Water is a human right!

[LexusInfernus 908]

Hello everyone. 

 

Normally Im not really the kind of person who goes around asking people to sign this or that petition for all kinds of good causes. But this time, it is a little different. As most of you probably don't know, the EU is currently making a rule that allows for the privatization of the water market. What does that mean? It means that big corporations are going to be the ones that are going to provide you with your drinking water. All the water that comes out of the tab, the water that you shower with, the water you use to wash your car or flush the toilet, all that water will be provided by private corporations. 

 

Now, why am I talking about this? Because this is a very very bad thing if this goes through. So far, privatization of any kind of market has only resulted in higher prices for the consumer, while those big corporations make ridiculous profits. Furthermore, by changing water into a commodity rather than the human right that it is (the UN actually lists water as a human right) it means that they will be allowed to cut you off your tab water if you can't pay the utility bill in time. Do you want your access to clean drinking water depend on how generous some private corporation is feeling? Or do you want water to remain a public good that should be accessible for everyone, rich or poor? 

 

If you are like me, and believe that water is a public good that should be accessible to everyone, and you are a European citizen, you can sign this citizens initiative. 

http://www.right2water.eu/

If they collect enough signatures, the commission must respond to this and we might be able to keep our water out of the hands of private corporations. 

 

Only one problem, you got to be a European Citizen in order to sign the petition, so for the non-Europeans among us, if you think this is a worthy cause and you have any friends or family who are European citizens, show them this initiative so they get a chance to sign it as well. 

 

Anyways, thanks for reading. 

[Duke87 1,070]

I'm just going to point out that in many parts of the US, the water supply is operated by a private company... and we haven't had any problems with that.

 

I'm also going to point out that shutting your water off if you don't pay your bill is not limited to private companies, either. Public agencies that operate water supply will do that as well - it's the only way they have to enforce payment, after all.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Whether the water supply is provided by your municipality or a private outfit is not relevant.  You still have to pay your water bill. 

 

The stuff that comes out of the tap is regulated and pretty much guaranteed in our western civilization to be free from anything noxious.  There are government regulations to this effect, and they are pretty well enforced.  In some countries this is not so, and sickness related to water is rampant.

 

Privatizing the water supply is simply shifting a tax from government to the private sector.  Since it gets government out of business, where they don't really belong in our capitalist system, I consider this a good thing.  It is a move away from socialism.

[lhrob 213]

LexusInfernus, I just want to make a quick observation.  Yes, water is a human necessity and thus it should be considered a right of everyone on earth to have access to it.  But so is food.  Do people complain about private companies providing us with our food...ie. grocery stores, farmer's markets, etc?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Whether the water supply is provided by your municipality or a private outfit is not relevant.  You still have to pay your water bill. 

 

The stuff that comes out of the tap is regulated and pretty much guaranteed in our western civilization to be free from anything noxious.  There are government regulations to this effect, and they are pretty well enforced.  In some countries this is not so, and sickness related to water is rampant.

 

Privatizing the water supply is simply shifting a tax from government to the private sector.  Since it gets government out of business, where they don't really belong in our capitalist system, I consider this a good thing.  It is a move away from socialism.

It is relevant if it means higher prices and worse service and it will mean higher prices and worse service.

 

On top of that, water is not nor should it be a commodity. If you do that, it means poor people can get less service because they can pay less, while rich people get more service because they pay more. Unethical if you do that with something that is regarded a human right. Unethical if you do it with something that a human can't go without for more than a day.   

 

The kind of capitalism you are supporting is the kind that even the inventor of capitalism would find horrible. Yes, even Adam Smith clearly foresaw that the government should keep funding vital infrastructure that otherwise cannot effectively be done by private companies. Sanitation is such a vital infrastructure. And that is not 'socialism', that is simply taking care of the country and its citizens, the one and only purpose of any democratically elected government. 

 

LexusInfernus, I just want to make a quick observation.  Yes, water is a human necessity and thus it should be considered a right of everyone on earth to have access to it.  But so is food.  Do people complain about private companies providing us with our food...ie. grocery stores, farmer's markets, etc?

