Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 8  Next

So better they die than submit to evil privatization?

How about the cost of not dying... how much is that worth?

How much would not getting cholera, or hepatitis be worth to you?

   

regulation on what the company can and can't do (e.g. stripping) forcing the company to provide water even to people who it might not be profitable to do so, preventing price gouging and discriminatory pricing.

   

The regulations, at least in Canada and the US, on private water sale are equivelent to those of municipal water systems. What sort of regulations other countries have, I don't know.

   

Please explain to me why you think a private company will do a so much better job? Their first concern is profit, nothing else. Making profit off of drinking water. Sorry, just sounds a little sick to me.

   

Third world countries are often pressured by the IMF and world bank to have absolutely none, because those might discourage business.

If they took the privatized structures of western nations it would be fine, it would similiarly be fine if they undertook the structure of public water in place in western nation that would be good as well.

The Laissez Faire water system which is imposed upon them, however, is a horrendously poor idea.

   

People sell food, too, which is also a basic human need. Where is this sanctity when it comes to food? Assuming regulations exist to keep the companies from exploiting this situation (as with most public utilities) it shouldn't be a problem.

As I stated in the beginning I only know the specific details from what Toro posted, but if the reasoning behind the dispute is that people don't like the idea of someone making money off of drinking water, I say go ahead with it. People are apparently already taking municipal water to the regions with no mains and selling it for 12x its original cost. That's 12x the cost to the people who are most in need of the water.

If the company can provide the supply at, say, 2, 4, or 6x the current rate for everyone, I don't see that as being a bad thing.

If it doesn't help, then I'm obviously not in support of it... I could care less about the (presumably) economic reasoning behind Toro's support. I see it as an opportunity to get more people better water, which the governments aren't doing.

   

This false.

   

I agree. Its not about dogma. Its about getting clean water to people. If government can do it, fine. But in many parts of the world, the government is unable to do so. The opponents of water privatization are essentially saying that its better people not to have clean drinking water than have it run by private interests. I have already posted a few studies showing the private sector has increased water availability, which is good, surely.

   

It's just really really bad when an organization would deny the people fresh water because of their anti-capitalism/anti-globalization ideals.

   

I've never said I was against government healthcare. I think government should step in and provide healthcare to those who cannot afford it.

But what's this got to do with water? 97% of all water utilities are publicly owned and this arrangement fails in some states. Do you think people should die because of dogma because that's what you are implying if you say "public water or no water".

   

Profit is what saves lives because profit opportunities attracts capital to areas that badly need it. I don't have a problem with publicly-owned water utilities, but in some countries, its not an option. In others, the systems are run down and dilapitated, and badly in need of capital expenditures where the government cannot or will not spend what is required to upgrade the systems. Thus, we should be encouraging private industry to invest where possible.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6 ... 8  Next