Water water everywhere

[kasheem]

Kasheem, simply look at the example of Bolivia.

We live in a two-speed world. When an entity as vital as water is privatised, one side makes vast profits out of it at the detriment of the other side.

It's called dependency theory, and it's the spanner in the works of the utopia of free market neo-liberalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_theory

We're not Bolivians last I checked. We have a developed market economy and the technological know how to produce their own water. Bolivia doesn't which is why it ends up being screwed by foreign companies. But do the Latin American Left have anything positive to offer? No that I can see.. there will still be people dying from dirty water.. just as long as the 'gringos' are kept out that's alright?

We don't need nationalisation... nobody except a few communist dinosaurs would preach that.

Plus, how does 'dependency theory' apply to us? We're a first world nation.. how come we have deteriorating water systems if we're the imperialists we're made out to be.

 

[kasheem]

A private water company is optimised to provide profits more efficiently, not water.

It depends what the regulations are. Again look at America of up to the 1950's and 1960's.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The problem with both water companies and nationalisation is that centralisation and the use of basically victorian technology is not optimum.

The most efficient approach requires significant investment in a much more localised approach, involving source separating toilets, local water storage and local greywater treatment. It takes profits away from water companies by significantly reducing our dependence on them, especially for sewerage.

 

[kasheem]

The problem with both water companies and nationalisation is that centralisation and the use of basically victorian technology is not optimum.

The most efficient approach requires significant investment in a much more localised approach, involving source separating toilets, local water storage and local greywater treatment. It takes profits away from water companies by significantly reducing our dependence on them, especially for sewerage.

I agree with you. 'Capitalism' isn't the bogeyman here.

 

[MatthewEdwards]

We may not be Bolivians, but we share the same oxygen and hydrogen as them. These national boundaries are like buoys in the sea. Useful, but merely temporary markers.

Those who believe their 'first world status' to be impregnable may like to learn more about climate destabilisation and what it will do to us all - as a single human species. We are in this together.

Bernie is on to something big in terms of the local. To work this local approach must be combined with a kind of internationalisation. Glocalisation is the result.

Water is too precious a resource for us to play private sector games with.

 

[kasheem]

We may not be Bolivians, but we share the same oxygen and hydrogen as them. These national boundaries are like buoys in the sea. Useful, but merely temporary markers.

Those who believe their 'first world status' to be impregnable may like to learn more about climate destabilisation and what it will do to us all - as a single human species. We are in this together.

Bernie is on to something big in terms of the local. To work this local approach must be combined with a kind of internationalisation. Glocalisation is the result.

Water is too precious a resource for us to play private sector games with.

And too precious to play outdated socialist games with also.

 

[MatthewEdwards]

Exactly. Hence 21st century socialism.

Hence internationalisation, and glocalisation.

 

[kasheem]

Questions

Exactly. Hence 21st century socialism.

Hence internationalisation, and glocalisation.

How is internationalisation going to help improve our water?

Won't glocalisation mean a 'post code lottery' in services?

Isn't glocalisation the opposite of internationalisation?

Wasn't glocalisation tried by Mao Tse-Tung?

How are internationalisation and glocalisation socialist/anti-capitalist?

 

[MatthewEdwards]

Socialism is about administering resources for the common good.

Throughout the 20th century it was top-down.

In the 21st century we also have a growing movement of bottom-up organisation.

The two link together.

The key point with both is that they are not for private profit, but for public welfare.

The market, and its motor of private profit (with all the investment and development that that stimulates) is about choice.

In what sense do human beings choose to consume water?

 

[MatthewEdwards]

I know lamentably little about Mao Zedong. Could you tell me more about how he tried glocalisation?

 

[kasheem]

I know lamentably little about Mao Zedong. Could you tell me more about how he tried glocalisation?

Look up the Great Leap Forward.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/great_leap_forward.htm

I thought every socialist worth his salt would have known about it.

 

[MatthewEdwards]

Thanks for the link.

I may be a socialist, but I'm increasingly not worth much salt in this privatised economy.

The Maoist Great Leap Forward is not quite what I am envisioning. Still, it is interesting to see that amongst the chaos, and amongst Mao's defects, there is a leader willing to claim (some) responsibility for a failure.

