Nestlé CEO says that water should not be a public right

[PAPPACLART]

I don't care how many times it's been said, it's simply not true. I don't suppose you'd care to supply us with a source for that, would you? From a more or less objective source, not a rabidly socialist source, I mean.

Okay.

I don't think that I need to prove anything, it's plain to see that we have enough water. Have you actually seen how big the ocean is?

So you're making up facts to support your notion that people shouldn't be fairly compensated for their labor.

No at all, of course people should be compensated for labour but $1 per day is not fair under this system, a figure that many millions have to live on daily.

I just simply believe that there is a better and more fairer way out there to compensate people for their labour.

Maybe you have never seen first hand real poverty but I have and it quite simply does not need to happen. not with how clever Humans actually are!

I use to have very right wing views and still hold many to this day, and have never been accused of being a socialist! lol

In many ways I am playing devils advocate with my previous post. Plenty of poverty that does not need to exist through simple lack of drive, ambition, foresight from people and communities etc, that's another problem.

I didn't actually say that.

We, as humans, have one born right - the right to life. That naturally extends to the right to freedom from physical insult and captivity, and to lead our life as we wish - including the right to our own labour. They are contingent on our intelligence and our ability to recognise them.

I agree I was just adding to your point was not quoting you. :-)

We don't have the right to have anything handed to us as a result of this. We must pursue our own course. However our rights bear responsibilities. Our right to life means all other humans have right to life. Our right to freedom from physical insult and captivity as a result of that right to life means all other humans have that right. Our right to lead our lives as we wish means doing so without causing physical insult, killing, bestowing captivity on or taking the labour of another human.


Other species of animal - and "nature" - lack the intelligence to recognise these rights and this means they do not have the responsibility not to hold us captive, injure or kill us, while we do not have the responsibility to do the same to them.

Those are just legal rights. Governments cannot create or deny rights, only laws that recognise or fail to recognise them. Governments are not meant to be arbiters of rights, only protectors of them. The mess you go on to describe is as a result of too many people and too many governments thinking the exact opposite.

👍

 

[XoravaX]

A private company which is after money and in competition for this limited pile of money with other companies and has to make a product that is competitive enough to acquire that money or face going out of business "asking" less than a monopoly that takes your money by force and then simply prints more of it and will never go out of business? No, how could that happen...?

Well, in Finland we've seen many examples of how privatisation has risen prices of things (as a net increase, tax subsidies taken into account). Here local municipalities are responsible for basic healthcare; they can produce it themselves (as a public service) or buy it from private companies. This week a study showed that privatisation, buying it from companies caused elevated costs, which in turn lead to municipal tax rise. Those municipalities which had kept it as their own service had lower costs, thus were more efficient.
Similarly here, almost all municipalities used to have their own power plants as public property. In my town, the council decided to sell/privatise the power plants by selling them to a multinational company (even though owning them made profit, it didn't require any subsidies, and actually meant an income loss on the long term). This just meant a big rise in the electricity prices of those who bought their electricity from the had-been public facility, now multinational company. Needless to say, most changed their electricity producer, but no option was as cheap as the electricity bought from the local facility was.

The private market just doesn't sometimes work ideally (and without regulation can lead to private monopoly, which is far worse than a government monopoly). Public or government-owned companies/facilities don't have to be inefficient or corrupt, their products don't have to cost more than those of the private market, even if they are not subsidised from the taxes. It's just bizarre how public/government-owned companies aren't quite allowed to compete with private companies as long as they aren't subsidised (as the private sector whines about subsidies and manipulated competition even if there are none). Then there is the private oligopoly, which means there is so few competition that it's somewhere between a monopoly and a free market (a situation where our daily consumer goods market here is, it's mainly run by two large corporations). Free market, for it to be efficient and to benefit the consumer, must have a lot of competition, which is not ideal for the companies themselves, as that'd require a whole bunch of small companies instead of a few large corporations.