No, but they should be. Since we deregulated the food market and decreased subsidies to farmers, the global price of food has only gone up, to the point that its causing scarcity and hunger in Africa and pushing a few million people into poverty. 

 

Look around you, see what unrestricted capitalism everywhere has brought you. Bail outs, massive government debt, higher prices, hunger crisis in Africa. Do you really trust people who only believe in profit for themselves to provide you with your needs for a reasonable price? 

[lhrob 213]

So you believe the government should be the ones selling people their homes, food, water, clothes, etc...?

 

If you truly want to consider such things human necessities...and they are...wouldn't it only be more humane and ethical to provide them for all people free of charge?

[Linoa06 1,374]

Whether the water supply is provided by your municipality or a private outfit is not relevant.  You still have to pay your water bill. 

 

The stuff that comes out of the tap is regulated and pretty much guaranteed in our western civilization to be free from anything noxious.  There are government regulations to this effect, and they are pretty well enforced.  In some countries this is not so, and sickness related to water is rampant.

 

Privatizing the water supply is simply shifting a tax from government to the private sector.  Since it gets government out of business, where they don't really belong in our capitalist system, I consider this a good thing.  It is a move away from socialism.

 

Big words, big words, but liberal socialism works fine, government should have a hand in business, getting government out of business makes them powerless against the issues that often arise with capitalism, and socialism isn't all bad.

 

Not sure they could have prevented the horse meat scandal, but if you get government out of business you can as well remove all and any laws, because laws are a way for government to get in your business.

 

The whole "smaller government that doesn't do anything with our daily lives" is good on theory, but if you reach Thatcher's "society doesn't exist, government gets out of all our businesses", then it gets bad. And if a business goes bankrupt, then you lose water supply, because they're supplying you for profit, not because that's their jobs.

 

Government needs a hand in things, because privatizing water can only heighten its price (poor people can't drink, yay capitalism), and because suddenly no control can be exerted on this company anymore.

 

The world works with consensus, not with red scare technics and bipolar values. Government shouldn't tell me what to do, but it has to provide me with basic necessities, because it's running a country, not a giant world-scaled game of Risk.

[Bdub01 201]

I can't speak for everywhere else but here in the States water is not free we have to pay for it and if you don't your tap gets shut off. So I'm not really seeing the problem. I prefer the private sector over the government any day! Government is too big and intrusive anyway!!!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Government is supposed to regulate, not provide.  If the government fails to provide the proper regulations or enforce them that is a problem for the next revolution or election.  Government is totally non-productive, and its role is to make sure that you are safe in your home and have access to the necessities of life. 

 

If you want price controls on some commodities like food and water, pick the right government and you'll have it.  Don't count on the variety of foods increasing, nor the quality of it either beyond what is set as the standard.  On the other hand, you might just get Soylent Green.

[LexusInfernus 908]

So you believe the government should be the ones selling people their homes, food, water, clothes, etc...?

 

If you truly want to consider such things human necessities...and they are...wouldn't it only be more humane and ethical to provide them for all people free of charge?

In the case of water, yes, the water itself should be free of charge. All someone should pay for through taxes are the construction and maintenance costs of the water pumps and the pipes/sewers etc. Why should I pay a company for doing a public service and find it normal that such a company gets a profit from it? They didn't invent the sewer, most of the time they didn't even construct it. If they are allowed to just swoop in and profit from that they behave like a virus or a parasite, and I don't want parasites controlling my water. 

 

As for food, while food and clothes are basic necessities, they come in various kinds. Everyone needs shirts and pants. But does that mean a Lacoste shirt or a Levi's jean is a necessity or should the cheapest of the cheap brands be the necessities? And just like that there is also a difference of quality and therefor price with food. Fast food is cheaper than healthy food, but fast food is extremely unhealthy. With clothes, you can be sure that the free market does actually provide the optimum amount of clothes for everyone. The government interfering on the clothes market would benefit no one. With food it is different again. Government interference through subsidies means farmers produce more than normally. While that means that the food is cheaper in the store, people at the same time pay more taxes. Then again, through taxes you can partly socialize it, as rich people pay more taxes so they pay a larger part of the subsidies, essentially helping the cost of basic foods down so the poor can still buy their food without having to sell their organs to get it.  

