More depressing than the stolen Scream...

[Roland98]

One billion people still drink unsafe water (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829104/)

GENEVA - More than one billion people drink unsafe water and over 2.6 billion, around 40 percent of the world’s population, have no access to basic sanitation, U.N. agencies said on Thursday.

But, y'know, most of them are in Africa, China and India...so who cares about them anyway? :fuming:

[livius drusus]

That's appalling. I was just reading a little BBC history essay (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/discovery/medicine/victorian_medicine_01.shtml) about how clean water and sanitation in Victorian London changed the face of disease prevention.

One hundred and fifty years later, here we are. :(

[Clutch Munny]

The free market will sort it out. And if it doesn't, that just shows they deserve all those diseases.

[viscousmemories]

I get that the result is a billion+ people drinking unsafe water, but I don't understand what the problem is. I mean of course it's probably economic, but since the article mentioned "some 83 percent of people already having access to supplies giving some guarantees of safety", why is that not solving the problem? :?

[lisarea]

I get that the result is a billion+ people drinking unsafe water, but I don't understand what the problem is. I mean of course it's probably economic, but since the article mentioned "some 83 percent of people already having access to supplies giving some guarantees of safety", why is that not solving the problem? :?

It's probably because of privatized water systems currently in effect throughout the world. People may have access, but they can't afford it, or they can't afford enough.

In South Africa (Soweto, IIRC), for example, some French company was installed as the private water provider as part of an agreement with the IMF. They did agree to provide some clean water for free, but the amount they provided was about half what the WHO recommends to sustain life. So the poor people were still forced to drink dirty water, which led to a cholera epidemic.

The model was so successful that they decided to do the same thing in Johannesburg, too.

Hooray for free enterprise.

[viscousmemories]

Ah, I think I see. So they have "access" to the supplies, they just can't afford it. I guess that's not unlike those people who imply there is no serious poverty in America. After all, it's entirely possible for everyone to get their needs met here. Right?

So is that another example of the kind of shit people are constantly condemning the IMF for, or something the IMF has no real say in or control over?

[godfry n. glad]

Tangential to this issue, I'd recommend that everyone see the documentary "The Corporation".... There is, amongst other horrors outlined, a bit on Bechtel being contracted to provide water in Bolivia and, as part of that, a provision of the IMF support of the contract to Bechtel prevented Bolivians from even capturing rainwater...they were captive to Bechtel. Until they experienced a revolt/rebellion/revolution.

Watch water. Clean, potable water is an increasingly rare commodity...even in the western U.S.

godfry

[viscousmemories]

Sounds like an interesting film, godfry. I'll look for it.

Watch water. Clean, potable water is an increasingly rare commodity...even in the western U.S.
Have you seen this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=166)? You might find it interesting and/or have something to add.

[lisarea]

So is that another example of the kind of shit people are constantly condemning the IMF for, or something the IMF has no real say in or control over?

This is precisely the sort of thing that people condemn the IMF over. They actually include deals to privatize public goods and services in their loan agreements. They reportedly also include other extra-legal agreements regarding instituting martial law, charging school fees, selling public assets, and across-the-board union busting. (Here's a good example. (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/imfcrimes.htm))

And apparently, the CBC did a two-hour documentary called "Dead in the Water" that dealt with water privatization. I haven't seen it, but I'd like to figure out how to get a hold of a copy.

[viscousmemories]

This is precisely the sort of thing that people condemn the IMF over. They actually include deals to privatize public goods and services in their loan agreements. They reportedly also include other extra-legal agreements regarding instituting martial law, charging school fees, selling public assets, and across-the-board union busting. (Here's a good example. (http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/imfcrimes.htm))
Thanks for the link. I guess. :(

And apparently, the CBC did a two-hour documentary called "Dead in the Water" that dealt with water privatization. I haven't seen it, but I'd like to figure out how to get a hold of a copy.
I'll keep an eye out for it m'self. Thanks, Lisa.

[dave_a]

In South Africa (Soweto, IIRC), for example, some French company was installed as the private water provider as part of an agreement with the IMF. They did agree to provide some clean water for free, but the amount they provided was about half what the WHO recommends to sustain life. So the poor people were still forced to drink dirty water, which led to a cholera epidemic.

The model was so successful that they decided to do the same thing in Johannesburg, too.

Hooray for free enterprise.

Where were the people getting clean water from before the French company began offering it at a price? Unfortunately it does cost money to purify water. When the resource is scarce how do you make it go as far as possible other than to charge for it so people don't waste it?

It would be nice if drinkable water was free, but it isn't and I have no solution for that. We could say that government should do it, and where I live government does do it, but government then needs to spend money to do it and this comes from the citizens just the same as it does under a private company supplying the water.

No matter how you slice it, it takes money.

[Roland98]

Where were the people getting clean water from before the French company began offering it at a price? Unfortunately it does cost money to purify water. When the resource is scarce how do you make it go as far as possible other than to charge for it so people don't waste it?

It would be nice if drinkable water was free, but it isn't and I have no solution for that. We could say that government should do it, and where I live government does do it, but government then needs to spend money to do it and this comes from the citizens just the same as it does under a private company supplying the water.

No matter how you slice it, it takes money.

Indeed. And a lot of these people live in areas where there are open sewers, or the waste simply runs back into the streams; where people and animals bathe in the only water available for drinking, etc.

As far as simple supplies, a microbiologist named Rita Colwell did a study showing that something as simple as using 2 coffee filters to strain water could eliminate almost all the Vibrio cholera from drinking water. But while we take those kind of things for granted, it's difficult for many people to even get their hands on something as mundane as coffee filters.

[viscousmemories]

No matter how you slice it, it takes money.
Of course. But I think the idea is that in a democracy the government will adjust the prices according to the interests of the contituency (which means reasonable cost and availablity are going to be concerns) whereas a private company (and in this case I think we're talking a monopoly) is only going to be interested in getting the most money for the least water, with no regard for the availability to anyone who can't pay the high cost.

[lisarea]

Where were the people getting clean water from before the French company began offering it at a price? Unfortunately it does cost money to purify water. When the resource is scarce how do you make it go as far as possible other than to charge for it so people don't waste it?

It was state-owned.

Here's an article with more detail, (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles7/water_privatization_in_africa.htm) if you're interested.


It would be nice if drinkable water was free, but it isn't and I have no solution for that. We could say that government should do it, and where I live government does do it, but government then needs to spend money to do it and this comes from the citizens just the same as it does under a private company supplying the water.

No matter how you slice it, it takes money.

Sure, it takes money. But water is, first, common property. While this wasn't the case in Soweto specifically, many of these agreements actually sell water rights to private concerns. Like the water that comes out of the sky. Tell me where you draw the line between charging for water itself and charging people for the air they breathe.

Second, clean water is not a luxury good. It's not optional. When private interests take over necessary goods and services, they almost without fail end up gouging consumers. And public water systems are not necessarily free, either.

Publicly run utilities in poverty stricken areas do tend to be substandard, but privatization is not the answer. Consistently, privatized water schemes have ended up raising water prices to the point that the poor can't afford what they need just to live.

