My Letter to the Long Beach Press-Telegram

[Michael Ejercito]

This is a copy of the letter I sent to the Press-Telegram, based upon
the following article.

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_17685429

In a recent anti-meat demonstration, demonstrators claimed that
astronomical amounts of water are needed to process meat, estimating
that 2400 gallons of water are used to process one pound of meat. It
does seem like a lot of water. But what is the true cost?

A recent print ad from Ralphs supermarket offers a price of $3.99/lb
for a New York steak. Giving a very generous assumption that 95% of
this price reflects the cost of the 2400 gallons used to process a
pound of steak, this means that the upper limit for the water costs
per pound of meat is $3.79.

The minimum wage in California is $64 for 8 hours. A person working a
full-time, minimum wage job can use at least 4,000 gallons of water a
day without spending more than a tenth of income on tap water. It is
plainly clear that water is astronomically cheap. Which does beg the
question of why this is so. Is water so abundant, even in southern
California, that the price of 1000 gallons of water is less than a
dime more than the price of a tall cup of coffee at Starbucks? Or does
the government subsidize water?

[DCI]

This is a classic! And I also read the Long Beach Press Telegram.

Water subsidizes the government reps/officials since.they are
unable .quench their own thirst without having to tax you and me for
their own needs.

DCI

[Michael Ejercito]

Which brings the whole Delta smelt controversy into focus here. The
farmers in the valley complain that the feds are blocking access to
water just to protect a non-native species of fish. But as Thomas
Sowell pointed out, those same farmers were benefits of water
subsidies.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2004/03/19/subsidies_are_all_wet

I am all willing to let the water flow again if the farmers give up
their water subsidies, and pay a price reflecting the scarcity and the
costs of delivering the water.

Michael

[Stan de SD]

>    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2004/03/19/subsidies_are_...

>
>    I am all willing to let the water flow again if the farmers give up
> their water subsidies, and pay a price reflecting the scarcity and the
> costs of delivering the water.

I have always been in support of that position, and in fact made
myself every unpopular with more than one employer by arguing why we
shouldn't chase business for the sake of government subsidies: once
you let the camel's nose in the tent, it's hard to get him out...