 

However, non of that works with water. Water is water, and water from Spain is just as watery as water from the Netherlands. There may be differences between water taps on a regional area, but that varies because the source of the water may contain more or less calcium or pollution and taste funny because of it. But privatizing the water market won't change that. You wont suddenly get any less smelly water if you live in a industrial area just because you buy your water from another company.

 

So what does the privatization of the water market mean in Europe? Well basically it means that (mostly French) water companies can go to the municipality and say that they want in. They make the municipality an offer and from that moment onward they will do the maintenance of the pumps and the sewer systems and in return the citizens now pay the water company. There isn't even any competition for the citizens, if you want water from a different company, tough luck you get who made the best offer to the municipality. That means they said they could do it the cheapest. So does the citizen benefit? Nope, they are stuck with a company that said it can maintain the water the cheapest for the municipality, and they (the water companies) are free to set their own prices, make outrageous profits on something as vital as water while undoubtedly cutting corners in maintenance because how else can they do it so much cheaper than everyone else. The company wins, the citizens lose, hurray for capitalism! 

 

 

@A Nonny Moose not even Adam Smith believed that. He clearly stated that the government has three tasks: National defense, so maintaining an army and fight wars if need be. Administration of justice, so create laws but also enforce them. And finally the provision of public goods like education or infrastructure. I'd say that sanitation and tap water are clearly public goods and have a similar infrastructural status like roads and streets. Thus the government should provide for them and finance it through the income they get from taxes. 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

I think that a minimum of water should be provided to certain charitable and public facilities for those that cannot afford their own water. Those that cannot afford to pay their own utilities should be able to get the bare minimum required for life from charities and public facilities. Having a price on water lowers wastefulness. I think that there should be newly constructed cities (arcologies really) that provide free housing, healthcare, food, and utilities for those that qualify to live there.

--Ocram

[Duke87 1,070]

I will grant you this: running something for profit produces different motivations than running it for public benefit.

 

But with water supply there isn't much room for a private company take advantage of things, and every opportunity that there is can easily be regulated. Regulate the price and set some standards about purification and everyone's protected. As such, the water "industry" is not done harm by privatization - unlike some other industries where forming a complete regulatory cage is impossible and companies will always find some loophole to exploit (as an example, Nassau County, NY privatized their buses a couple years ago and the service quality has gone down).

 

 

As for providing water free of charge, the problem with just doing that is that you then do nothing to discourage people from wasting it. If you want to properly implement such a model you're going to want to set a limit on how much free water a household can use and charge them for anything that they use above it.

 

Places in the US that are scarce on water, such as Arizona, already do something like this: water is relatively cheap up to a certain point, but go above your quota and you start paying through the nose for it.

[Meg 368]

Most of the people here have the luxury of having clean water running into our dwellings. Depending on who you ask, there are about 780 million people on the planet without access to clean water.

 

A system to distribute clean water doesn't just magically appear.  It has to be paid for somehow.

 

How is water not a commodity?   As Duke points out, in some places it is a very limited commodity.  There should be penalties for wasting it.

[Zukunftstraume 220]

The CEO of Nestle thinks otherwise... As such the man has won an award... The Black Earth Award (awarded to those who seem obliged to the destroy the planet over their hungering capitalistic endeavors).

 

As far as I know, practically all US major cities have their water supply privatized. The only exception I can think of is drinking fountains in public places.

 

Regardless though, I agree with you... This is just another way for the rich to become richer and nothing more. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple decades down the road some mega-corporations come up with elaborate explanations on why the air we breathe should be taxed.

[Cob92 360]

Wish that we could get some form of organization against corporate predators on this side of the Atlantic. In America, the businessmen are worshipped (especially in the South) and anything "public" gets blown off as a communist scheme to enslave everyone.

[APSMS 1,892]

Just a thought, free market capitalism requires a free market. Personally, I agree that water shouldn't be privatized because the main goal of the company is to satisfy shareholders, not customers (or at least, it's become the trend in the US). When it becomes possible for me to choose between different private water companies and choose between service and price, I'll support privatization. Until then, I see this handing of publicly-owned rights to private entities nothing short of condoned monopoly, which is exactly the thing that a free market is supposed to prevent against (it's what the Boston Tea Party was about-being forced to buy British East India Tea with exorbitant taxes).