[dave_a]

Of course. But I think the idea is that in a democracy the government will adjust the prices according to the interests of the contituency (which means reasonable cost and availablity are going to be concerns) whereas a private company (and in this case I think we're talking a monopoly) is only going to be interested in getting the most money for the least water, with no regard for the availability to anyone who can't pay the high cost.

I agree, but we aren't talking about democratic nations, we are talking about hopelessly corrupt and inefficent, dictator style nations. So, the first problem is getting a decent government for those nations. Given the US efforts at this in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere I would say the track record isn't all that good.

[dave_a]

It was state-owned.

Here's an article with more detail, (http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles7/water_privatization_in_africa.htm) if you're interested.

Thanks, I did read the article and it seems that when the government owned the treatment plants they were run down and continuing to deteriorate, and 50% of the supply was lost to leakage and illegal taps. Further the billing infrastructure was such that they couldn't even bill many of the users. So the idea seems to be to get private companies to improve the infrastructure.

Well, no private company is going to do it unless they see a profit potential, that's a given.

So, we have a government that can't afford to do it and a private company that believes they can afford to do it, but the prices will be beyond what the poorest will be able to afford.

What we have here is a problem with no clear solution that I can see. Usually if the private sector greed causes too many problems we say lets either turn it over to government or at least slap a lot of regulations on private enterprise. If government screws things up we say privatize. It doesn't appear either solution is going to usher in any utopia.

Sure, it takes money. But water is, first, common property. While this wasn't the case in Soweto specifically, many of these agreements actually sell water rights to private concerns. Like the water that comes out of the sky. Tell me where you draw the line between charging for water itself and charging people for the air they breathe.

If rain water was being charged for or people were forbidden to collect the rain water on their property then I agree this is just flat out wrong. Keep in mind though we are talking about the continent where at least one nation's government thinks it's a good idea to take the property of whites and give it to blacks. There is some seriously screwed up nonsense going on with some of these governments which is problem #1.

Second, clean water is not a luxury good. It's not optional. When private interests take over necessary goods and services, they almost without fail end up gouging consumers. And public water systems are not necessarily free, either.

Clean water *is* a luxury good whether we like the fact or not. Clean, drinkable water is extremely scarce. To take naturally occuring water and ensure it is safe for consumption requires treating and testing. It requires building pipelines, it requires maintenance. It requires money. And money is what makes clean water a luxury good. If you have no money you can't afford it. In developed nations we can consider clean water a right because we can afford to have that view. This isn't the case in third world nations. I am not saying I like this fact, I am simply asserting that it is factual.

Publicly run utilities in poverty stricken areas do tend to be substandard, but privatization is not the answer. Consistently, privatized water schemes have ended up raising water prices to the point that the poor can't afford what they need just to live.

Well I don't disagree that some are going to be excluded on the basis of price. I have no solution because apparently the public system was already losing 50% of it's water and for the water that wasn't being lost they had trouble billing people for it. From the article you linked to the situation wasn't improving, it was continuing to deteriorate. So, the private company may well end up excluding some due to the need to be profitable, but it sounded like the public system was already failing people. Which flavor of bad do you prefer?

I think much of this is silliness as well. As Roland pointed out a simple coffee filter can greatly reduce the contaminants in the water and last time I checked boiling water also killed many bacteria and virii. Granted, I would rather turn on the tap and get potable water, but if I lived in a developing nation I don't think I would view piped in potable water as anything but a luxury. A luxury that, at present, these nations don't seem able to afford.

I think it preferable to have a private company come in, make major investments in the infrastructure, get the system profitable (and thus self sustaining) and then worry about getting the distribution pushed out as far and wide as possible. To be worrying about the distribution at this point would just be counterproductive in my opinion.

Not pleasant, but I am afraid it's just how it is.

[viscousmemories]

Well I don't disagree that some are going to be excluded on the basis of price. I have no solution because apparently the public system was already losing 50% of it's water and for the water that wasn't being lost they had trouble billing people for it. From the article you linked to the situation wasn't improving, it was continuing to deteriorate. So, the private company may well end up excluding some due to the need to be profitable, but it sounded like the public system was already failing people. Which flavor of bad do you prefer?
True, they were losing half the water to leakage and illegal tie-ins and the system definitely didn't seem to be on the mend. But I'm inclined to believe this claim in the article:

Private water, telecommunications and electricity companies tend to focus on efficiency in collecting tariffs, but not on improving service.
If true, then privatization will do little to remedy any of those ailments.

I think it preferable to have a private company come in, make major investments in the infrastructure, get the system profitable (and thus self sustaining) and then worry about getting the distribution pushed out as far and wide as possible. To be worrying about the distribution at this point would just be counterproductive in my opinion.
If what I said above is true, why should they invest a ton of money in infrastructure and concern themselves with pushing distribution out? Just put band-aids on the holes and bump up the prices to the people with money.

But to me this was the most important point of the article:

People in affected communities don't have a voice in how or if they want their services privatized. People in impoverished countries want efficient service. In some, privatization may be the way to go. They need to be allowed to choose if it is appropriate for them.

These countries should have the right to choose for themselves, not be forced into a one-size-fits-all plan drafted by the World Bank.

[dave_a]

True, they were losing half the water to leakage and illegal tie-ins and the system definitely didn't seem to be on the mend. But I'm inclined to believe this claim in the article:

Quote:
Private water, telecommunications and electricity companies tend to focus on efficiency in collecting tariffs, but not on improving service.
If true, then privatization will do little to remedy any of those ailments.

Well, working for a telecommunications company I tend to agree that this is the case for awhile. The very first thing the company is going to want to do is figure out how to bill people for the water. After that they are going to look for growth and the only way to grow is to build out the infrastructure so they can have more customers. Getting the product to the poorest areas isn't going to happen though. There is no sense in getting it there if it isn't profitable from a for profit perspective.


If what I said above is true, why should they invest a ton of money in infrastructure and concern themselves with pushing distribution out? Just put band-aids on the holes and bump up the prices to the people with money.

I agree. In order to get the stuff fixed up and delivered to the people who can't afford it will require governmental action. Unfortunately it seems unlikely that the political will exists. As I see it the problem isn't with private enterprise here, it is with government. The private company is going to behave in an entirely predicable manner, looking to provide a product or service in exchange for a profit. The government is unlikely to behave in a predicable manner and ensure that this company using a natural resource, improving it and then selling it also distributes it to those who need it to sustain life, but can't afford it. The idea would be to charge those who can afford it a bit more to subsidize those who need it, but can't afford it. This is something a government will need to do.

But to me this was the most important point of the article:
Quote:
People in affected communities don't have a voice in how or if they want their services privatized. People in impoverished countries want efficient service. In some, privatization may be the way to go. They need to be allowed to choose if it is appropriate for them.

These countries should have the right to choose for themselves, not be forced into a one-size-fits-all plan drafted by the World Bank.


