3 ms·

You're attacking a straw man. Where governments do well is establishing a regulatory framework. They don't deliver the clean water. They (should) ensure that th

You're attacking a straw man. Where governments do well is establishing a regulatory framework. They don't deliver the clean water. They (should) ensure that the water that's delivered meets a standard.

Hizonner 2y ago
In every single city I've ever lived in or paid attention to, the water system has been directly operated by employees of the municipal government, not private companies and not even contractors. And the regional projects they buy from tend to be pure government, too. Oh, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization#Prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization#Prevalence But, hey, never let facts interfere with your deeply held religious beliefs, eh?
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  you're the only one talking about water.
- phs318u 2y ago
  Not where I live friend. Water, electricity and gas are all privatised. EDITED: to make the point - please don't assume everyone here lives in the US.
AlbertCory 2y ago
No, you're attacking something without even reading it. The "bipartisan coalition" in the Senate is determined to spend $32 billion (just a downpayment, for sure) is not planning to do what you want. They want to hand out money to a lot of universities, NGO's, and bureaucrats. In your terms, they want to deliver the clean water. A "regulatory framework" would be something like the Dodd-Frank bill, or Sarbanes-Oxley. Maybe that's what you want, but it's not what Schumer is pushing.
- phs318u 2y ago
  Yes, something like SOX (although one can argue that SOX, which was born of Enron, didn't stop the GFC or Maddoff). I think there's also a place for government to perhaps 'accelerate' the market to encourage certain behaviours by either creating financial incentives/disincentives. This can be in the form of grants etc. In that case, giving money to researchers in the domain would make sense - on the basis that they are more likely to understand what's technically required than a government public servant. And to your point regarding beauracrats: someone has to manage and oversee regulatory frameworks. Voluntary frameworks with no oversight at all are a figleaf. We can argue about the number/cost but we shouldn't be arguing about the need, assuming we agree on the need for regulatory frameworks in the first place.

Hizonner 2y ago

In every single city I've ever lived in or paid attention to, the water system has been directly operated by employees of the municipal government, not private companies and not even contractors. And the regional projects they buy from tend to be pure government, too. Oh, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization#Prevalence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_privatization#Prevalence But, hey, never let facts interfere with your deeply held religious beliefs, eh?

AlbertCory 2y ago
you're the only one talking about water.
phs318u 2y ago
Not where I live friend. Water, electricity and gas are all privatised. EDITED: to make the point - please don't assume everyone here lives in the US.

AlbertCory 2y ago

No, you're attacking something without even reading it. The "bipartisan coalition" in the Senate is determined to spend $32 billion (just a downpayment, for sure) is not planning to do what you want. They want to hand out money to a lot of universities, NGO's, and bureaucrats. In your terms, they want to deliver the clean water. A "regulatory framework" would be something like the Dodd-Frank bill, or Sarbanes-Oxley. Maybe that's what you want, but it's not what Schumer is pushing.

phs318u 2y ago
Yes, something like SOX (although one can argue that SOX, which was born of Enron, didn't stop the GFC or Maddoff). I think there's also a place for government to perhaps 'accelerate' the market to encourage certain behaviours by either creating financial incentives/disincentives. This can be in the form of grants etc. In that case, giving money to researchers in the domain would make sense - on the basis that they are more likely to understand what's technically required than a government public servant. And to your point regarding beauracrats: someone has to manage and oversee regulatory frameworks. Voluntary frameworks with no oversight at all are a figleaf. We can argue about the number/cost but we shouldn't be arguing about the need, assuming we agree on the need for regulatory frameworks in the first place.