Privatize Water!
Thematic-Device @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:31 pm
Toro Toro:
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.
Water companies a often marginally profitable if at all even in rich western nations with every capability to fund them. In countries in the third world they pose hardly any attractiveness to foreign investment since you have often inhospitable climates to establish the infrastructure, to supply an already incredibly poor area.
Privatization is no panacea for this issue.
Toro Toro:
Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
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.
Third world countries are often pressured by the IMF and world bank to have absolutely none, because those might discourage business.
This false.
It is not false the IMF and world bank have been massive advocates in the removal of government regulation and oversight on the practices of business, while not related to water privatization, the effects of such deregulation can be seen not least in argentina, which allowed for companies to literally strip the country of its financial assets overnight.
Jaime_Souviens @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:33 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Yes, you said they didn't "consciously realize" what they were doing.
I asked,
I asked,
$1:
You believe that, consciously or not, these organizations are intentionally preventing the betterment of millions of people for the sake of their jobs?
Well, give me a break. I'm doing the best I can with your posts. If you look at the phrases you yourself highlighted, they're mutually contradictory. How can you be 'not consciously intentional'?
You start making better sense, and I'll craft better answers.
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
To which you replied,
So I'm asking for proof.
$1:
I've been watching it happen.
So I'm asking for proof.
Actually, "I've been watching it happen" wasn't a direct reply to anything you had said about consciousness or intentionality, or anything else. It was something of a free standing statement. Of course, in context, it would refer to the non-conscious behavior I've been suggesting in the rest of my posts on the topic.
Blue_Nose @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:51 pm
There's a big difference between subconsciously, or consciously propagating the problems in order to keep their own jobs, and being unconscious of the fact that they aren't helping their cause.
Blue_Nose @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:57 pm
Except the poor people are currently paying 12x the price of municipal water already.
Jaime_Souviens @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 6:57 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
There's a big difference between subconsciously, or consciously propagating the problems in order to keep their own jobs, and being unconscious of the fact that they aren't helping their cause.
Yeah,...
...but I have no idea how to apply that to anything either of us have posted previously.
![[huh]](./images/smilies/icon_scratch.gif "huh?"){kind=icon}
Toro @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:03 pm
Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:
Water companies a often marginally profitable if at all even in rich western nations with every capability to fund them. In countries in the third world they pose hardly any attractiveness to foreign investment since you have often inhospitable climates to establish the infrastructure, to supply an already incredibly poor area.
Privatization is no panacea for this issue.
Privatization is no panacea for this issue.
There are two problems with this argument. First, Avro posted earlier a long post which said that water companies in the UK are making too much profit. So which is it?
In France, water utilities are run by two of the largest water companies in the world. In America, water utilities are regulated monopolies that must appear before a public utilities commission and apply for rate increases, which are based on returns on capital and capital expenditures. Returns on equities for water utilities range from 10-13%, depending on the jurisdiction, which BTW is lower than the average return on equity for US businesses.
Second, Suez and Vivendi, the two French companies, are also the two largest water companies providing foreign investment in the third world. Are these companies stupid? Do you know something they - with their thousands of employees and tremendous intrinsic knowledge - don't?
Besides, wouldn't it be good if they were "marginally profitable". I mean, the fear is that they're "ripping off" these poor countries, right?
The argument is false anyways. I've posted two in-depth academic studies detailing the benefits of water privatization.
When countries have no or inadequate water networks, banning private investment is a death sentence placed on those who would otherwise receive water because of dogma.
Thematic-Device Thematic-Device:
It is not false the IMF and world bank have been massive advocates in the removal of government regulation and oversight on the practices of business, while not related to water privatization, the effects of such deregulation can be seen not least in argentina, which allowed for companies to literally strip the country of its financial assets overnight.
You've just admitted your argument is not related to water privatization, so why did you bring it up? But thanks for acknowledging that, especially since one of the studies I cited looked at the net benefits of water privatization in Argentina. Now if you want to start a thread about the incompetence of the Argentine government and how the IMF tried to bail them out, be my guest. My organization owned tens of millions of dollars of Argentine bonds so I'm more than happy to go toe-to-toe over Argentina and the IMF.
Blue_Nose @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:12 pm
Boy oh boy, Jaime...
You You:
They can't actually do anything to help, or they'd jeopardize their funding.
That seems rash to me, that's all. You're suggesting they're not helping in order to protect their jobs. Why you can't explain why you'd say this, I don't know.
Toro @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:12 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Toro Toro:
The very poor who are not connected to any water network have the most to gain from privatization since the rates they pay -- 12 times more on average than the price of network water -- fall dramatically when private companies connect them to the network.
Based on what evidence? The article mentions statistics, but doesn't cite them. This gets another big red DISCREDITED stamp.
Surely you have adobe acrobat. Here's another one.
Sorry. Google hasn't started scanning books yet.
Toro @ Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:24 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Toro Toro:
And if you read the whole article, you find such nuggets as this:
$1:
However, in the water sector, it is not clear whether any efficiency gains from privatization would necessarily be translated into improved health outcomes or help to alleviate poverty. Private companies may provide sub-optimal service quality levels because they fail to take into account the significant health externalities that are present in this industry (Shirley, 2000). In this case, privatization of water services may actually negatively affect health outcomes. In addition, some fear that privatization may hurt the poor (Estache et al, 2001). If private companies raise price, enforce service payment, and only invest in lucrative high-income areas, then the efficiency gains from privatization might be obtained at the cost of excluding the poor However, in the water sector, it is not clear whether any efficiency gains from privatization would necessarily be translated into improved health outcomes or help to alleviate poverty. Private companies may provide sub-optimal service quality levels because they fail to take into account the significant health externalities that are present in this industry (Shirley, 2000). In this case, privatization of water services may actually negatively affect health outcomes. In addition, some fear that privatization may hurt the poor (Estache et al, 2001). If private companies raise price, enforce service payment, and only invest in lucrative high-income areas, then the efficiency gains from privatization might be obtained at the cost of excluding the poor from access to water services. Health outcomes of the poor may actually worsen under privatization.
KA-BLAMM!! There's your whole silly argument, blasted out of the water.
BUZZ! WRONG!
What do the words not clear, may and might mean to you? Are they definitive? Do we know for certain? No.
But what we know with a great deal of confidence is the paragraph that follows, and what the 45-page paper concludes
$1:
In this paper, we examine the impact of the privatization of water services on child mortality in Argentina. Our study focuses on young children because they are particularly vulnerable to water-related diseases due to weak body defenses, higher susceptibility, and greater exposure from inadequate knowledge of how to avoid risks (WHO, 2002a). There are two main disease transmission mechanisms generated by the lack of appropriate water systems: waterborne diseases that occur by drinking contaminated water, and water-washed diseases that occur when there is a lack of water and sanitation for household hygiene. Young children worldwide suffer from several deadly diseases that could easily be prevented through the interruption of these transmission mechanisms by access to safe and sufficient water supply and provision for the hygienic removal of sewage (WHO, 2000). Diarrhea alone accounts for approximately 15 percent of all child deaths worldwide (UNICEF, 2001). In Argentina, diarrhea, septicemia, and gastrointestinal infections are three of the top ten causes of death for children under five (Ministerio de Salud, 1999).
So, according to your "silly argument", even though we know that privatized water utilities save children's lives, that's bad because they're not publicly-owned.