I would like to agree, but at the same time I believe beggars cannot afford to be choosers. If people have the means to produce potable water for themselves then they should do so. If they don't have the means then they need to accept the solutions of others warts and all. How can it be any other way? It would be nice if it were different, but it isn't. I fail to see how the average person in an impoverished nation is in any way, shape or form qualified to make a decision about sustainable, efficient water purification and delivery. I live in what is said to be the wealthiest nation in the world and I don't claim to be qualified to make those decisions. Some decisions should never be left to "the people" because "the people" don't have a clue what is best. Just the way it is.

As for the World bank, maybe I am just ignorant, but it seems to me that a nation went to them asking for something. Terms were drawn up and the government agreed to them. This generally is considered as "the people" via their elected representatives as speaking. Of course that's often just a silly platitude and in case of dictatorships it's even worse, but again, reality is reality.

Water isn't the problem, it's really bad government and a population that doesn't seem to know their head from a hole in the ground which probably stems from the really bad government.

I have no solution, but don't see private investment as something to be discouraged. It isn't going to be perfect, but private investment is about the only investment these nations are ever going to see.

[Dingfod]

I know this is an oversimplification and not even related to the OP, but it illustrates one point, unregulated private commerce doesn't necessarily lead to more efficient service (which would imply lower costs as well). On the left, unregulated private telecommunications and electricity. On the right, monopolistic regulated power and telephone services.
http://www.uh.edu/engines/nycandwires.jpg

Perhaps a regulated private monopoly, like Ma Bell was, is the answer to building the best system. Or not. I don't know. I've always thought it was interesting in the early days of telephone when Company A wanted to talk to Company B and C, a private company would run a telephone like from Company A to Company B and another to Company C and so on until it turned into the mess you see illustrated on the left. I remain unconvinced that privatization is necessarily better than a government monopoly.

[dave_a]

I know this is an oversimplification and not even related to the OP, but it illustrates one point, unregulated private commerce doesn't necessarily lead to more efficient service (which would imply lower costs as well). On the left, unregulated private telecommunications and electricity. On the right, monopolistic regulated power and telephone services.


Perhaps a regulated private monopoly, like Ma Bell was, is the answer to building the best system. Or not. I don't know. I've always thought it was interesting in the early days of telephone when Company A wanted to talk to Company B and C, a private company would run a telephone like from Company A to Company B and another to Company C and so on until it turned into the mess you see illustrated on the left. I remain unconvinced that privatization is necessarily better than a government monopoly.

While the illustration does make a point, it does so at the cost of realism. I don't believe there was ever a time when there were so many above ground wires that things looked the way the drawing depicts. I note that the highly wired example is a drawing and the other example appears to be a photograph of an actual place/time.

Technology has changed this scene forever. Switching technology made the need to run wires from a to b and from a to c obsolete rather quickly and today things are buried rather than above ground. The neighborhood I live in has no above ground wiring of any kind. As a general rule private enterprise is more concerned with technological advances which reduce costs than government is.

Back to the OP, I have no problem with government providing potable water to people at cost. I think that since water is a public resource rather than a private one, government should provide it or at least regulate it such that the interests of all the people are served. In the case of Africa and the article Lisarea linked to it was clear that government was incapable of doing that job.

[Dingfod]

While the illustration does make a point, it does so at the cost of realism. I don't believe there was ever a time when there were so many above ground wires that things looked the way the drawing depicts. I note that the highly wired example is a drawing and the other example appears to be a photograph of an actual place/time. Actually, I have seen actual photos in museums, Brooklyn's Transit Authority Museum for one and in Salt Lake City for another, that pretty much confirm the haphazard conflagration that was telephone and electrical service prior to 1900 as illustrated in the above post. It was that bad. Of course, they may have picked the worst places on purpose.

[godfry n. glad]

While the illustration does make a point, it does so at the cost of realism. I don't believe there was ever a time when there were so many above ground wires that things looked the way the drawing depicts. I note that the highly wired example is a drawing and the other example appears to be a photograph of an actual place/time.

Technology has changed this scene forever. Switching technology made the need to run wires from a to b and from a to c obsolete rather quickly and today things are buried rather than above ground. The neighborhood I live in has no above ground wiring of any kind. As a general rule private enterprise is more concerned with technological advances which reduce costs than government is.

It must be nice where you live. In my middle-class neighborhood, the number of overhead wires have proliferated in the past 10 years...hey...isn't that about the same amount of time that "deregulation" has been a national agenda item? It used to be we had two or three wires, now there's at least four times as many wires...I'm not sure what they are, but the cable companies didn't help.

And putting things underground is beaucoup expensivo compared to using already existant utility poles, even taking into consideration the licensing costs for using them. The only time anything gets put underground around here is if there's a sizeable public subsidy to do so. Or, in the case of new construction, where the local government requires it.

And I'm not impressed about all the claims about "technological progress"...it seems that with every boon comes a whole new set of banes, whether they "reduce costs" or not. Plus, often there are a whole new set of externalities which private enterprise then sloughs off onto others, including governments, to take care of.

Burn on, big river, burn on.

godfry

[dave_a]

Actually, I have seen actual photos in museums, Brooklyn's Transit Authority Museum for one and in Salt Lake City for another, that pretty much confirm the haphazard conflagration that was telephone and electrical service prior to 1900 as illustrated in the above post. It was that bad. Of course, they may have picked the worst places on purpose.

I can't argue this as I am ignorant of what you are speaking of. I concede that it is entirely possible.

[Dingfod]

Salt Lake City, circa 1890: (http://ghostdepot.com/rg/images/utah/salt%20lake%20city%20main%20street%20c1890%20ug.jpg)
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:UNL_sV-LSGQJ:http://ghostdepot.com/rg/images/utah/salt%2520lake%2520city%2520main%2520street%2520c1890%2520ug.jpg

[dave_a]

It must be nice where you live. In my middle-class neighborhood, the number of overhead wires have proliferated in the past 10 years...hey...isn't that about the same amount of time that "deregulation" has been a national agenda item? It used to be we had two or three wires, now there's at least four times as many wires...I'm not sure what they are, but the cable companies didn't help.

I live in a middle class neighborhood as well, but it is a new subdivision so everything is buried. On the topic of telecommunications deregulation though I don't think the number of wires you see has anything to do with it. Until just this year when a federal court ruled portions of the Telecommunications Act unconstitutional the company I work for (SBC) was forced to lease it's lines and equipment to competitors at government determined rates which were below wholesale cost. This regulation cost both you and I money most likely.

Here is why. Cable companies which weren't regulated in the same way rolled out broadband services and in some markets rolled out telephone communications over the coax cables. Cable companies generally do enjoy monopolies in that most areas get only one choice of cable providers whereas most areas have more than one choice in terms of telephony providers. This is because cable companies do not have to lease their lines or equipment at any price to anyone.

As a result broadband services had no real competition to reduce price while improving reliability. DSL lagged far behind cable in terms of performance and availability as a result. SBC proposed to spend 6 billion on getting copper and fiber optics pushed into every home in the nation (within it's states of operation anyway), but quickly decided against it because it was a money loser. Any technology we deployed we would lose money to our competition which could undercut our prices because they had government mandated prices lower than we could offer the service at. (Curiously though many of the lessors of our equipment charged exhorbitant rates as long as we didn't compete with them.)

