Gyroscopic Investing

I think it's simpler than that: places with naturally better-tasting water supplies have better-tasting tap water. I grew up in Illinois so I'm very familiar with the excellent water there, which I believe comes from a relatively unpolluted aquifer. Right now I live in New Mexico where the water is full of minerals due to the way the water cycle works here. It was pretty bad in California too. The EPA standards don't cover taste (which of course is subjective), so local governments that supply water do the bare minimum to ensure compliance with EPA regulations rather than taking into consideration consumer preferences. And why should they? They're a monopoly, and other options exist for people with pickier tastes, like water filters and bottled water.

MangoMan wrote:

doodle wrote: What makes chicagos water so great while mine is full of heavy metals and tastes like a swimming pool?

Proximity to Lake Michigan. Where does your's originate?

Your "excuses" don't fit into the communist mindset. Everybody should get the same quality and price as everyone else regardless of where they live and composition of the environment. The overlords can fix this with their brilliance.

I grew up in MI right on lake Huron. We drank tap water exclusively. When I visit my mother I still drink it. I do not drink tap water here in FL. For some strange reason I still don't want to move back to MI. I think it has something to do with freezing for 6 months. Maybe I should be taxed for getting sunshine down here and the money sent up there to purchase tanning beds for the suffering people.

Kshartle wrote:

MangoMan wrote:

doodle wrote: What makes chicagos water so great while mine is full of heavy metals and tastes like a swimming pool?

Proximity to Lake Michigan. Where does your's originate?

Your "excuses" don't fit into the communist mindset. Everybody should get the same quality and price as everyone else regardless of where they live and composition of the environment. The overlords can fix this with their brilliance.

I grew up in MI right on lake Huron. We drank tap water exclusively. When I visit my mother I still drink it. I do not drink tap water here in FL. For some strange reason I still don't want to move back to MI. I think it has something to do with freezing for 6 months. Maybe I should be taxed for getting sunshine down here and the money sent up there to purchase tanning beds for the suffering people.

But if most everyone in Florida is buying bottled water and hooking up expensive filters to their house it is possible that they are spending more money and have a more inefficient system than if they just decided to raise water standards and pay an extra .000045 cents a gallon.

doodle wrote: But if most everyone in Florida is buying bottled water and hooking up expensive filters to their house

Are they, though? Or are you just projecting your own feelings onto the collective?

We live in a democracy. If the government is providing poor quality water and people are upset about it, wouldn't you expect that their anger would translate into political changes? Or are you instead willing to admit that democracy either doesn't work or plays to the lowest common denominator?

Pointedstick wrote: We live in a democracy. If the government is providing poor quality water and people are upset about it, wouldn't you expect that their anger would translate into political changes? Or are you instead willing to admit that democracy either doesn't work or plays to the lowest common denominator?

[img width=800]http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/320870 ... 40x627.jpg[/img]

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: But if most everyone in Florida is buying bottled water and hooking up expensive filters to their house

Are they, though? Or are you just projecting your own feelings onto the collective?

We live in a democracy. If the government is providing poor quality water and people are upset about it, wouldn't you expect that their anger would translate into political changes? Or are you instead willing to admit that democracy either doesn't work or plays to the lowest common denominator?

Im not a political animal....Im just thinking in terms of efficiency here. What is the most efficient way to supply clean healthy fresh water to people...and why in the richest country in the world in the 21st century we are reverting back to what is essentially "fetching water from the well" by buying bottles of water in a store.

I hate inefficiency and putting water into billions of little bottles, and trucking it around, and loading it on to store shelfs, and hauling it home in the car seems like a lot of stupid work for a product that could be delivered much more efficiently.

MangoMan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

MangoMan wrote: Proximity to Lake Michigan. Where does your's originate?

Your "excuses" don't fit into the communist mindset. Everybody should get the same quality and price as everyone else regardless of where they live and composition of the environment. The overlords can fix this with their brilliance.

