Nestle CEO: Water Shouldn’t Be A Right, Organic Food Will Kill You, And Nature Sucks

[Cyberman]

Well, privatizations are done by governments for public benefit. Say, an institution does not generate money, and is siphoning off of the national wealth, there might be a point in priviatizing it,

Utter cobblers. We in the UK had major chunks of our service and utility institutions sold off to private corporations in the eighties and nineties. Almost immediately the cost to the public purse went into orbit; firstly from all the sweeteners to make them more attractive to prospective buyers and shareholders, since many of them were deliberately being run into the ground to justify selling them off in the first place, then from all the subsidies to give them unfair marketplace advantage - not to mention all the tax breaks and 'creative accounting'.

but crucial sources like water...
Where is the public benefit in that?
I know that private corporations see benefit in it, but their opinions don't matter in this, the real thing is, how will society benefit from this privatization both in short and long term?
I

There is no public benefit and just as with the other fine examples of privatisation society can only suffer increasingly in the short and long term.

If this water privatisation does go ahead, expect massive water bills and shortages due to dry reservoirs by this time next year.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Utter cobblers. We in the UK had major chunks of our service and utility institutions sold off to private corporations in the eighties and nineties. Almost immediately the cost to the public purse went into orbit; firstly from all the sweeteners to make them more attractive to prospective buyers and shareholders, since many of them were deliberately being run into the ground to justify selling them off in the first place, then from all the subsidies to give them unfair marketplace advantage - not to mention all the tax breaks and 'creative accounting'.

I'm speaking of the reasoning behind it. The reasoning behind privatization is to lessen the pressure on both the gov and the taxpayer by providing the said service under a private organisation, with the hopes that they will run it more efficient, which means that the taxes used to run that institution will go elsewhere resulting in lesser taxes.
However how well this works in reality, is another issue. I myself am not a proponent of privatization of things that are crucial to society.

There is no public benefit and just as with the other fine examples of privatisation society can only suffer increasingly in the short and long term.

If this water privatisation does go ahead, expect massive water bills and shortages due to dry reservoirs by this time next year.

That's what I said. Since there is nothing to be gained from this, no sane government would trust a nation's water resources under private contractors.

[Cyberman]

Unfortunately, the reasoning behind privatisation of service industries and the justification presented to the public are seldom the same thing. If there's ever a legitimate case been made for selling off these institutions for the best interests of the public, instead of making a quick buck for the Government's back pocket (a.k.a. the Treasury), I've not seen it.

[Minimalist]

Part of the fiction has to do with the myth that the "private sector" is always more efficient than the "public sector."

[kılıç_mehmet]

Unfortunately, the reasoning behind privatisation of service industries and the justification presented to the public are seldom the same thing. If there's ever a legitimate case been made for selling off these institutions for the best interests of the public, instead of making a quick buck for the Government's back pocket (a.k.a. the Treasury), I've not seen it.

Yes yes, my good man. It's all about making a quick buck when the deficits pile up.
In the previous years, we've seen so much privatisations, and the short term benefits that came from their sells, which were, btw were sold below their proper value, just to make them sell faster, I fear that in long term, when the money from them runs out, we will face a lot of hardships.

Privatisations generally result in a long term loss for the nation. Especially if crucial national resources are sold.

[Angrboda]

I'm just spitballing off the cuff, so please don't jump down my throat if this is a bit off. Admittedly, the process and results of privatisation are not without faults and dangers. However, I think there may be valid reason for privatisation. Drinkable water worldwide is an enormously scarce resource, and resources that aren't under the dominion of markets are readily abused. Just think of the air, or for that matter, the rivers and lakes of the world where our sewage and waste is pumped, theoretically resulting in its recycling into the ecosphere. Any time you have a resource of value that is essentially free to access, you risk a tragedy of the commons and other economic/political dangers. Once you attach a market value to something, not only is there the potential for abuse and exploitation, but there is potential for controlling the use of that resource in the interests of current and future society (which is where the abuse comes in; control is a two-edged sword).

Anyway, just food for thought.