 

[Famine]

Well, in Finland we've seen many examples of how privatisation has risen prices of things (as a net increase, tax subsidies taken into account). Here local municipalities are responsible for basic healthcare; they can produce it themselves (as a public service) or buy it from private companies. This week a study showed that privatisation, buying it from companies caused elevated costs, which in turn lead to municipal tax rise. Those municipalities which had kept it as their own service had lower costs, thus were more efficient.
Similarly here, almost all municipalities used to have their own power plants as public property. In my town, the council decided to sell/privatise the power plants by selling them to a multinational company (even though owning them made profit, it didn't require any subsidies, and actually meant an income loss on the long term). This just meant a big rise in the electricity prices of those who bought their electricity from the had-been public facility, now multinational company. Needless to say, most changed their electricity producer, but no option was as cheap as the electricity bought from the local facility was.

There's several variables and questions here.

What are the relative sizes of the municipalities? Running a service for one person is a lot more expensive per person than it would be to run it for ten thousand - but running a ten thousand subscriber service is more expensive overall.

Are the services private or privatised? A privatised service is one where private industry bids for service/franchise contracts from a governmental licensor and it is not truly private. Supermarkets are examples of private industry, whereas railways in the UK - where operators bid for n year contracts on the demarcated networks and face competition for renewal when the contract expires - are an example of a privatised one.

Do the commercial providers compete with the governmental providers? As we'll shortly see in the USA with health insurance, having a guaranteed minimum service at a guaranteed minimum price is fundamentally harmful to competition as there's less incentive to offer a better product and/or for a better price - particularly as the state doesn't need to advertise to get custom.

The private market just doesn't sometimes work ideally (and without regulation can lead to private monopoly, which is far worse than a government monopoly)

It's no worse than a governmental monopoly for the consumer. In fact, since you'll be paying for it whether you use it or not (through taxation), a governmental monopoly is much worse for the non-consumer - you cannot opt out.

. Public or government-owned companies/facilities don't have to be inefficient or corrupt, their products don't have to cost more than those of the private market, even if they are not subsidised from the taxes. It's just bizarre how public/government-owned companies aren't quite allowed to compete with private companies as long as they aren't subsidised (as the private sector whines about subsidies and manipulated competition even if there are none). Then there is the private oligopoly, which means there is so few competition that it's somewhere between a monopoly and a free market (a situation where our daily consumer goods market here is, it's mainly run by two large corporations). Free market, for it to be efficient and to benefit the consumer, must have a lot of competition, which is not ideal for the companies themselves, as that'd require a whole bunch of small companies instead of a few large corporations.

The free market - even when dominated by vast multinationals - always allows you to build a better mousetrap. The other end of the scale sees you invent Tetris and never see a penny other than your salary until the system collapses...

 

[XoravaX]

What are the relative sizes of the municipalities? Running a service for one person is a lot more expensive per person than it would be to run it for ten thousand - but running a ten thousand subscriber service is more expensive overall.

Are the services private or privatised? A privatised service is one where private industry bids for service/franchise contracts from a governmental licensor and it is not truly private. Supermarkets are examples of private industry, whereas railways in the UK - where operators bid for n year contracts on the demarcated networks and face competition for renewal when the contract expires - are an example of a privatised one.

The services are privatised, the contractor usually gets access to the public facilities that were used previously by the public institutions. They can however do anything as long as they produce the necessary in the contract, that is in my example, basic healthcare. The power plant became completely private, though. In an ideal situation public facilities or their products may be even truly cheaper than private, if they are as efficient as private: they needn't gain profit, so they can offer a lower price. This, of course doesn't often apply to real life: public facilities are often inefficient due to either subsided losses, the lack of the need to gain profit or both.

Do the commercial providers compete with the governmental providers? As we'll shortly see in the USA with health insurance, having a guaranteed minimum service at a guaranteed minimum price is fundamentally harmful to competition as there's less incentive to offer a better product and/or for a better price - particularly as the state doesn't need to advertise to get custom.