What most people don't realize is that DSL has far greater bandwidth capacity than cable. As soon as the Bush admin indicated they wouldn't pursue an appeal to the federal court ruling the telecommunications act unconstitutional we started pouring investment capital into DSL.

As a result the early markets are enjoying 6mb speeds over copper wires and the town next to mine is getting fiber optics to every new home. Additionally we are rolling out cable type programming over phone lines which will only serve to reduce cable and satellite prices.

The telecommunications act was intended to increase competition. What it actually did was reduce it.

And putting things underground is beaucoup expensivo compared to using already existant utility poles, even taking into consideration the licensing costs for using them. The only time anything gets put underground around here is if there's a sizeable public subsidy to do so. Or, in the case of new construction, where the local government requires it.

When repair costs are factored in it is preferable to bury the cables. To do so in established areas would be cost prohibitive, but in newly developed areas it is cost efficient to bury the wires. Where I live I rarely experience loss of phone service or electrical service and when I do it's because there are portions of the network that feed my neighborhood which are above ground.

The crews which get called out at 3am during a storm to restore service are all union workers that get overtime. Repair/maintenance costs are huge and well worth avoiding.

And I'm not impressed about all the claims about "technological progress"...it seems that with every boon comes a whole new set of banes, whether they "reduce costs" or not. Plus, often there are a whole new set of externalities which private enterprise then sloughs off onto others, including governments, to take care of.

Burn on, big river, burn on.

godfry

I don't disagree as it concerns externalities, but I will say that externalities are only possible with government permissiveness and laws preventing people from taking the producers of the externalities to court for fair compensation..

[Dingfod]

To paraphrase Sam Kinison "Why don't they move to where the water is?"

Another answer is attached:

[lisarea]

Thanks, I did read the article and it seems that when the government owned the treatment plants they were run down and continuing to deteriorate, and 50% of the supply was lost to leakage and illegal taps. Further the billing infrastructure was such that they couldn't even bill many of the users. So the idea seems to be to get private companies to improve the infrastructure.

Yes. So why weren't the terms of the loan that the government would use some portion of the funds to upgrade the infrastructure in specific ways to reduce theft and leakage?


Well, no private company is going to do it unless they see a profit potential, that's a given.

So, we have a government that can't afford to do it and a private company that believes they can afford to do it, but the prices will be beyond what the poorest will be able to afford.

What we have here is a problem with no clear solution that I can see. Usually if the private sector greed causes too many problems we say lets either turn it over to government or at least slap a lot of regulations on private enterprise. If government screws things up we say privatize. It doesn't appear either solution is going to usher in any utopia.

No, of course no solution is going to cure all of the root problems. The poor will always be with us and all.

What we're talking about here is a very secretive multinational organization that makes loans to impoverished nations, including terms that would be considered usurious by virtually any definition. These terms often conflict directly with the existing laws and protections afforded by those nations' governments, and actually end up serving as a sort of extragovernmental governance.

Unfortunately, the IMF pretty much dictates whether a nation can get any loan at all. And read some Joseph Stiglitz on how the World Bank is inching closer to the IMF model, despite their officially discrete purposes. (The IMF exists to protect the interests of international trade, and the World Bank exists to assist developing nations in reinforcing their infrastructure.)

Yes, the IMF is pursuing its own goal, and yes, those nations agreed to the terms of the loans. But the people who live there did not. And regardless, it does not change my strong belief that essential services should never be left to the vagaries of the free market. Sure, sometimes, you can't leave those tasks to the corrupt governments, either, but again, I'll ask: Why do the loan terms include the provision to turn over previously public services to private sector monopolies? (I know the answer, of course: "Because it is the mission of the IMF to protect the interests of international trade." So I ask: Is it really in our better interests--as a 'world community' or somesuch shit--to require developing nations to become MORE reliant on international trade? The problem is that these nations are already taking more than they're giving. Is the best solution REALLY to exploit those nations by gouging them for the price of basic services necessary to sustain life, or is that, in the long run, just going to make them more dependant?)

I'm half asleep right now, but I'll try to address the telco thing and regulation of private sector industry and such tomorrow if I have time. (Warrenly's picture was pretty accurate. I've seen photos that looked a lot like that. Hint: If I address this stuff tomorrow, I'm going to blather on about the commons a lot.)

[dave_a]

Yes. So why weren't the terms of the loan that the government would use some portion of the funds to upgrade the infrastructure in specific ways to reduce theft and leakage?

No idea.


What we're talking about here is a very secretive multinational organization that makes loans to impoverished nations, including terms that would be considered usurious by virtually any definition. These terms often conflict directly with the existing laws and protections afforded by those nations' governments, and actually end up serving as a sort of extragovernmental governance.

Without the details of a specific loan's terms I really can't comment intelligently on it. In general I don't view the IMF or World Bank as being pure as the driven snow or anything like that. However I do view economic development which includes establishing a reliable and safe basic infrastructure for things like water, sewage, communications etc. as being a necessity. If the governments aren't going to do it what solution is there other than an external entity requiring them to do it or doing it for them?

How do we help the poor and starving in nations with hopelessly corrupt and inept leaders? We have tried financial and material aid and we have seen what happens with it, it builds the politcos an addition on their mansion and maintains the military which is used to keep rebellions down. We have tried using the CIA and other nation's intelligence operatives to destabilize regimes and the end result is Iran. We have tried the direct takeover route and the result is Iraq and Afghanistan. We have tried working with the governments and the end result is Columbia.

I don't see the IMF or World Bank as being any worse, they are just another attempt. Globalization opponents often lament the "exploitation" of a nation's people and resources at the hands of evil "multinationals" and in some respects the claims may be accurate, but we are talking about a people who have been exploited since day one by their governments, rival nations, rival tribes etc.

What we have with globalization is profit motivated entities not really caring about the average African, but doing things that in the long run represent what I believe is the most likely hope these people have of attaining a better life. A life where they can afford clean water for example. A life where the economy of the nation is strong enough that free drinking fountains can be available to everyone. Simple, basic stuff like that isn't going to happen without financial investment and nobody is going to invest in a third world nation complete with nutjob dictator unless they have some pretty strong guarantees concerning their investment.


Yes, the IMF is pursuing its own goal, and yes, those nations agreed to the terms of the loans. But the people who live there did not.

I didn't agree to the Iraq war, but we have it. Unless you are advocating a direct democracy (which I want no part of) it's not relevant that the people didn't have a say. Leaders, elected or self appointed, make these decisions, not John and Jane citizen.

And regardless, it does not change my strong belief that essential services should never be left to the vagaries of the free market. Sure, sometimes, you can't leave those tasks to the corrupt governments, either,

exactly.

but again, I'll ask: Why do the loan terms include the provision to turn over previously public services to private sector monopolies? (I know the answer, of course: "Because it is the mission of the IMF to protect the interests of international trade." So I ask: Is it really in our better interests--as a 'world community' or somesuch shit--to require developing nations to become MORE reliant on international trade? The problem is that these nations are already taking more than they're giving. Is the best solution REALLY to exploit those nations by gouging them for the price of basic services necessary to sustain life, or is that, in the long run, just going to make them more dependant?)