I grew up in MI right on lake Huron. We drank tap water exclusively. When I visit my mother I still drink it. I do not drink tap water here in FL. For some strange reason I still don't want to move back to MI. I think it has something to do with freezing for 6 months. Maybe I should be taxed for getting sunshine down here and the money sent up there to purchase tanning beds for the suffering people.

No communism here. The cities of Chicago and Evanston charge a small fortune to allow the water to be transported underground through their pipes to supply the outer suburbs. You can have some of this water in Florida, too. Just imagine what it would cost after each town extracted a tax on the way. 

I wasn't very clear. I was joking when I said "excuses" so I didn't mean any offense. Proximity to fresh water should make clean fresh water less expensive and we shouldn't expect the same quality or cost everywhere.

doodle wrote: Im not a political animal....Im just thinking in terms of efficiency here. What is the most efficient way to supply clean healthy fresh water to people...and why in the richest country in the world in the 21st century we are reverting back to what is essentially "fetching water from the well" by buying bottles of water in a store.

I hate inefficiency and putting water into billions of little bottles, and trucking it around, and loading it on to store shelfs, and hauling it home in the car seems like a lot of stupid work for a product that could be delivered much more efficiently.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room that this inefficiency was caused by the government monopolizing a potential market in plumbed water and delivering what you believe to be a substandard product. Whether the problem is a lack of market competition in plumbed water or EPA standards that are too lax or don't take taste into account, the problem is fundamentally political in nature. Given that, you cannot avoid the politics surrounding the issue if you wish to have a serious conversation on the manner, IMHO. I hate politics too, but that's just the world we live in. If you want politics out of water, you should be jumping for joy at my idea for competition in the market for plumbed water! Because in the end those are really the only two options: monopolies and politics, or markets with some inefficiency caused by duplication, redundancy, and competition. I'll take the latter, myself.

doodle wrote: What is the most efficient way to supply clean healthy fresh water to people

There's just no way to know as long as the government is involved in it.

The government could do a study and the answer will be a bigger government budget.

A private group could do a study and they answer will be they need government money.

The only real effective study would be the market system. The study would never end and we'd know which was the superior course because profits would flow that way. The providers would pay for the study out of their own pocket.

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Im not a political animal....Im just thinking in terms of efficiency here. What is the most efficient way to supply clean healthy fresh water to people...and why in the richest country in the world in the 21st century we are reverting back to what is essentially "fetching water from the well" by buying bottles of water in a store.

I hate inefficiency and putting water into billions of little bottles, and trucking it around, and loading it on to store shelfs, and hauling it home in the car seems like a lot of stupid work for a product that could be delivered much more efficiently.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room that this inefficiency was caused by the government monopolizing a potential market in plumbed water and delivering what you believe to be a substandard product. Whether the problem is a lack of market competition in plumbed water or EPA standards that are too lax or don't take taste into account, the problem is fundamentally political in nature. Given that, you cannot avoid the politics surrounding the issue if you wish to have a serious conversation on the manner, IMHO. I hate politics too, but that's just the world we live in. If you want politics out of water, you should be jumping for joy at my idea for competition in the market for plumbed water! Because in the end those are really the only two options: monopolies and politics, or markets with some inefficiency caused by duplication, redundancy, and competition. I'll take the latter, myself.

Look (besides the quality) the water system in this country is pretty dang good. My water supply hasn't been disrupted for nearly a decade and the price is not expensive. So I get a little tired of hearing how incompetent and disastrous every government operation is. There are inefficiencies in every system...public or private. Kshartle certainly spends a lot of time messaging here in the middle of the day....what about his efficiency? Shouldn't he be engaged in creating value for his company?