 

And before you point out power companies, cable companies and the like, I might point out that I am aware of their monopolies and feel the same way about them. Until I can have two (or more) different power companies send me electricity, then handing it off to the public sector is really government-sponsored profiteering without any actual benefit.

 

While I agree that regulation is key in some areas, I might point out that in the US, the trend to nullify the effect of regulating agencies is easily seen in government organizations like the USDA, who has the power to set health and food safety standards for slaughterhouses in America, but lacks the authority to shut down said meatpackers when they fail to meet government expectation in terms of bacteria count and working conditions (it is up to the company to determine whether or not to follow the USDA--and in some cases the FDA--suggestions). I have little faith in corporations when they can choose profits over my safety and are large enough to absorb any lawsuits I throw at them.

 

I'm all for smaller government, but I think Walt Kelly is right when he said "We have met the enemy, and he is us." You guys let me know when people stop being greedy and evil. Then I'll support privatization wholeheartedly (or if you can satisfy my other conditions above). But I'll probably be waiting here awhile. (And I have no intention to comment on the whole human rights/commodity bit, because in the end it's ultimately irrelevant to all the people deciding the issue, since let's be honest, the root of this issue is money anyways.)

[Zukunftstraume 220]

Wish that we could get some form of organization against corporate predators on this side of the Atlantic. In America, the businessmen are worshipped (especially in the South) and anything "public" gets blown off as a communist scheme to enslave everyone.

 

Luckily the conservatives seem like they're starting to lose power. It almost seems like the youth is finally waking up to the idea that the mega-corporations are ones behind the recession. It'll take a while, but I believe the Republicans are slowly losing power, and eventually the myriad of third parties will step in alongside the Demos.

 

Especially seeing how the mega-corps here:

- Find elaborate ways to not pay income taxes. One such way is to buy out a smaller company, allow it to go bankrupt, and not have to pay income taxes once bankruptcy is declared. It's perfectly legal, and there's many many ways. As much as two-thirds of the top 100 US companies do this. Less income tax money coming in means the government will be forced to start bombing us with budget cuts left and right... Which is exactly what's happend

- Also, the mega corporations have found even more ridiculous ways of saving money, by outsourcing most of their industrial and many service jobs to other parts of the world like India, China, Mexico, Sir Lanka, etc... All so they can save even more money and not have to pay us 8 dollars an hour, when they can pay the people oversees 3 dollars instead. This has made the unemployment rates gradually increase overtime here. Now housing prices have soared in many states, homelessness has gone incredibly higher, and the amount of people living on welfare has increased (which FURTHER jeopardizes the US government's already weak budget)

 

While some companies are being fair to the game, the vast majority aren't. Are most multi-billion dollar families really that greedy? Do they seriously come up with ridiculous excuses in the back of their heads that they're somehow better than everyone else on this planet due to having more money?

 

I've heard some people in the upper class say things like "The harder you work, the more money you'll get... The people at the top deserved to be where they are today, they're hard, innovative, and smart businessmen". If there's anything I hate more than everything else that's fowl in this world, it's that... The people at the top of the money ladder who think this way. So, someone like Donald Trump made it to the top because he's a hard worker and was fair and smart on the way up? Last time I heard, even from history lessons these businessmen used ruthless methods to monopolize on an industry and run all their competitors out of business by various treacherous means, the legality and ethics of some being extremely questionable. Also, they sit on their elite throne holding their nose so high and barely have to lift a finger all day.

 

Meanwhile, people in hordes are working 12-15 hours a day, 6 or even 7 days a week at times, in incredibly difficult jobs (like construction or maintenance) trying to support a small family, desperately trying to make sure their company doesn't lay them off or cut medical benefits. So the parents continuously encourage their kids to finish school, become a doctor or engineer and not turn out like them, enslaved by the dollar bill. For me this is something very personal.

 

And then, these corporations have the audacity to take it another step further and even try to privatize all water!?!?

 

If I have a pre-destined mission in life, it's to help burn these companies to the ground and change the way the world is for the better. It's seriously the worst thing we, as humans, have to face in this half-century... Otherwise, they'll destroy the planet out of greed and lack of compassion, and the citizens of the next half-century will be helpless to fix the great collapse.