I am not sure if it's the best solution or not, but I don't see any better solutions at the moment, do you?

I'm half asleep right now, but I'll try to address the telco thing and regulation of private sector industry and such tomorrow if I have time. (Warrenly's picture was pretty accurate. I've seen photos that looked a lot like that. Hint: If I address this stuff tomorrow, I'm going to blather on about the commons a lot.)

uh oh
:P :D

[livius drusus]

I agree, but we aren't talking about democratic nations, we are talking about hopelessly corrupt and inefficent, dictator style nations. So, the first problem is getting a decent government for those nations. Given the US efforts at this in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere I would say the track record isn't all that good.

Pardon me for jumping in at this late date, but South Africa is a democratic nation. It may be corrupt and inefficient, but so is the US; that doesn't make it a dictatorship. South Africa isn't poor either. Not by a long shot. In fact, it is immensely rich in certain natural resources.

[godfry n. glad]

Pardon me for jumping in at this late date, but South Africa is a democratic nation. It may be corrupt and inefficient, but so is the US; that doesn't make it a dictatorship. South Africa isn't poor either. Not by a long shot. In fact, it is immensely rich in certain natural resources.

Thanks, liv... (oooo...I still get those titillating images)...I meant to comment on that myself. You beat me to the punch.

And... The US has historically propped up corrupt and inefficient dictatorships around the world because they were easily manipulated and created more predictable circumstances under which private (American) investments could be protected and adequate returns assured. We all need to give up the shibbolith that democracy and free enterprise are somehow "natural partners"...they're not. The sources of large investments usually prefer a stable situation, rather than an unpredictable and unstable one...auguring for some kind of authoritarian regime, rather than anything approaching a democratic or representative regime.

godfry

(Also, those claims of misappropriation of "white" properties are fairly disingenuous, considering the European settlers are NOT indigenous to southern Africa. I take it that dantonac has no problem with "whites" taking the property of others, but if others take the property of "whites", it somehow becomes an abomination? "Zat right?)

[godfry n. glad]

I don't disagree as it concerns externalities, but I will say that externalities are only possible with government permissiveness and laws preventing people from taking the producers of the externalities to court for fair compensation..

Yep... The producers of externalities have, through the use of their economic power, gained significant control over the legislation of governmental control of externalities and created the "government permissiveness" to which you refer.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

godfry

[dave_a]

Pardon me for jumping in at this late date, but South Africa is a democratic nation. It may be corrupt and inefficient, but so is the US; that doesn't make it a dictatorship. South Africa isn't poor either. Not by a long shot. In fact, it is immensely rich in certain natural resources.

The nation under discussion from Lisarea's article link is Tanzania. They had a one party rule system until 1995. Since 1995 the ruling party has continued to win elections despite cries of foul play from international observers. That's not a democracy in any form.

In 2001 the GDP per capita was $251.00 US. That's not rich in any sense of the word. I live next to Lake Michigan, one of the largest fresh water supplies in the world and I pay more than $251 per year for clean water.

They need economic development is my point. Even if that development comes with a price, they need economic development first and foremost or nothing can ever change because change costs money.

[dave_a]

Yep... The producers of externalities have, through the use of their economic power, gained significant control over the legislation of governmental control of externalities and created the "government permissiveness" to which you refer.
godfry

Hence my preference for government as small as it can be. It's also the reason why I am skeptical of any cries for government to regulate much of anything. A lack of regulation has it's host of problems, but empowering government to regulate whatever the hell they feel like brings it's own set of problems.

Eventually we end up with government creating problems and the people calling for more government regulation to fix it. Kind of like expecting Congress to pass capaign finance reform that means anything or to keep the social security "lock box" locked.

[godfry n. glad]

Hence my preference for government as small as it can be. It's also the reason why I am skeptical of any cries for government to regulate much of anything. A lack of regulation has it's host of problems, but empowering government to regulate whatever the hell they feel like brings it's own set of problems.


False dichotomy.

It's not an either/or situation. I disagree with your preference for "government as small as it can be." That is an invitation for the more powerful economic actors to gain control and basically ignore the government. Much like the current situation where multinationals can "punish" non-coopertive governments by moving investments (and thus jobs and tax revenue) out of areas where cooperation with _their_ agendas are not followed with the alacrity they expect.

A "mixed economy" allows for a lot of variant situations vis a vis the laissez faire/regulated economy. I'll agree that I'm not particularly enthralled with excessive governmental control, but I'm still waiting for "capitalism with a human face". As it is, the modern corporation is a sociopathic member of a troubled society.


Eventually we end up with government creating problems and the people calling for more government regulation to fix it. Kind of like expecting Congress to pass capaign finance reform that means anything or to keep the social security "lock box" locked.

Is that any worse than unregulated (or underregulated) industry creating problems and demogogues calling for more less regulation to fix it? I think not. Think of Enron and the California power-trading scheme.

Also, since we are now referring to the US, keep in mind that if a government representative, or agency, acts in contravention of the needs and desires of the constituents, there exist means of correction, legal or electoral. However, those acting on behalf of private enterprise are pursuing the logical end of their paradigm. There is little or no recourse for the public....particularly if the entity is monopolistic in nature, or even a price-leadership oligopoly.

godfry

[dave_a]

False dichotomy.

It's not an either/or situation. I disagree with your preference for "government as small as it can be." That is an invitation for the more powerful economic actors to gain control and basically ignore the government. Much like the current situation where multinationals can "punish" non-coopertive governments by moving investments (and thus jobs and tax revenue) out of areas where cooperation with _their_ agendas are not followed with the alacrity they expect.

A "mixed economy" ...
godfry

Believe it or not you didn't disagree with me and I don't disagree with you. I think you missed where I said A lack of regulation has it's host of problems, before I said but empowering government to regulate whatever the hell they feel like brings it's own set of problems.

[godfry n. glad]

Believe it or not you didn't disagree with me and I don't disagree with you. I think you missed where I said A lack of regulation has it's host of problems, before I said but empowering government to regulate whatever the hell they feel like brings it's own set of problems.

So, "a government as small as it can be" is an empty phrase.

How small can it be and still do what it needs to do to protect its citizens against the rapacious depredations of capitalists manipulating the markets seeking ever-greater profit margins?

godfry

[Dingfod]

...the European settlers are NOT indigenous to southern Africa.)I'm just a little curious, how long do people have to live somewhere before they can be considered indigenous? 100, 400, 1000, 5000, 10000 years or more? What is the standard? Whites have been in southern Africa for the better part of how many centuries? Are not their offspring Africans? I would think so.

/me is a native American

[lisarea]

The nation under discussion from Lisarea's article link is Tanzania. They had a one party rule system until 1995. Since 1995 the ruling party has continued to win elections despite cries of foul play from international observers. That's not a democracy in any form.

