| highwaystar101 said: Sorry, I haven't read any replies yet, just want to leave a quick reply myself. The problem I see is the supplying water to those that can't afford it once it's privatised. You can't let people go without water, and so you'll have to invent some kind of benefit scheme to pay for those who earn under a certain amount. Before you know it the government is spending almost as much as they would if they just had an outright public water service to begin with. Only now you're dealing with many more parties and your logisitcs apply to individual households as opposed to towns and cities, which all leads to a far less efficient service provided for less people. I would think of it as a bit like medicare and medicaid. |
The private corporations need to make a living. Private corporations have families to feed and bills to pay. CEOs deserve their huge salaries because they work hard and provide employment and incur business risk. Business owners incur huge risks to run their businesses. Too bad a poor family misses out on water. Life is not meant to be easy.
Margaret Thatcher and her supporters would support this view/opinion on water privatisation. Most people in the UK benefited from Thatcher's water privatisation. Water prices were determined by free market forces and there was choice and competition.
Forget about the government, free market forces should determine the price of everything. Supply and demand mechanisms determine the price of a commodity that is traded on a free market. There is no such thing in life as a free lunch.
Free market capitalism and the majority of people are better off when a government monopoly is privatised and free choice, competition is encouraged. Support freedom and free trade.
