"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

You have to understand the immense power these growers have in this state.
It is as if Wall Street dictates to the government how we handle this and of
course they get preferential treatment. So the outcome is not what is best
for the state it is what is best for some a-hole billionaire. As always.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Mon, 25 May 2015 09:35:41 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:

>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>> On 5/25/2015 8:37 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>You have to understand the immense power these growers have in this state.
>It is as if Wall Street dictates to the government how we handle this and of
>course they get preferential treatment.

As if? Wall Street *is* your government.