On 5/25/2015 8:37 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/25/2015 12:52 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 5/25/2015 12:24 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 5/24/2015 11:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like you need balance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like we need to stop selling ourselves down the river for
>>>>>>> short
>>>>>>> term
>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm going to pick up a half gallon jar of almond butter tomorrow.
>>>>>> Good
>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would. But I was referring to Wall Street greed. There is no such
>>>>> thing as balance when they stick their proboscis into anything that
>>>>> even
>>>>> smells a little of money.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You still have to go back to the roots. Is California better off with
>>>> or
>>>> without almonds? Forget Wall Street, the answer is either yes or no.
>>>
>>> Not the point I was making.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But the answer is important in deciding the fate of water distribution and
>> almond growers. And to determine if you are being sold down the river or
>> made better.
>>
>> Is there a yes or no?
>
> Wall Street has been buying up orchards and massively over planting new
> trees during a drought so as to satisfy Chinese demand and reap higher
> rewards for investors. That makes the problem much worse if you are on trhe
> side of we need to conserve water if we are going to get through this..
>
> So are we better off? Depends on who you are I suppose.
>

At this stage, adding more planting would seem to be the wrong thing to
do. But cutting back production may be very costly in other areas.