Creation of the Bottled Water Industry

In class today we discussed  Fishman's analysis of the bottled water industry.  Dr. Anderson briefly mentioned that it's funny how such an industry can be created by the market when there is no need for it.  But there was never any talk of why such an industry has been created.

Was the bottled water industry created by the advertising industry as suggested in class?  I would agree that yes, the advertising industry is partially responsible.  But what are the other factors?  Could a medical/scientific push for clean water be to blame as well?  With such findings the media outlets have picked up stories on the issue.  I saw an article in the Volante recently with a headline asking what is in your water.  This argument ties back to earlier discussions this semester about the media and the fear it can raise in some individuals.  A fear that may drive a person to buy bottle water because it is slightly cleaner, or is advertised as such.

I find it very interesting to see these themes re-appearing in indirect ways with regards to questions of social justice and economy.  The discussion could essentially turn into, "is buying bottled water worse than spending the little money you have on tatoos or toys?"  It just goes to prove how complicated our society and social policy can become.

Supporting Social Justice

So far this semester we have looked at various aspects of society.  One issue in particular is poverty, which we talked at great lengths about what it meant to be impoverished and if it was something individuals could escape.  After having that conversation I began to ponder how we could even start to fix such a problem.  It is important to realize there is no easy solution, but merely a series of smaller efforts we can make towards a greater good.

I returned to my hometown of Carbondale, Kansas last weekend to visit family and friends and began a conversation with my Pastor at church.  One of his first jobs preaching took place in Newell, SD, I small community just northeast of Spearfish, SD.  We spoke about poverty and what it was like there.  He impressed upon me that most of us will never truly understand the poverty until we are surrounded by it.  But more interesting was the idea of how people there can find support.  Surprisingly, it has nothing to do with government, but everything to do with caring individuals and organizations within the community that have the means to help.  Several churches in the area have come together, with support of resteraunts, grocery stores, and other similar establishments, to allow those who need the help, at least a little assistance.  Granted, the churches can't support everyone to eat and buy clothes all the time, but it keeps them from going hungry at least a couple times.

So my conclusion comes down to a mixture of government incentives and private sector help.  We can't rely on the government to provide the means to help impoverished areas because, quite frankly, the government has no idea what is really going on in these areas and how to best support it.  We must rely on those in these areas to provide the help.  But most people will not provide this if it is too much a burden, financially or a matter of convenience, to them.  So to encourage people to help I believe the government should provide some kind of incentive, be it tax breaks or a liaison to provide minimal government assistance like food stamps.  These individuals, for example, could take these food stamps to provide food to supply help houses or local families.

There are many other ways this can be done, but it has become obvious, that as great as our country is, we need to become more involved in it.  We can't rely on elected officials to always know what is best.  We MUST take responsiblity and ownership in our country.

Intention of Rules

In class today we discussed the role of the Insurance companies in the health care debate.  This got me wondering who the rules are made for in political and economic institutions.  The health care companies are upset and asked, with an unknown amount of bias, a company to conduct research on the cost of the proposed health care plan.  But you have to stop and ask yourself the question, which cost are we talking about?  Are we talking about the cost per individual or the cost the insurance companies will be forced to take on?  This difference is important to note.  It is my belief that insurance companies try getting out of paying whenever possible, as it costs them money.  Could this new health care plan simply be forcing insurance companies to own up to their responsibilities and provide the care they have, in some cases, failed to give?

If this is not the issue then is it personal?  Do the insurance executives not want to take the coverage they currently receive?  What could other reasons be?  Even though we know it's hard to change institutions once they are created, at what cost are we willing to forgo to allow certain injustices to continue?