 

70 second clip related:

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

Most of the people here have the luxury of having clean water running into our dwellings. Depending on who you ask, there are about 780 million people on the planet without access to clean water.

 

A system to distribute clean water doesn't just magically appear.  It has to be paid for somehow.

 

How is water not a commodity?   As Duke points out, in some places it is a very limited commodity.  There should be penalties for wasting it.

Water is not a commodity for the same reason clean air is not a commodity, even though clean air is in short supply in some places as well. Clean air is a goal that everyone should strive for, and so is access to clean drinking water. The citizens petition I linked in the first post also states that it wants the EU to increase its efforts to help get everyone in the world access to clean drinking water. 

 

And sure, people that waste water should be penalized. But I don't see how a private company can do that more effectively or fairer than the local municipalities. If anything, under a free market system, there is a real chance it becomes less fair. If you pay the higher fee you can use more water, if you're poor and pay the lower fee you can use just enough water for a once a week 5 minute shower, a glass of water a day and just enough to flush the toilet before they hit you with the higher fees. And a company would have a strong incentive to do this. They want to make a profit, they know you can't flush your toilet with Cola, so under the guise of preventing water waste they set the standard for when you are 'wasting' water extremely early, allowing them to cash in on the 'penalties' as soon as possible. 

 

And it starts with giving private companies the control over the infrastructure, the pomps and pipelines. Then in 10 years from now, the companies will become like the big oil companies, and demand the right to exploit the sources of water, ruining the environment and giving them the ability to choke us to death by simply stop pumping water the out. 

 

Time and time again did private companies show that they cannot be trusted when it comes to promoting and protecting the greater good of society. Pharmaceutical companies rushing deadly medicines onto the market without telling people, companies dumping toxic waste ruining the environment and damaging human health, taking short cuts with maintenance which resulted in planes crashing down and things like the Bopal incident in India. Oil companies that bribe the officials that are supposed to keep an eye on them, again leading to environmental destruction. Clothing manufacturers that treat their workers as little more than slaves and having them work in unsanitary and dangerous conditions. And now people still think its a good idea to give them control over something as vital as water? 

 

At least the government does not have a profit motive, so there is no incentive for them to start messing with the water supply because they gotta pay the extreme salary of their CEO and the bonuses for all the people at the top and have to show they make a bigger profit every year to their share holders. 

[Cefien 361]

Air, water, soil. What's the different? They formed our mother earth. They are the earth itself. They are all existed million years before we even exist. Just after human existed, they started to think that they own the whole world. That they should rule over it. After that, some other that trying to take it from them, they put charge on it.

First the soil. They control it and put charge on it, and that's what known today as "tax". And after that they take water, which is what we are talking about now. What next? The air? Now wait a second, they can't take air from us, too. The only reason why they don't take the air just yet is, they just can't control it. They can't even touch and see it. Now, can you guys imagine if the air is like water and soil?

I bet everyday will be different as you'll see billing each time you take your breath. Inhale 1$ (for taking the air) exhale 1$ (for polluting the air with CO2). In this case, you better learn to hold your breath, cause believe me, that'll save you hundreds dolar a day.

Just a fun fact

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Air as a commodity will eventually appear.  Not on earth, but on some colony in space where there is no air, and it has to be manufactured.  If you don't pay your air tax, it's out the air-lock for you without a suit.  The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein.

[Duke87 1,070]

It's important to understand that when you pay for water you are not paying for the water itself - you are paying to have it treated and piped into your home. If you want to drill a well and pump your own water out of the ground instead, you are perfectly welcome to. Many Americans already do, but a lot don't prefer it since it gives you one more thing you have to worry about.

 

Air cannot be "commoditized" the same way since it requires no effort to distribute - it's there whether you want it or not. Who are you going to pay for it and how are they going to claim it? An air company, public or private, is a preposterous concept since it would do absolutely nothing. Water companies do something to get your water to you.

