[Timm]

Guaranteeing minimal access to water doesn't bear on the question of privatization. Just as food stamps are distributed to the poor to be redeemed at private grocers so too might the state subsidize the payments to private providers of those who cannot afford water.

Whatever the merits of redistribution of this kind it does not require public ownership and management of water supplies. And, much like the case of food, advantages are likely to be had from private ownership and management of water supplies, even given a system of subsidies for the poor.

[hedgetrimmer]

You're not telling me any advantages.

In truth, wherever global corporations have taken over water, people go wanting. In truth, the world bank would like to have all water controlled by corporations. The world bank wants to see desalination plants everywhere because with them every drop of water generates revenue, there is no downstream usage, no fishing or recreational usage. In fact, if certain corporations are allowed to control the world water supply, then the water YOU use will be DRAMATICALLY reduced. The world bank, green cross international and the UN feel if the water supply is reduced, then people will have fewer babies. This plan includes the UNITED STATES and US water department managers are participating in forums to accomplish just this.

I have provided reports from several countries showing that the privatization of water has harmed people and the environment. Where are your facts that show otherwise?