Yeah, that's my bad. I'm linking to stuff that's sometimes tangentially related to illustrate IMF loan agreements, so I've literally been all over the map.

The reason for this, of course, is that the IMF agreements are secret. They're not available for public perusal, so you have to go with whatever's been leaked if you want to try to discuss them.

The thing is, dantonac, I don't really think we disagree, at least fundamentally. The frustrating thing about economic arguments is that they tend toward the black and white, you're either in the "a rising tide floats everyone's boat" camp, or the "race to the bottom" camp. Both are simple, easily understandable, and almost entirely academic. We just plain don't have a clean room utopian economy to test them on, and as such, I figure my dislike for such stems from much the same causes as my dislike for science fiction. It's all a bunch of made-up hoogie-boogie with fanciful prosthetic foreheads thrown in for distraction purposes.

Unfortunately, the rising tide free market economics camp is still being given too much credence, IMO. You'd think that, after the sheer volume of bullshit we were buried under during the dot-com fiasco and its--oh good grief, I can still hardly believe this shit--its CORPORATE MANIFESTOS and sickassed libertarian fairy tale online dog food ordering business models, we'd have learned better, but we didn't. And if you doubt me, then riddle me this: Why isn't Thomas Friedman living in a box yet?

And, sad as it is to say, a lot of people buy that shit. They buy that starry-eyed bullshit about the world economy's potential to empower bushmen and lost tribes of the Amazon by giving them access to day trading on the internet.

And the reason that the IMF is allowed to run willy-nilly over world economics right now is that people really do buy that line of reasoning. For, of course, large enough values of the term reasoning.

So Thomas Friedman--I know you fucking see this, you bloated gasbag. You probably spend all your idle hours just egosurfing for your name. Thomas Friedman, I'll say this in a way that even you can understand: as a grotesquely convoluted, almost entirely pointless, dead horse flogging metaphor. If you really can swallow this sickassed utopian free market claptrap you go around trilling about, why don't you put your lack of a gag reflex to some real use and SUCK MY DICK, you fucking little Pollyanna? Now I'm no pedophile, but goddamn it, it's high time your sense of childish naivete got a white hot reality injection, and I want to be there personally to witness the look in those moist, starry eyes when it happens. Fucker. You goddamned disingenuous selfish, exploitative, gluttonous, self-righteous bag of soggy meat.

In the interests of disclosure, I should probably mention that I somewhat dislike Thomas Friedman on more than one level.


In 2001 the GDP per capita was $251.00 US. That's not rich in any sense of the word. I live next to Lake Michigan, one of the largest fresh water supplies in the world and I pay more than $251 per year for clean water.

They need economic development is my point. Even if that development comes with a price, they need economic development first and foremost or nothing can ever change because change costs money.

This is where I think it's very helpful to again differentiate between the World Bank and the IMF. They seem inextricably entwined at this point, but really, the entanglements are fairly recent. Again, I'd recommend reading some Stiglitz. I should probably make a short shameful confession here and admit to all and sundry that I've never made it through Globalization and its Discontents all at once. I've read about the first 75 pp several times, and I read other parts in dribs and drabs, depending on what I'm looking for, but I figure I've read at least enough to know that I'm missing some good stuff. One of Stiglitz' biggest beefs is that the World Bank has begun to act like the IMF, coopting their mission and their motives and their modus operandi. But it has not always been that way. The stated goals of the World Bank are decidedly different from the IMF's, and are infinitely more humane and sustainable.

Another thing I'd like to clarify: I think I referred to the IMF (and the WB) earlier as being multinational organizations. I misspoke. The UN is a multinational organization. The IMF is an EXTRAnational organization. It has no fealty to any nation. It has no fealty to anyone or anything beyond its capitalist interests. And it operates under no nation's laws. In fact, it dictates how nations govern.

That, too, is a useful distinction. People seem to think that somehow it's first world nations (specifically the US) issuing these dictates to developing countries in order to control them. It is not. It is corporations, generally based in first world nations (usually multiple first world nations), but operating outside of the laws of those nations. (Woo hoo. http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2002/02oct-nov/oct-nov02corp1.html This page is an excellent overview of the history of the corporate takeover of the US, and of the concept of corporate charters and such.)

My argument is not that we should leave struggling nations be, or that we should just throw money at them. My argument is not that we should take them over. My argument is that the IMF has been afforded too much power. Corporate interests in general have been afforded too much power. We should be encouraging an old skool World Bank model for international economic development. We should be offering loans that actually help developing nations become self-sufficient enough to participate in a global economy on a level playing field, or something a lot closer to that than we have now. The IMF agreements do just the opposite, though. Make no mistake, the agreements do serve the interests of the IMF. They keep those nations dependent on the corporations that make up the controlling interests of the IMF. Good for the IMF, bad for the world. The IMF's loan schemes are roughly equivalent to those usurious pawn shops, rent-to-own places, and check cashing joints that litter every low-income neighborhood in the US. They exploit the desperation of the poor, offering them short-term relief, only to dig them in deeper by saddling them with even more debt that they'll never be able to pay. It's a global poverty industry, but unlike the local poverty industry, it requires no sidestepping or legal loopholes to operate. They just don't tell us what their terms are, because they don't have to. They don't abide by laws. They just write new laws into their loan agreements.

We just can't let them continue to operate like that.

I doubt that there's really one solution to the problems of worldwide poverty. In fact, I doubt that there's any single plan or philosophy that would itself solve even a simple majority of the problems. But I am sure that the IMF's plans are exactly the wrong thing for the world economy.

Dammit. I'm tired again, and I know I promised you a bunch of shit about commons. But really, it's kind of obvious. My argument on that is that we absolutely need government to protect our commons--our common lands and roads and resources--and when we have private corporations controlling common resources, we need the government to regulate such. And I do consider telco to be something of a common resource, in that it requires an infrastructure to operate, much of which has been governmentally procured (rights of way and easements and whatnot), and that if we simply open up the market to all and sundry, Warrenly's picture happens. Because of these longstanding monopolies, we do have to open up the infrastructure in order to demonopolize the system. And we cannot just allow monopolistic companies to leave less lucrative markets swinging. Look up the history of any of the Baby BOCs, and see how many times they've been fined and penalized for failing to provide basic services to less wealthy areas. Hell, look at your phone bill. Those "service quality adjustments" or whatever the fuck they call them are fines levied against them for failure to comply with requirements. I used to live in a blue-collar neighborhood right on the edge of a very tony section of Denver. You could tell when you got to the wrong side of the tracks by the phone lines. Meaning you saw them. Across the street, they had underground fiber optics and all kinds of PANS, while we barely had POTS. At my house, I had sagging lines that turned out to be something called "Japanese PIC." See, it seems that at some point prior to WWII, the US ran out of copper wire and had to order some from Japan. Only thing is, the Japanese used different color coding for their wires, so it turned out to be a good thing that, the first time a squirrel chewed through the wires and took out my phone service, the technician they sent was an old guy who'd been a lineman for thirty-something years. That way, every other time it happened, I could tell the technician that the color coding was ass backwards, instead of just making them find out the hard way.