 

As for land, while nobody created it, you can use it and improve upon it and ownership is necessary to protect that. A blank parcel of land in the wilderness could be owned by no one and it wouldn't matter, but as soon as you want to have a farm, build a house, or what have you, you need to somehow have it established that you are the one with the right to do that and not anyone else. Otherwise anyone could come along and steal the corn you've been growing, since you wouldn't own it.

[Cob92 360]

It's important to understand that when you pay for water you are not paying for the water itself - you are paying to have it treated and piped into your home. If you want to drill a well and pump your own water out of the ground instead, you are perfectly welcome to. Many Americans already do, but a lot don't prefer it since it gives you one more thing you have to worry about.

 

Air cannot be "commoditized" the same way since it requires no effort to distribute - it's there whether you want it or not. Who are you going to pay for it and how are they going to claim it? An air company, public or private, is a preposterous concept since it would do absolutely nothing. Water companies do something to get your water to you.

 

As for land, while nobody created it, you can use it and improve upon it and ownership is necessary to protect that. A blank parcel of land in the wilderness could be owned by no one and it wouldn't matter, but as soon as you want to have a farm, build a house, or what have you, you need to somehow have it established that you are the one with the right to do that and not anyone else. Otherwise anyone could come along and steal the corn you've been growing, since you wouldn't own it.

 

The problem, though, is that for most settlements, there is only a single major source of water, 2 or 3 if you are lucky. Give a private company the sole authority over that water, and you have legislated a monopoly into existence. That would be like giving one developer ownership over an entire city and forcing all the residents to pay rent to that company in order to live there. Or, to use a real life example, giving a handful of companies control over telecommunications for a metropolitan area.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The problem with all these arguments is that water is a necessity of life.  It doesn't matter who purveys the water as long as the trade is very much regulated by government fiat.  This provided water must be cleaned of biohazards and poisons.  An this purification and the associated infrastructure and delivery mechanism with maintenance is what you are paying for.  A private purveyor also needs a little margin to subsidize his operation.

 

Try staying alive for three or four days without water.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The problem with all these arguments is that water is a necessity of life.  It doesn't matter who purveys the water as long as the trade is very much regulated by government fiat.  This provided water must be cleaned of biohazards and poisons.  An this purification and the associated infrastructure and delivery mechanism with maintenance is what you are paying for.  A private purveyor also needs a little margin to subsidize his operation.

 

Try staying alive for three or four days without water.

Yeah, clean drinking water is important, which is why you want someone who has no profit motive maintaining all those installations. Just look at the British Railway system, since that got privatized the safety of the rail network has decreased by  lot. You'd think that rail safety is something that is important right? Yeah, but it also costs a lot of money and thus decreases profits. Meaning they start to take short cuts with maintenance and all other kinds of checks that exist to make the use of railways safe. Now apply this to the public water sector and you can see why I want my water to be pumped into my home by the government, who does not care about making a profit. 

 

On top of that, its also cheaper for me. 

[Azoreus 1]

The water-service in the Helsinki region in Finland is provided by a public authority (HSY). It works well and provides a small income for the municipalities which help to fund social services. I prefer to pay to my local municipality rather than a multi-national corporation that probably doesn't even pay taxes into Finland, or even Europe. I don't see a reason why the EU would have to force every country to privatize water services. Same goes for the rail services. If there is a need to stop countries to corrupt the competition (where these services are privatized) by subsidying their own enterprises, then regulate publicly owned enterprises from operating abroad. But let each country decide itself how it wants to provide basic services.

Water is not free in Finland, but social security ensures that everyone can afford water.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

What we are really talking about here is the cost of entitlements and the efficiency of government bureaucracies.  Government granted monopolies must be closely regulated and monitored, but if they are good corporate citizens, despite the temptations towards short cuts, the costs will be less. 

 

There is nothing quite so self-perpetuating and self-aggrandizing as a government bureaucracy.  Since they are not required to make money by the sweat of their brow, they spend yours with abandon.

[Bdub01 201]

Being from The US I don't understand much about European politics, however how can the EU tell a country what to do?

[Duke87 1,070]

The water-service in the Helsinki region in Finland is provided by a public authority (HSY). It works well and provides a small income for the municipalities which help to fund social services. I prefer to pay to my local municipality rather than a multi-national corporation that probably doesn't even pay taxes into Finland, or even Europe. I don't see a reason why the EU would have to force every country to privatize water services. Same goes for the rail services. If there is a need to stop countries to corrupt the competition (where these services are privatized) by subsidying their own enterprises, then regulate publicly owned enterprises from operating abroad. But let each country decide itself how it wants to provide basic services.

