Privatise all national water supplies to pay off debts?

[Soleron]

numonex said:

...

Water privatisation worked effectively under Margaret Thatcher and Conservative governments. Water was sold off and private companies competed and delivered water to private consumers effectively. Water has a price and the free market system can deliver water. Water prices are determined by supply and demand. 

Water companies are regional monopolies and there is no competition in many areas. I can't change supplier. Prices go up whenever the company feels like it.

Privatisation is always more efficient than any Government monopoly. More competition, more choice for consumers and freedom. Private corporations make lots of profits out of selling water to consumers. Most people are better off with privatisation and that is a simple fact. 

If there IS competition, yes. For water and other utlities, effective competition canot occur as there isn't independence of the supply chain (Sainsbury's and Tesco don't share the shop with each other). "Most people" pay more when there's a private market with little competition.

Telephone services and electricity are better in the hands of private companies delivering services to consumers at the market price.

Really? That's why British Gas is delivering an insane profit margin this year and why they pt prices up whether the wholesale cost of electricity rises OR falls? Telephone services are a similar joke here, we pay so much for internet compared to other countries, at lower speeds too.

Same applies to water: supply and demand determines water prices on a free market system.

Unless the companies act as a cartel to raise prices in sync, which they clearly do in the British market.

Producers/suppliers are happy and consumers are happy when they buy water from private enterprises.

Same with government enterprises. People are happy with those too. It just comes down to which is cheaper. And you're still ignoring the poor maintenence of systems by private utlities. Look up the Thames Water leaking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-391771/Thames-Water-misses-leak-targets--profits-up.html

So what the Socialists/Communists complained about water being privatised. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The same principle applies to water supplies. Everything has a price and is up for sale. Economics is basic logic, it is not rocket science.

I never said that. Economics is fine, it says a free market will work if there is effective competition. The UK over the last 20 years has proven that there is NOT effective competition. Look at the rail disasters. Government subsidies are larger than running costs, and yet ticket prices are vastly higher in real terms than before the sell-off. Worst of both worlds.

What I am saying is logical and right. The emphasis is on you to disprove my economic explanation that is based on logic.

The emphasis is on you to prove there is effective competition in those markets. I've said there isn't and have a few examples. I AGREE with you that, if it really was a free market, it would work. However it is not.

Let's say a bottle of coke at the supermarket. You pay the price at the check out and the coke is now yours to consume. The same principle should apply to all water supplies. If you want water you must pay for it. The free market should determine the price of water. Supplier sends you a bill for water and you pay your water bill.  That sounds like a fair deal. 

Unless the cartel sets unreasonable prices, or the government subsidy is huge, or it is a monopoly condition, or maintenence is poor.

Current UK utlity prices DO NOT reflect supply and demand, they go up regardless.