This would  be a good move by the government to reduce its debts owing to banks by selling off all its national water supplies to the highest multi-national bidder.

Ok water would cost more to consumers, reducing government debt is best for the national interest. When a national government is drowning in debt the economy is struggling. 

Water share issues and being a private share holder of your own national water supplies sounds like a great investment. Privatise national water supplies and most people will be better off? 

There would be political opposition to this move, oh well such is life. Banks and private corporations would make a huge fortune by privatising all the world's water supplies and restricting it to only those who can afford to access it.  

Anyway would you support water privatisation or oppose it? Please give your reasons for or against water privatisation. 

Why stop there? Privatize air, too.

Do you even like video games?

Water is a natural monopoly (can't be efficiently provided by the free market). The temporary bonus to finances wouldn't even make a dent in national debt while causing long term economic issues (because it would be run ineffciently).

In the UK, many privatised utilities take subsidy from the government that is higher tan the cost to run them publicly. That's right, they charge consumers way too much AND take more govt money than before. Rail is the worst.

The only way to eliminate national debt is by genuine, sustained economic growth. Anything else is paper shuffling that doesn't combat the real problem CAUSING the debt of government spending more han it can earn [which would be true with public utilities or private replacements].

The action of the government selling water supply to private companies leads to

Increased money for the government in the short term

Increased money for large, already rich private corporations in the long term (obviously they'll be making a profit or they woulnt buy)

Decreased money for people in the long term, with people losing as much money regardless of income, water is mostly price inelastic.

The alternative is higher taxation which leads to 

Increased money for the government

Decreased money for large, already rich private corporations

Decreased money for people, with the richer people losing more, but the total amount lost by private citizens less than in the previous case, because there is no cut off the top by corporations.

So a summary of your point of view is that poor people should be poorer and rich people should be richer. Dress it up how you like, it is a horrible idea.

There is so much wrong in the OP that I despair for the world.

"Water is the earth's blood, it belongs to everyone"

...yeah, i just watched  "Dry Summer" on MUBI :D

Only a small percentage of the Earth's water supplies is drinkable. 98% of the Earth's water is mainly salt water or contaminated water  that can not be used for human consumption. Only 2% of the world's water supplies is available for human consumption. 

The world's population continues to grow exponentially. Water has a price and the free markets should determine the price of water. Private enterprise can supply drinking water: bottled water sells well to consumers all over the world. 

Private enterprises can regulate themselves without government intervention. Suppliers of water private enterprise can efficiently deliver water to buyers/consumers at the right price. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want water you pay for it. 

So the rich get richer and the poor die of dehydration.

is this guy some bad robot mining sites posting political/religious garbage on here? 

Post at least one gaming topic dude.