Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well we can knock how much wine and almonds California produces but the fact remains, California produces 99 percent of the artichokes,
44 percent of asparagus, a fifth of cabbage, two-thirds of carrots, half of bell peppers, 89 percent of cauliflower,
94 percent of broccoli, and
95 percent of celery.
90 percent of the leaf lettuce we consume, along with and
83 percent of Romaine lettuce and
83 percent of fresh spinach,
86 percent of lemons and a quarter of oranges come from there;
90 percent of avocados,
84 percent of peaches,
88 percent of fresh strawberries,
97 percent of fresh plums?
Which is your stock opinion of anyone who is not a Democrat. You are quite predictable.
That's not true. I have no issue voting for a Republican or Independent at the county or local level. It's just against my interest to vote for a Republican at the state or national level. There's too much at stake to due so...
Well we can knock how much wine and almonds California produces but the fact remains, California produces 99 percent of the artichokes,
44 percent of asparagus, a fifth of cabbage, two-thirds of carrots, half of bell peppers, 89 percent of cauliflower,
94 percent of broccoli, and
95 percent of celery.
90 percent of the leaf lettuce we consume, along with and
83 percent of Romaine lettuce and
83 percent of fresh spinach,
86 percent of lemons and a quarter of oranges come from there;
90 percent of avocados,
84 percent of peaches,
88 percent of fresh strawberries,
97 percent of fresh plums?
No question, California is a breadbasket. But that productivity has come at a tremendous environmental cost. I am sure we could create similar yields if we diverted the whole Colorado river from Glen Canyon Damn to southern Arizona, making the desert bloom, and leaving 700-800 miles of great 4 wheelin' down through the Grand Canyon down to Mexico. Woohoo! That is akin to what's happened in California from 1900-1970.
No question, California is a breadbasket. But that productivity has come at a tremendous environmental cost. I am sure we could create similar yields if we diverted the whole Colorado river from Glen Canyon Damn to southern Arizona, making the desert bloom, and leaving 700-800 miles of great 4 wheelin' down through the Grand Canyon down to Mexico. Woohoo! That is akin to what's happened in California from 1900-1970.
You can't be an open borders liberal (I'm not saying you in particular are) and then tell people not to grow food. So if it's not grown in California ...with a year round growing season and non-stop sun, where are the never ending influx of people going to get their food from? Are people in upstate New York going to all of a sudden start huge farms to meet the demand? with one growing season?
I worked for HP when this dimwit was sitting CEO. From the time she took control of the company until the day she left, HP tripled its revenues without its stock ever raising a penny. In other words, the company was running three times as fast to stay in exactly the same place. Just before she was asked to resign, she was voted one of the top three worst technology CEOs in America, and has been ranked the 19th worst American CEO of all time. Now she wants to run for President...
Caveat emptor.
I find it odd that this matters to you people in her case; yet, the fact that Barack Obama had no executive experience at all, had never run anything, and was not even a great Senator (usually voted "present") meant nothing.
HP was struggling before she was made CEO. She had banked on the merger with Compaq to turn things around, and many were behind her on that (even if Hewlett wasn't). The vote in favor of the merger was razor thin. Unfortunately, it didn't pan out as hoped.
These things happen in business. The CEO always gets the blame, rightly or wrongly.
HP is still struggling today. Who are they blaming now? If they are still blaming Carly, that's a bit like the President and the Democrats still blaming George Bush for their failures after all these years.
But I'll bet you are all in support of Hilary Clinton, who has quite a record of failure too, and she has never run anything either.
But SHE'S a member of one of the two parties in Congress! Carly Fiorina ain't some outsider revolutionary. She's a mainstream Conservative Republican.
Stop it.
Nobody argued that she was anything but. It's just that she would be one of a very limited number that have actually run a company. A poorly performing CEO still has proven more ability than anyone that only has worked in the public sector, or as an elected official, all their lives. Or someone who's only claim to fame is as a professional whiner, er I mean community organizer.
At least she ran something and now has the experience to maybe change her approach. Hillary has never run anything and will instead run the country into the ground just like her unqualifed Barack using US as her "training job".
Carly Fioria is an accomplished executive who EARNED her way to the top. Hillary is a "glorified housewife" who is taking shortcuts to the top playing off her name and gender.
It's also broadly acknowledged now in the industry that Carly's purchase of Compaq was in retrospect a wise decision.
I had not heard this, but I don't follow the "tech" news very closely. I did read some articles on the HP situation, the merger, and why it may have failed to accomplish what they hoped it would.
Perhaps this is why she is not shy about touting this experience. Vindication can be sweet!
Nobody argued that she was anything but. It's just that she would be one of a very limited number that have actually run a company. A poorly performing CEO still has proven more ability than anyone that only has worked in the public sector, or as an elected official, all their lives. Or someone who's only claim to fame is as a professional whiner, er I mean community organizer.
Ok...fair enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
What's more, many farmers and property owners pay nothing but the cost of a well to draw groundwater — and even that is sometimes subsidized. The upshot is the classic "tragedy of the commons," with farmers in the Central Valley able to suck out water to their heart's content, endangering aquifers.
In other areas, you do have to pay for water — but the pricing is extremely skewed. Farmers in California's Imperial Irrigation District, who buy water from the Colorado River aqueduct, pay $20 per acre-feet, less than a tenth of what it can cost in San Diego. And it's all thanks to sweet deals they've obtained from the government.
Cheap agricultural water has led to the insanity of a desert like California becoming one of the world's chief producers of water-intensive crops, such as rice and alfalfa. George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok estimates that if farms used just 12.5 percent less water, California could increase the amount available for industrial and residential use by half.
And although residential users pay more for water than farmers, they still pay below-market prices. Sacramento homes pay a flat rate for their water, no matter how much they consume. They don't even have meters. In Fresno, which gets less than 11 inches of rain a year, monthly water bills for families are sometimes only a third of those in Boston, which gets four times more rain.
A poorly performing CEO still has proven more ability than anyone that only has worked in the public sector, or as an elected official, all their lives.
Herbert Hoover, Ray Nagin anyone?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