Anyway, as I said, I'm not going to go into the commons thing in such great detail unless you want me to. I usually save that for intractable assholes who buy the whole lasseiz faire thing hook line and sinker, and you're not one.

Besides, prolly ain't nobody reading anymore, anyway. I know I'm not, anyway.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm just a little curious, how long do people have to live somewhere before they can be considered indigenous? 100, 400, 1000, 5000, 10000 years or more? What is the standard? Whites have been in southern Africa for the better part of how many centuries? Are not their offspring Africans? I would think so.

* warrenly is a native American

I'm not particularly conversant on migratory patterns of humans and the various groups' property paradigms, but its my understanding that the European settlers that started settlements in southern Africa, did so beginning in the 15th century. So, that'd be about 500+ years.

I understand, though, that European settlements tended to be very close to the coastline until the mid- to late-19th century, when the British and Dutch started haggling over which European nation had hegemony and the Dutch (aka Boers) moved inland en masse. Of course, the swashbuckling Cecil Rhodes was a product of the 19th century and founded the British control of what is now Zimbabwe. So, for much of sub-Sahara Africa, dispossession of their tribal lands has been within the last 100 to 150 years...roughly contemporaneous to the dispossession of the indigenous peoples (by a factor of about 10-15,000 years) in North America.

Mayhaps one of our South African participants can correct all my mistakes, eh?

godfry

And, I don't know....how long does it take?

Also, if a white South African or other white exile from Africa moves to the United States, are they to be considered African-Americans?

[godfry n. glad]

Anyway, as I said, I'm not going to go into the commons thing in such great detail unless you want me to. I usually save that for intractable assholes who buy the whole lasseiz faire thing hook line and sinker, and you're not one.

Besides, prolly ain't nobody reading anymore, anyway. I know I'm not, anyway.

You're not?

This was a "drive-by posting"?

Aw... I was so looking forward to the "commons thing" from your perspective. I always like to see how folks use the concept. I'm familiar with "the tragedy of the commons", but that doesn't sound like what you intended to address....so I'm still curious.

However, I, too, am an advocate of mixed economies, but I suspect I'm more to the regulatory bent than is dantonac. I'm pretty cynical about regulatory control where economic interests have overwhelming political power, and I'm even more cynical about the promises of the free-marketeers and their running dog sycophants, who will tell you any kind of lie to line their pockets.

Speaking of running dog sycophants, who the hell is Thomas Friedman. Any relation to Uncle Milton?

I'm still reading...

godfry

[lisarea]

You're not?

This was a "drive-by posting"?

Oh, crap, no. I didn't mean I wasn't reading the other posts in the thread. I was talking about my own post there. It kind of got away from me, and I was boring even myself, so I was humanely euthanizing my tangent.


Aw... I was so looking forward to the "commons thing" from your perspective. I always like to see how folks use the concept. I'm familiar with "the tragedy of the commons", but that doesn't sound like what you intended to address....so I'm still curious.

Well, sure. The tragedy of the commons is just an illustration of why we need regulation. Personally, I probably have a somewhat more expansive view of what commons are than is probably, uh, common, but I also understand that certain restrictions place undue restrictions on personal freedoms. It is, like pretty much everything else, a matter of finding the right compromise between the common good and personal liberty. If I had my druthers, I'd be all about revoking the charters of corporations that serially abuse the commons, and I'd probably regulate private enterprise very heavily in every area except ventures that are not either so high entry as to be prohibitive and that are non-essential, for very broad values of essential (that is, I consider electricity, phone service, etc. all 'essential' in developed cultures).

Normally, I limit myself to arguing with bellicose libertarians on this topic, because it's pretty easy to kick their asses, and I don't know enough about economics or anything to discuss it with anyone more formidable than that.


However, I, too, am an advocate of mixed economies, but I suspect I'm more to the regulatory bent than is dantonac. I'm pretty cynical about regulatory control where economic interests have overwhelming political power, and I'm even more cynical about the promises of the free-marketeers and their running dog sycophants, who will tell you any kind of lie to line their pockets.

Speaking of running dog sycophants, who the hell is Thomas Friedman. Any relation to Uncle Milton?

He's the cocksucker who wrote The Lexus and the Olive Tree. He's also foreign policy dude at the NYT, and he's won Pulitzers. Like, a couple of them. I really have to assume that's based on his familiarity with the Middle East or something, because everything he writes about economics is just so fucking retarded even I can see what's wrong with it.

I dunno if he's related to Milton, and oddly, I'd never even noticed that they have the same last name until now.

Yeah, I really am that daft.

[dave_a]

Well, no time to discuss anything as I am headed off for a wedding in a bit and have to bring myself to put on a damn penguin suit. sigh.

Anyway Lisarea, I did enjoy reading your post. I was perplexed though when you invited Thomas Friedman to suck your dick. Given your username which I read as Lisa I didn't imagine you had a dick. :P Ah the joys of the internet.

Godfry I think you probably hit the nail on the head when you said you and I are both in favor of mixed economies, but you lean more to the regulatory side than I do. As a gross oversimplification with no concrete example to back me up as I have to post and run I tend to view government and business as equally corrupt in the sense that they are motivated by self interest more than anything else. When private enterprise causes a problem the natural idea is for government to intervene to correct the problem.

What I see is government stepping in and causing it's own problems. I think health care is something of a mess right now, but I am not a fan of national healthcare modeled after any nation's healthcare plan that I see. I would rather see other steps taken to see where that puts us before we consider sweeping changes in the structure of our healthcare system.

I would like to see reform or privatization of the FDA along the lines of an underwriters laboratory model. I would like to see requirements that physicians treat simple ailments removed so that lower cost and even charitable organizations could provide routine health care like treating ear infections. How much education does that really require? I have other ideas, but I have to run. I just don't understand why more folks don't want to at least try these steps before comitting to a government takeover of the healthcare system.

[lisarea]

Well, no time to discuss anything as I am headed off for a wedding in a bit and have to bring myself to put on a damn penguin suit. sigh.

Well, I don't have time to answer in detail either, because I'm going to the farmer's market, which is better than a wedding, so NEENER.

But I do have time to address this:


Anyway Lisarea, I did enjoy reading your post. I was perplexed though when you invited Thomas Friedman to suck your dick. Given your username which I read as Lisa I didn't imagine you had a dick. :P Ah the joys of the internet.

Your assessment is correct. But the way I see it, if I really actually had a dick, I wouldn't let someone I felt very contentious toward suck it, anyway, based on the excellent odds that they harbored violent feelings toward me in return. You men don't REALLY want your enemies getting their teeth so close to the family jewels, do you?

So I figure when I tell someone to suck my dick, at least I won't ever be held to my offer.

[squian]

It would be nice if drinkable water was free, but it isn't and I have no solution for that. We could say that government should do it, and where I live government does do it, but government then needs to spend money to do it and this comes from the citizens just the same as it does under a private company supplying the water.