They do, however the public healthcare (be it produced either by the municipalities or private contractors) is greatly subsidised and costs less than 1/5th of the real costs. What the private sector has to offer is no or very short queues and better service (as the private sector pays better salaries they also get better employees, with the exception of small countryside municipalities which have to pay in excess of 15000€/month to a doctor to get one to move there).

It's no worse than a governmental monopoly for the consumer. In fact, since you'll be paying for it whether you use it or not (through taxation), a governmental monopoly is much worse for the non-consumer - you cannot opt out.

Private monopolies are in a situation where they can rule the prices to their will. So are public monopolies, but as they needn't gain profit, they are often less harmful in the aspect of unreasonable pricing - just keep in mind such companies as Standard Oil, and compare them to USPS which is pretty much a postal monopoly. USPS makes 25 million loss a day, even though they pretty much could price the service to their will.

The free market - even when dominated by vast multinationals - always allows you to build a better mousetrap. The other end of the scale sees you invent Tetris and never see a penny other than your salary until the system collapses...

In daily consumer goods which are necessary it isn't that easy for a single customer, as the product often gets sold (enough) even if one or some customers see its price unreasonable.

 

[Famine]

The services are privatised ... They do [compete with public sector]

That pretty much covers that then.

"Private" business forced to operate in the public sector isn't private business. The standard economic rules of free market competition doesn't apply. Moreover, you're almost guaranteed near monopoly conditions due to lobbying - the same handful of concerns are given all the contracts because politicians are on their boards or very cosy with them.

Private monopolies are in a situation where they can rule the prices to their will.

Yes, but they're opt-in if you want their product and you can opt out whenever you wish.

So are public monopolies, but as they needn't gain profit, they are often less harmful in the aspect of unreasonable pricing - just keep in mind such companies as Standard Oil, and compare them to USPS which is pretty much a postal monopoly. USPS makes 25 million loss a day, even though they pretty much could price the service to their will.

Indeed - you can just put taxes up to balance the books. Ever tried opting out of taxes?

There's also no incentive to improve the business if there is no bottom line. Take the USPS, for example...

In daily consumer goods which are necessary it isn't that easy for a single customer, as the product often gets sold (enough) even if one or some customers see its price unreasonable.

It's surprising what isn't a necessity when you have to trim your budget - and what you can actually survive into tomorrow without - but daily consumer goods are an excellent example of what happens the closer we get to operating in free market conditions...

Let's say I fancy some beans on toast. I'm a massive hippy, so I have to go to Waitrose (5% market share) and get organic baked beans (£1.10/400g). Only this month I've not been paid as much, so I decide to slum it and go for Heinz (68p/415g). But there's a Tesco (30% market share - biggest single company in the sector; 2nd/3rd largest retailer of any kind on the planet) nearby and... hmm... it seems that Waitrose have price-matched them, along with Asda (16.5% share; part of the WalMart group - the largest retailer on the planet) and Sainsbury's (16.5% market share).

But you know... we can do better than that - after all, who needs brand named beans? Waitrose get right in and save us 3p with their "essential" baked beans (what's more of a necessity than an essential, eh?), but Tesco (Value), Asda (Smart Price), Sainsbury's (Basics) and Aldi (Everyday Essentials - and 3.4% market) all pop in with 25p tins of beans.

We've already saved 77% on the cost of our meal as the supermarkets all compete with each other to sell a third party's products as cheaply as they can and make their own competitor product! We can probably do better than that - I've not tried Netto yet, even bigger cans are cheaper pound for pound and multipack buys always bring the prices down. Yay capitalism.

But ultimately the point is that almost nothing is a necessity. What you absolutely need to survive into tomorrow doesn't include water purified by someone else, electricity or Heinz Bean"z" - and as an adult you should be able to provide what is necessary for your existence yourself. Everything else is a convenience and you pay for it - by exchanging your labour for currency and the currency for someone else's labour to provide it. You have no set right to claim your conveniences without recompense - though some folk may be kind enough to do it for you.

