BIG BUSINESS: WATER is the New OIL

[Mountain]

Anyone thinking about investing in bottled water is kind of behind the curve. They began water mining for very large profits years and years ago. Now cities and governments are fighting against the big companies (even preventing them from mining) and reducing profitability. Not saying that bottled water is going to stop being profitability, but we are in the late adopter stage of investing for this industry.

I disagree. One thing that transcends market risk is the human races affinity towards self improvement, this is evident in almost every aspect of life, including our typical dieting habits, I want you to look at the chart below right quick, what do you see?:

That's right. Despite the various campaigns against water industrialization over the years and the negative effect bottled water has on the environment, the bottled water industry has been booming, in fact, water has been outperforming the stock markets beverage index rate by 500% per annul.

The world will forever increase in health consciousness, and "pure" water will always spear head that frontier, that's why the water industry is currently one of the best industries to invest in on a long term basis.

 

[Roaden Polynice]

I'm on that ice wave at the moment. I've been hoarding all the ice I can.

Currency of the future

 

[SouthernBelle]

I disagree. One thing that transcends time is the human races affinity towards self improvement, this is evident in almost every aspect of life, including our typical dieting habits, I want you to look at the chart below right quick, what do you see?:

That's right. Despite the various campaigns against water industrialization over the years and the negative effect bottled water has on the environment, the bottled water industry has been booming, in fact, water has been outperforming the stock markets beverage index rate by 500% per annul.

The world will forever increase in health consciousness, and "pure" water will always spear head that frontier, that's why the water industry is currently one of the best industries to invest in on a long term basis.

The chart is not showing up. Like I said, the industry will continue to remain profitable, but individual people who are not buying hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock etc. are not about to get rich off the water industry unless they come up with some new product. Early investors are the people who make the most money (that is my argument).

 

[KilluminaZi]

 

[TRBM]

somebody spoke on this on sohh a couple years back

 

[dabestkeptsecret]

NWO
- Better move to minnesota, cuz they got plenty of fresh water up there.

 

[SumBlackguyz]

if nikkas aint doin shyt to keep gas from costin your first born right now, what makes anyone think we gon do shyt when it comes to water?

You can substitute gas with bikes. You cant substitute water

 

[kevm3]

It really ain't going to be about 'investing' in water in the future. It will be more about having actual water on hand.

 

[johnny.utah]

 

[ROFL_GUY]

People ain't believing it, but there is an active movement by the elites to feminize males and masculine women and eventually creating some sort of androgynous society. This thing with the water is part of it... in Sweden the women there are trying to actually lower the ceiling above men's toilets so they have to squat and pee.

Here's a link for you:
Peeing Sitting Down - AskMen

FLOURIDE is in ALL US dinkin water

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:45am EDT
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, July 24, 2012

NEW YORK, July 24, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.

Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."

Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.

Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.

Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.

"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.

 

[Dr.HannibalLecter]

If someone could come up with a way to make salt water digestable without needing enormous amounts of energy or finding a way to generate the enormous amounts of energy needed, they'd be sitting on a damn gold mine.

Pour a pack of sugar in it

 

[Mountain]

The chart is not showing up. Like I said, the industry will continue to remain profitable, but individual people who are not buying hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock etc. are not about to get rich off the water industry unless they come up with some new product. Early investors are the people who make the most money (that is my argument).

That's what i'm arguing against, the market doesn't work like that.

The amount of money you're likely to make on an investment depends entirely on the stocks growth potential, the leverage of your position (assuming you use leverage), your term of investment, plus your ability to scale and reinvest dividend. Yes product innovation does play a part, but it doesn't always precede great returns, especially if the new products in question are ineffective.

You can buy $2000 worth of equity from an organisation and make many thousands in a matter of months depending on its projected growth rate, you don't need to buy "hundreds of thousands" worth of stock or invest in new products to become rich from the equities market at all.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Late on this. Capitalists have been making attempts at privatizing water en masse worldwide for decades.

Read up on the situations in the Southern Cone, Africa and parts of Asia to see how it goes. Mostly, it ends up with countries water treatment regimes farmed out to corporations from G20 countries, which often doesn't end well for the populace and ends very well for the investors, as usual in these types of programs.

 

[SouthernBelle]

The market doesn't work like that.

The amount of money you're likely to make on an investment depends entirely on the stocks growth potential, the leverage of your position (assuming you use leverage), your term of investment, plus your ability to scale and reinvest dividend. Yes product innovation does play a part, but it doesn't always precede great returns, especially if the new products in question are ineffective.

You can buy $2000 worth of equity from an organisation and make many thousands in a matter of months depending on its projected growth rate, you don't need to buy "hundreds of thousands" worth of stock or invest in new products to become rich at all.

I never said you couldn't make stable money. I said you aren't going to get rich (the many thousands of dollars you describe in your post is not rich to me). The people who have the biggest return on investment are those who are there from the beginning not late adopter (if you don't agree with that then we can agree to disagree because I maintain that stance and you are not going to convince me otherwise). The biggest investors with best connections invest and make the real money long before the public has even heard about what's going on. Bottled water is not new. It may be a stable investment, but imo it is not going to make you rich (or my definition of rich).

 

[Mountain]

I never said you couldn't make stable money. I said you aren't going to get rich (the many thousands of dollars you describe in your post is not rich to me).

The many thousands of dollars i mentioned was me speaking on a short term basis, if you compound your account and continuously increase your order size whilst performing at that rate, within a couple of years you will become "rich", even wealthy.

The people who have the biggest return on investment are those who are there from the beginning not late adopter (if you don't agree with that then we can agree to disagree because I maintain that stance and you are not going to convince me otherwise).

Again, not necessarily.

If guy A invests $2000 for 2 years in an organisation that offers equity at $10 a share with an expected growth rate if 50% per anum, he will make more than guy B who invests $10 in the same organisation for 3 years.

The point of my example is that even though the length of the time invested for guy B is longer, it doesn't mean he received a larger return on investment than guy A who invested for a shorter period of time.

The biggest investors with best connections invest and make the real money long before the public has even heard about what's going on. Bottled water is not new. It may be a stable investment, but imo it is not going to make you rich (or my definition of rich).

Cool, but with all due respect, that's your opinion.

I'm telling you for a fact that you can be a "late adopter", invest in an old established product, and still become rich or wealthy (I'm talking a millionaire status), it has been done many, many times before and will continue to happen.

Yes inside traders and those very close to the industry have an advantage, of course they do, but to say they are the only ones that make "real money" is far from the truth.