No matter how you slice it, it takes money.
On this point, I think you have gone uncontested. The problem is not that it costs money but the amount that it costs is more than the poorest can afford. From an economic perspective, you have jumped to the "demand side" to say the government could subsidize the water for it's populace. For that matter, anyone can pick up the tab. If you and I really feel it is a moral outrage to let people go without potable water, I'm sure modest financial donations would go a long way.

When the resource is scarce how do you make it go as far as possible other than to charge for it so people don't waste it?
But charging money doesn't prevent wastage. Especially not for water. Just look at what we do with water in the US. In California, water is brought across the mountains to feed outdoor swimming pools and grow rice in the desert. I doubt price prevents the richest Tanzanians from filling their swimming pools either. What's worse is that privitization in Tanzania has not opened up competition but taken the limits off a monopoly.

So for me, the question is not how to find the money to pay for the potable water but how do we control the costs so it is low enough to be accessible by even the poorest? Just like your Teleco example, a monopoly is a formidible barrier to entry. Does privatization lead to competition? Is it even feasible to have multiple water and sewage providers? Even if there were an ideal "water market" would it ensure that everyone could afford water?

[dave_a]

On this point, I think you have gone uncontested. The problem is not that it costs money but the amount that it costs is more than the poorest can afford. From an economic perspective, you have jumped to the "demand side" to say the government could subsidize the water for it's populace. For that matter, anyone can pick up the tab. If you and I really feel it is a moral outrage to let people go without potable water, I'm sure modest financial donations would go a long way.

Well, in said nation with a GDP of US $251 it would seem it would take more than a modest amount of donations. I simply don't think this nation can afford water treatment/distribution plants at this stage in it's development. Water treatement plants, if we were playing a strategy video game, wouldn't be worth the cost at this point.

But charging money doesn't prevent wastage. Especially not for water. Just look at what we do with water in the US. In California, water is brought across the mountains to feed outdoor swimming pools and grow rice in the desert. I doubt price prevents the richest Tanzanians from filling their swimming pools either. What's worse is that privitization in Tanzania has not opened up competition but taken the limits off a monopoly.

It isn't a question of whether paying money prevents waste, it is a question of what price prevents waste. People will pay for drinking water before baothing water and for bathing water before swimming pool water. The precursor question is whether tthe nation can afford to waste water. In the case of this nation the answer appears to be no. Where I live I can overseed my lawn and run the sprinklers daily with no real concern. This doesn't appear to be the case here.i
So for me, the question is not how to find the money to pay for the potable water but how do we control the costs so it is low enough to be accessible by even the poorest? Just like your Teleco example, a monopoly is a formidible barrier to entry. Does privatization lead to competition?[/quote[

It can, but for utilities it is difficult to increase competition.

[quote] Is it even feasible to have multiple water and sewage providers? Even if there were an ideal "water market" would it ensure that everyone could afford water?

The problem is the government in question wasn't able to provide potable water for everyone nor was it able to bill those it provided water to. The bank said privatise your water. Why? I don't really know but I can speculate that the bank wanted to ensure that business could get the water it needed. This makes sense. Who would open a business if basic things like water weren't assured?

It may seem like people are getting screwed in favor of business, but in reality the people were already being screwed and any improvement in the infrastructure due to business will only help people.

[lisarea]

So for me, the question is not how to find the money to pay for the potable water but how do we control the costs so it is low enough to be accessible by even the poorest? Just like your Teleco example, a monopoly is a formidible barrier to entry. Does privatization lead to competition?

It can, but for utilities it is difficult to increase competition.

Well, this is why the government does things like require leasing agreements for infrastructure owners, as in the telco system in the US.

It may not be ideal, and of course, there are disagreements as to fair pricing structures and so forth, but that's why, to me, it makes sense for the infrastructure--water delivery systems, power grids, telco--to be publicly held. Then, providers, including water treatment plants, power generation, and telecommunications providers--can actually compete to provide better services for lower prices. (Or where there is, at the very least, the potential for real competition, assuming we maintain and enforce ownership regulations.)

The problem is the government in question wasn't able to provide potable water for everyone nor was it able to bill those it provided water to. The bank said privatise your water. Why? I don't really know but I can speculate that the bank wanted to ensure that business could get the water it needed. This makes sense. Who would open a business if basic things like water weren't assured?

Actually, in these cases, the privatization of the water systems is, by all accounts, boilerplate. The IMF consistently requires this as a condition of the loan, and they do specify which private company will have the monopoly on water treatment and delivery. If they were genuinely concerned about the welfare of the nations to which they lend money, wouldn't they at least put that sort of thing up for bid?

They are, simply, not interested in the welfare of the nations they lend money to. It's not even their stated goal. Their stated goal is to protect the interests of international trade.


It may seem like people are getting screwed in favor of business, but in reality the people were already being screwed and any improvement in the infrastructure due to business will only help people.

Are they really, though? I guess I'd need to look into this more, but it is my understanding that many more people are left without access to sufficient clean water after these IMF privatization schemes than there were before.

[Clutch Munny]

It isn't a question of whether paying money prevents waste, it is a question of what price prevents waste. People will pay for drinking water before baothing water and for bathing water before swimming pool water. The precursor question is whether tthe nation can afford to waste water. In the case of this nation the answer appears to be no.

But what market entity is "the nation"? What does it mean for the nation to be unable to afford to waste water? This very way of thinking presupposes centrally planned and protected public access to water.

Otherwise it may well be that the nation lacks sufficient water for everyone to drink, but that the rich can still afford to fill Olympic-sized pools while the poor cannot afford drinking water. It is only if the nation cannot, by some relevant standard, afford water-based chronic ill-health among its poor that it cannot afford to "waste" water. So what is the relevant standard? The idea of the nation's needs, understood as the public good, is legally and conceptually prior to the freedom to purchase on an open market.

[dave_a]

But what market entity is "the nation"? What does it mean for the nation to be unable to afford to waste water? This very way of thinking presupposes centrally planned and protected public access to water.



In the case of Tanzania the per capita GDP is $251 US dollars. The "nation" here is the government revenue stream. With a GDP this low it isn't going to be possible to provide potable water to every person. Since this government was losing 50% of it's potable water supply to illegal taps as well as leaks the problem gets even worse. The death blow was that the government wasn't even efficient enough to bill it's citizens for water usage.

This government/nation not only can't afford to waste (potable) water, they can't even afford to drink it.

Given this state of affairs I don't see how a private concern taking over the supply and billing of water is a bad thing. I absolutely do recognize that there may be all manner of problems with this approach and the IMF may have "sinister" motives, but the end result will, presumably, be a water supply system that works and relieves a burden from government that they cannot afford.

My understanding is that these agreements require the private concern to provide some amount of free water although it's also my understanding that it isn't enough to completely meet people's needs.

Still, it would seem to be a better solution than the current one which appears to be getting steadily worse.

[godfry n. glad]

I think you make an unwarrented presumption.

For what reason should we assume that just because a private concern has taken over distribution and billing that the system will "work better"?

Greater private control of the electric power distribution system in the western United States did no such thing. Indeed, it fucked it up royal, all in the name of creating artificial shortages to increase prices, revenues to the private concern and profits for the stockholders of the private concern.

godfry