tap?  Everyone wins... consumers get the product they want for less money, business makes a profit, and far fewer plastic bottles end up in the ocean.

Mountaineer wrote: There may be another consideration re. doodle’s proposal to create a more costly but higher quality piped potable water supply.

Currently, piped in potable water is by law required to meet government (EPA) minimum standards.

doodle would prefer his water taste better so he does not have to carry a supply with him when he desires a drink.

Improving potable water quality will likely cost more both in chemicals required for ongoing treatment and investment in new water purification generation and transmission facilities.

doodle’s proposal will not only increase the cost of potable drinking water (likely only a few cents per day per person) but also increase the cost correspondingly for all other uses of potable water (e.g. laundry, toilet flushing, car washing, showering, bathing, lawn and garden watering, industrial use of potable water).  Human consumption (drinking) is a minor percentage of potable water use.

Thus, doodles desire for personal better tasting water will cause all those who are currently satisfied with the current EPA standard water quality to pay more.  If the total new cost of providing doodle a gallon of better tasting water per day were charged to doodle, it would likely be thousands of dollars per day.  Thus, doodle wants those who are currently satisfied with their water quality to subsidize his desire for increased personal convenience and taste standards. 

... Mountaineer

doodle wrote: This is a solid argument....but why is the water quality in some places so much higher than in others? What makes chicagos water so great while mine is full of heavy metals and tastes like a swimming pool?