 

Worth pointing out that utility companies are generally regional in nature. For instance, Aquarion is the water company for much of New England, but outside of that specific region they do not exist. Companies such as Exelon and Duke Energy supply power for sizable portions of various regions of the US, but do not operate internationally.

 

The only multinational utility company I can think of offhand is National Gird.

 

 

As for the whole question of profit versus public benefit, if it were simply a matter of that public costs expenses while private costs expenses plus profit, obviously public would be preferable. The problem is the math is not that simple. Private companies can make profit not just by raising prices but also by cutting costs... indeed, they have every motive to operate as efficiently as possible... meanwhile, "government efficiency" is contradiction in terms. Government agencies have their continued existence guaranteed regardless of how well they perform or how much money they suck up, so the same motivation to be efficient, keep costs down, and provide good customer service simply is not there.

 

Besides, they do not operate for public benefit... they operate for the benefit of politics and special interests - at least in the US. My understanding is that Europe does not have that problem as much as the US does so the consideration is admittedly different,

[AcmeSigns 97]

My water is free.

All I have had to pay for is the well drilling, the case lining, the pump(s), the electrical wiring & assorted control units, the structure to house the 9,000 gallons. And don't forget the feed lines running to said structure from the pumps and the feed lines to the house.

 

After that it's free (well, except for the electricity to run the pumps, that is).

 

I'll bet having someone else cover all of those infrastructure costs (and the attendant maintenance) is a price most people would be more than willing to pay.

 

Know what a well is? It's a hole in the ground you pour money into to get water out of. If you're lucky.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Being from The US I don't understand much about European politics, however how can the EU tell a country what to do?

Yes, European Law has primacy over national law. Though often European law comes in the form of directives, which is essentially Europe telling the member states what they try to achieve, but leave it up to the member states to come up with the way to achieve it. 

 

The water-service in the Helsinki region in Finland is provided by a public authority (HSY). It works well and provides a small income for the municipalities which help to fund social services. I prefer to pay to my local municipality rather than a multi-national corporation that probably doesn't even pay taxes into Finland, or even Europe. I don't see a reason why the EU would have to force every country to privatize water services. Same goes for the rail services. If there is a need to stop countries to corrupt the competition (where these services are privatized) by subsidying their own enterprises, then regulate publicly owned enterprises from operating abroad. But let each country decide itself how it wants to provide basic services.

 

Worth pointing out that utility companies are generally regional in nature. For instance, Aquarion is the water company for much of New England, but outside of that specific region they do not exist. Companies such as Exelon and Duke Energy supply power for sizable portions of various regions of the US, but do not operate internationally.

 

The only multinational utility company I can think of offhand is National Gird.

 

 

As for the whole question of profit versus public benefit, if it were simply a matter of that public costs expenses while private costs expenses plus profit, obviously public would be preferable. The problem is the math is not that simple. Private companies can make profit not just by raising prices but also by cutting costs... indeed, they have every motive to operate as efficiently as possible... meanwhile, "government efficiency" is contradiction in terms. Government agencies have their continued existence guaranteed regardless of how well they perform or how much money they suck up, so the same motivation to be efficient, keep costs down, and provide good customer service simply is not there.

 

Besides, they do not operate for public benefit... they operate for the benefit of politics and special interests - at least in the US. My understanding is that Europe does not have that problem as much as the US does so the consideration is admittedly different,

Yes, but you can only increase efficiency so much before you start cutting corners that endanger human health and safety. And the profit motive is constant. Just making a profit every year is not enough in today's world. Companies need to make more profit each year, so they continuously have to increase efficiency or rise prices or find some other way to make more money. And cutting costs is the easiest way after raising prices, but at some point you cannot cut more costs without seriously affecting customer service, effectiveness and safety. 

 

And you think the government only serve special interests or their own interests? And private companies don't? Private companies ARE the special interests. All you do is cut out one layer between them and just directly let the special interests take over.