Anyways, is it more efficient to lay three pipes in the ground or one? Redundancy is inefficient.....especially when we are dealing with essentially a commodity product. Some systems are just monopolistic in nature due to infrastructure constraints. We can't have competing road networks for example....what are we going to do? Stack them on top of each other?

doodle wrote:

Pointedstick wrote:

doodle wrote: Im not a political animal....Im just thinking in terms of efficiency here. What is the most efficient way to supply clean healthy fresh water to people...and why in the richest country in the world in the 21st century we are reverting back to what is essentially "fetching water from the well" by buying bottles of water in a store.

I hate inefficiency and putting water into billions of little bottles, and trucking it around, and loading it on to store shelfs, and hauling it home in the car seems like a lot of stupid work for a product that could be delivered much more efficiently.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room that this inefficiency was caused by the government monopolizing a potential market in plumbed water and delivering what you believe to be a substandard product. Whether the problem is a lack of market competition in plumbed water or EPA standards that are too lax or don't take taste into account, the problem is fundamentally political in nature. Given that, you cannot avoid the politics surrounding the issue if you wish to have a serious conversation on the manner, IMHO. I hate politics too, but that's just the world we live in. If you want politics out of water, you should be jumping for joy at my idea for competition in the market for plumbed water! Because in the end those are really the only two options: monopolies and politics, or markets with some inefficiency caused by duplication, redundancy, and competition. I'll take the latter, myself.

Look (besides the quality) the water system in this country is pretty dang good. My water supply hasn't been disrupted for nearly a decade and the price is not expensive. So I get a little tired of hearing how incompetent and disastrous every government operation is. There are inefficiencies in every system...public or private. Kshartle certainly spends a lot of time messaging here in the middle of the day....what about his efficiency? Shouldn't he be engaged in creating value for his company?

Anyways, is it more efficient to lay three pipes in the ground or one? Redundancy is inefficient.....especially when we are dealing with essentially a commodity product. Some systems are just monopolistic in nature due to infrastructure constraints. We can't have competing road networks for example....what are we going to do? Stack them on top of each other?

I am so efficient the director has been bugging me to apply for a promotion. I finally gave in and applied on Monday. It's a forgone conclusion when the hiring manager calls you to directly ask you to apply.

They bill me out at a ridiculous rate to the customer regardless so I'm creating value for them even while I'm typing to you. Talk about efficiency!

doodle wrote: Look (besides the quality) the water system in this country is pretty dang good. My water supply hasn't been disrupted for nearly a decade and the price is not expensive. So I get a little tired of hearing how incompetent and disastrous every government operation is. There are inefficiencies in every system...public or private.

Sure, it is indeed pretty good. I've lived in a third world village with no plumbing. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the subject of this thread is the bad tasting water your government provides you with. Even though the system is actually pretty good in general, you're dissatisfied, enough so to start a thread complaining about it. But now you're stuck, because the water is supplied by a government monopoly, so you actually have no power to either get better water from them or acquire it from another plumbed water source. So all you can do it bitch and moan. My proposition of a market mechanism to inject competition into this plumbed water monopoly is designed to illustrate an example of how a person like you could go about getting satisfaction for his complaint that his government does not care about.

Like I said, you have two options: have water be delivered by a government monopoly and deal with problems of low quality and political decision-making, or make the system more market-oriented and deal with the inherent inefficiencies of duplicated infrastructure and competition.

What it sounds like you want is an efficient government monopoly, and I'm sorry, that's just not possible.

doodle wrote: Some systems are just monopolistic in nature due to infrastructure constraints. We can't have competing road networks for example....what are we going to do? Stack them on top of each other?

Food for thought: the fact that there actually is a road "network" rather than a series of point-to-point roads implies that every road within that network is actually in competition with every other road for traffic.

They bill me out at a ridiculous rate to the customer regardless so I'm creating value for them even while I'm typing to you. Talk about efficiency!

That's not efficiency....that is screwing the customer. Imperfect information leads to market inefficiency. I have engineer friends. I am well aware of the two hour workday.

What it sounds like you want is an efficient government monopoly, and I'm sorry, that's just not possible.

