Amazon.com Widgets

Water privatization: Is public water (no) or private water (yes) the best way to supply the poor?

  • It would still be compleatly controlled by the legislation.

    Look it up fools. The state would continue to regulate water quality, sewage discharges and rates paid by customers for private systems just as it does for public ones. “This idea that these companies can come in and do whatever they want to is just factually incorrect,” Rep. August said. Making votes by the public optional “would cut down on the wasteful expense of having a referendum even when there is no opposition to a sale,” Rep. Tyler said.

  • Public water is the best way to supply water to the poor

    Privatizing the water supply is another way the poor get poorer. Another bill they have to pay, another thing which needs to worried about. Water should be something people can expect to have not something they have to pay for. To pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the service it would be reasonable to increase taxes or allow for elimination of certain government officials to use their wages to pay for the needs of the water service.

  • Water privatization will only increase the cost of water for the poor.

    There is nothing wrong with business or private enterprise. I wholeheartedly support capitalism and business. However, the goal of a business is to make as much money as possible by charging as much as they possibly can for goods and services. For this reason, I do not believe that water supplies should be privatized. Government systems might be less efficient and less well-managed, but there is no profit motive. This ensures that the poor are not being held hostage by private firms using the water supply as an extortion tool.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.