 

[DK]

Let's say I fancy some beans on toast. I'm a massive hippy, so I have to go to Waitrose (5% market share) and get organic baked beans (£1.10/400g). Only this month I've not been paid as much, so I decide to slum it and go for Heinz (68p/415g). But there's a Tesco (30% market share - biggest single company in the sector; 2nd/3rd largest retailer of any kind on the planet) nearby and... hmm... it seems that Waitrose have price-matched them, along with Asda (16.5% share; part of the WalMart group - the largest retailer on the planet) and Sainsbury's (16.5% market share).

But you know... we can do better than that - after all, who needs brand named beans? Waitrose get right in and save us 3p with their "essential" baked beans (what's more of a necessity than an essential, eh?), but Tesco (Value), Asda (Smart Price), Sainsbury's (Basics) and Aldi (Everyday Essentials - and 3.4% market) all pop in with 25p tins of beans.

We've already saved 77% on the cost of our meal as the supermarkets all compete with each other to sell a third party's products as cheaply as they can and make their own competitor product! We can probably do better than that - I've not tried Netto yet, even bigger cans are cheaper pound for pound and multipack buys always bring the prices down. Yay capitalism.

At least you're not looking for cheap burgers.

 

[Famine]

Hey, horses for courses.

Fun to note the origin of those... slightly equine products (how do you get a 100% horsemeat lasagne? Doesn't lasagne need... lasagne pasta in it?) were centre-left ruled Romania and very left ruled France...

 

[FoolKiller]

I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but I just have ask this.

Am I reading right that many of you, particularly in Europe, are paying your governments for water?

I don't. I pay a small company that is part of a co-op and has a single two-room office and a water tower. When I was growing up we had a cistern (like a well, but not tapped into groundwater) that was filled from the rain runoff on our roof. When there was a drought we had an option of three different water trucking companies to pay for a truckload of water. We chose a guy I only ever knew as Water Bob, because he drove the bus when my mom went to school. He filled his truck up from the farm depot water port at the office of the local water company, paid them for it, and then charged us a higher rate for transportation and labor costs.

The only time I paid a municipality for water was when I was in college, and even then the local city council was considering privatizing the water system and selling off the reservoirs.

So, if you want my opinion, nothing wrong with privatized water. Mainly because under my own experience I can say every single thing spouted about what a private company would do has been utterly, and completely false.

Now, I won't be ridiculous about this. These companies need to lay pipes and get access to homes and so forth. For this they need access to public right of ways (usually a 6-foot or so gap between roads and property). Every municipal government negotiates acceptable prices for various utilities to allow them access to government lands to build the infrastructure. If the prices need to go higher they need to show the financials to renegotiate their contract.

This maintains an intricate balance. Government officials must allow these private utilities in if they wish to keep their job, and they can't be on the take and spike prices unreasonably for the same reason. The utility companies can't gouge the community because there is always another company ready to take their contract. This just happened with my garbage/recycling company. The previous one screwed up their schedule regularly and the recycling guys managed to scatter more of the recyclables across my yard than into their trucks. After multiple complaints the town contract was pulled and a new company continued service without missing a single pickup.

Now, if the utility doesn't necessarily require a laid infrastructure, as water doesn't, you can have an open market the way I did as a child in a farming community. We had three companies and a handful of privateers with a water tank in the bed of their pickup truck to choose from. No one gouged us because they knew we were one phone call from them getting no money from me.


And someone mentioned PHARMA. I've lived the last 20 years of my life because of PHARMA. I can't place a value on that. And I won't force their labor for my benefit.

 

[DK]

Am I reading right that many of you, particularly in Europe, are paying your governments for water?

There's no water charges YET in Ireland, but our government is bringing them in in 2015 or thereabouts. The thing is, far-left parties are protesting against bringing water charges, as well as incoming property taxes, which were removed by the Fianna Fáil (yes, the same party which brought Ireland to its knees when the credit crunch struck) government of the late-70s just to win votes.