A giant water company tried to privatize the water in Stockton CA. The people fought back, and after many battles, a judge has ruled the city must take back the water company.
Water needs to be public and not at the mercy of distant huge entities for whom it is a source of income to be exploited.
To correct your ongoing assertions of “privatization,” the term denotes asset ownership; in the case of Stockton and other municipalities in the United States, private companies are contracted to operate, maintain and/or manage the water/wastewater systems. Asset ownership and rates still reside under the authority of the municipality.
Confusing privatization and public-private partnerships only shows your one-sided ignorance. If a private contractor is better equipped to operate a system in a more cost-effective manner while complying with all applicable federal and state environmental guidelines, what is the problem? I assume you use UPS or FedEx; water or mail, there is no difference.
Private companies are as good as public utilities in keeping prices down and working for the benefit of the public?
I have a one word rebuttal: Enron.
Actually, two words: Cochabamba
Read: United States
Cite something recent. Atlanta, Stockton and Cochabamba are all dated incidents.
Say what? The Stockton ruling by a judge is current news. And so what if it wasn’t? How does that refute anything?
But then, free market absolutists rarely are swayed by logic or the rulings of law – and apparently have a shaky grasp of the concept of Time too.