Nestle CEO: Declaring water a public right "an extreme solution"

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I know I'll come across here as an HP, but I agree somewhat with the evil CEO in this case.  There are costs to providing potable water, and hiding those costs from its users inevitably leads to inefficient use of the resource.  By and large, most of live in water rich areas where potable water can be treated as effectively an infinite resource and the costs of providing it are so small, especially in comparison to our own wealth, that it seems silly to argue against it being a right.  However, in poor, water scarce regions our system may very well not make sense.

For example, rather than piping potable water to every domicile, in water scarce regions, it might well make more sense to pipe water only of a quality suitable for toilets and cleaning, which can be done more cheaply, and leave the relatively small amount of water actually consumed to be provided via other means. Once you get potable water distribution out of the pipes, it no longer is a utility but a good.  Utilities with their considerable infrastructure work best as public entities either run directly by the government or as government regulated monopolies.  Distribution of goods on the other hand generally benefits from having a multiplicity of private providers competing on price and quality.

Granted, he has an obvious self-interest in seeing potable water moving as far away from the public utility model as can be done. Still, simply poo-pooing the idea because of its source is ludicrous.  For areas with abundant access to high-quality water, such as most of Europe and North America, it's not a very good idea.  But for those areas with minimal access, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.  Granted, ensuring adequate supplies of water to the indigent is a problem, but it's the same problem as with ensuring adequate supplies of food.  There is no reason why the systems in place for food cannot work for water.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The system in place for food doesn't work.  We grow enough food to feed the world.  And yet a huge portion of the world goes hungry.

There's quite a difference between hunger and starvation.  Hunger is unfortunate, starvation is fatal and outside war zones and brutal dictatorships like the DPRK and Zimbabwe, famine hasn't happened for a long time.

Our private food system actively prices people out of adequate food... and we let grain rot in silos.

As if such waste only happens under capitalism.  The Soviet Union was notorious for letting large amounts of foodstuffs rot because the people whose job it was to transport the stuff never had any incentive to do so in a timely fashion.

The privatization of water will only hurt people.  Because the purpose of any and all business is to make money... not provide people with a product.

And how do they make money if they don't provide people with products?

Surely a massive behemoth like Nestle is a great example of that.  And that's why it would never work.

So you'd rather have only massive bureaucracies providing water?  Thanks, no.  If the people of Columbia, SC had had only municipal water to make use of a few years ago, they'd have at the very least suffered from thirst, if not death from dehydration.  Not because of any drought, but because the city has for years raided the water department for funds to use elsewhere instead of making the necessary infrastructure investments.  The city government right now is like an alcoholic who will admit to having a problem, but thinks limiting himself to one case a day should be sufficient, and there's certainly no need to attend AA or seek other counseling.

Water is too critical to be left to a sole source, be it public or private.

And if you want beyond getting rid of the ethanol heist to push food prices down, think about revamping that wetlands law run amok, that keeps a lot of very efficient crop growing land out of production, in exchange for the government giving the wetland owners checks - like say to me.

Torie, the benefits of having wetlands available for flood control and providing natural filtration of the water supply happen to be benefits that cannot be adequately priced by the laissez faire capitalism because the benefits do not accrue to the land owner in the way that raising crops does.  One can argue whether the government is paying too much for the benefits received, but in general, that sort of program is a good thing and while it needs to be carefully examined, it certainly should not be eliminated.  Perhaps eminent domain should be used instead so that the payment is made only once instead of yearly.