It would be a wonderful thing to wake up tomorrow with a Prime Minister who said the following in regard to Iraq/Afghanistan/foundation hospitals/top-up fees/the respect agenda/the privatisation of education etc etc:

"The chaos caused was on a grand scale, and I take responsibility. Comrades, you must all analyse your own responsibility. If you have to fart, fart. You will feel much better for it."

Anyway. You have coaxed me off the water agenda with all the skills of the unspeakable hunting the uneatable.

Back to H2O.

 

[kasheem]

Thanks for the link.

I may be a socialist, but I'm increasingly not worth much salt in this privatised economy.

The Maoist Great Leap Forward is not quite what I am envisioning. Still, it is interesting to see that amongst the chaos, and amongst Mao's defects, there is a leader willing to claim (some) responsibility for a failure.

It would be a wonderful thing to wake up tomorrow with a Prime Minister who said the following in regard to Iraq/Afghanistan/foundation hospitals/top-up fees/the respect agenda/the privatisation of education etc etc:

"The chaos caused was on a grand scale, and I take responsibility. Comrades, you must all analyse your own responsibility. If you have to fart, fart. You will feel much better for it."

Mao didn't have much choice.

I'm wondering if you're really a socialist if you don't know basic things like what the Great Leap was. Even people who don't know a thing about politics know that. What party do you belong to?

 

[MatthewEdwards]

PM me and I will let you know.

 

[mentalchik]

Even people who don't know a thing about politics know that. What party do you belong to?

That's a bit of a sweeping statement !

 

[foggypane]

Socialism is about administering resources for the common good.

Throughout the 20th century it was top-down.

In the 21st century we also have a growing movement of bottom-up organisation.

The two link together.

The key point with both is that they are not for private profit, but for public welfare.

The market, and its motor of private profit (with all the investment and development that that stimulates) is about choice.

In what sense do human beings choose to consume water?

you said it so well.

Water companies don't supply water any more than car companies supply cars. They supply profit.

 

[TeeJay]

Wouldn't it be better if,with water being so essential, it was available on demand and at a negligible cost to domestic users, and clean, reliable and good to drink too?

Some uses of water are essential, but other people will use vast amounts on their large back gardens or swimming pools or simply waste it by being careless.

Maybe a solution would be a flat fee (free for poorer people/people on benefits/pensioners etc) for up to a basic amount, and then metering (pay per unit) for amounts above this - ie people using lots of water for their gardens or other things.

 

[foggypane]

Yeah, you would think that we could come up with some sort of sensible solution, wouldn't you? Perhaps one like yours. Or banning gardens, that's my two penn'orth.

 

[TeeJay]

I am afraid crap it is not. When the time comes that no imports of energy or chemicals is possible, Britain can only support 22 million people.

And when exactly would this be then - and why? Are you saying that there will be no technologies developed to use renewable energy to extract Nitrogen from air or other chemicals from all sorts of sources? I don't see how you can make that sort of prediction.

Sustainable agriculture can only provide enough food for 22 million people.
The yield per hectare of some crops, potatoes being the main one, will drop dramatically when they can only be produced by sustainable methods.
Biofuel for vehicles/transport ect will be a further pressure on agricultural land available for food growing.

What exactly do you mean by "sustainable agriculture"? Why are you simply drawing lines around the UK? Some countries have lots of people, less land but more industry and services while others have few people, lots of land but not much industry or services. They both need each other - just like cities and the countryside are complementary.

Your view of the UK is a bit like saying that "cities can't feed themselves". The fact is that they don't have to feed themselves - they don't specialise in producing food, but they do produce things that are used outside cities and they buy their food in. This has been true for thousands of years, so I fail to see why you are having hysterics about the future, on this basis.

Care to explain?

 

[FruitandNut]

Icebergs and de-salination plants, anyone?

ps. I heard that the eco-friendy sustainable population optimum was about 32 million. Whatever the amount it looks like a big cull is needed - any volunteers?

 

[TeeJay]

Water companies don't supply water any more than car companies supply cars.

You are wrong. Water companies do supply water.

 

[foggypane]

You are wrong. Water companies do supply water.

Eerrrr, yeah, soz. I meant ' the reason for the existance of water companies is not to supply water, any more than... etc.'