It already is efficient...I just want a little more cleanliness which they would provide if the EPA mandated them to.

doodle wrote:

They bill me out at a ridiculous rate to the customer regardless so I'm creating value for them even while I'm typing to you. Talk about efficiency!

That's not efficiency....that is screwing the customer. Imperfect information leads to market inefficiency. I have engineer friends. I am well aware of the two hour workday.

It's pretty efficient for my employer.

I need these mental breaks to re-set

2 hours?!?!? Doesn't sound like they are very efficient.

Screwing the customer? I think Browne wrote about this in "How I found Freedom". The customer is free to look elsewhere. They aren't going to get nearly as a good a deal. I don't waste time or create re-work. That's what you get when you go cheaper and it ends up being more expensive.

doodle wrote:

What it sounds like you want is an efficient government monopoly, and I'm sorry, that's just not possible.

It already is efficient...I just want a little more cleanliness which they would provide if the EPA mandated them to.

And how do you propose to get the EPA to do that? That's my point. You have no power. You can't switch to what you want, because it's prevented from existing. Instead, you have to hope and pray that a bigger monopolist will threaten your local monopolist into doing what you want. Maybe it'll happen. Maybe not. I wouldn't hold my breath. Your best bet it to just bring that thermos from home because the government monopoly does not provide a commodity of the quality you prefer and likely never will.

doodle wrote: I hate inefficiency and putting water into billions of little bottles, and trucking it around, and loading it on to store shelfs, and hauling it home in the car seems like a lot of stupid work for a product that could be delivered much more efficiently.

My Gma is very picky about her water.  So much that she refuses to drink from the mini-RO.  So its off the shelf, into the car, into the house, for her.  But of course at 94 she doesn't do any of the hard work.  I'm sure she's more than earned the right to be looked after, but efficiency is not always the top priority for people.

As a libertarian who always sides with free market, I concede there's an interesting point here made by the statists.

As an individual, I can freely decide whether I want to buy bottled water or forgo bottled water at the market prices.

As an individual, I can choose to move to a geographic location where the tap water is cleaner, or perhaps if I knew I was going to buy bottled water, I may choose to move to a location where the tap water is terrible, but the cost of living is lower (or some other benefit to this area), because I'm drinking the bottled anywhere so I don't care.

However, it needs to be a group of people to collectively pool resources and create clean tap drinking water for me to even have that choice. One individual cannot simply choose to make tap water cleaner because the cost of those facilities is enormous and must be divided up by a large number of consumers who will drink that water.

Perhaps a large number of individuals decide that they want to live in an area with very clean reverse-osmosis tap water and they are willing to spend the money in additional taxes to receive that benefit. The problem is they'd have to impose their will through force (the government) to force everyone in that area to pay for that benefit, whether they want it or not, because everyone in that area can have access to it.

We all know that special interest groups always get their way, even if they are a minority, because those special interest groups have a strong desire to impose their will on others, whereas everyone else has a much smaller desire to avoid those additional taxes because relatively speaking, it's insignificant. In other words, suppose 1% of the population wanted cleaner water. They want it really, really bad. It's all they want. They are willing to skip work and protest, or perhaps they don't have jobs at all and can hold signs in the street all day. The cost of making the water better would come out to $10 more in property taxes per person in that city per year. The 99% that don't care about the cleaner water and aren't willing to spend the $10 per year, don't really care as much about saving $10 as the 1% care about getting clean water. The 99% won't skip work for a day to hold signs protesting to avoid the $10 annual tax because they'd lose much more in lost wages.

This happens with everything in government. It's why farmers still receive enormous subsidies. The 0.01% of our population that needs those subsidies to live care much more than the 99.99% of us who would prefer to save $10/year in income tax. Fundamentally, I oppose this, which is why I'm a libertarian.

There's really no easy answer here. There are likely economies of scale to be had with water purification running through public water lines. And those economies of scale may only be able to be captured through collectivism and statism.