--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > on 8/17/05 9:48 PM, lurkernomore20002000 at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Bechtel Corporation tried to privatize their water supply such > > > > that the had to pay aquarter of their income for water. > > > > > <snip> > > > If people didn't want to partake of the distribution system, they > > > didn't have to...they could still waste their time lugging water > > > around all day. > > > > Was the amount of money they could have made if > > they didn't have to lug water equal to a quarter > > of their income? > > > > If not, then lugging the water wasn't wasting time, > > it was keeping them from losing some of their hard- > > earned money. > > Sorry Shemp, all wrong.
"All wrong"? > Bechtel bought the local water distribution > system that was already in place. It may have been in place but it wasn't working. But, again, I was trying to correct the mistaken impression that they bought the "water supply" which they did not do: it was the distribution system...the people were still free to lug water without using the distribution system. > That's what "PRIVITAZATION" means, > to transfer ownership of an existing publicly owned and operated > utility to the private sector. Maybe Bechtel planned to expand the > existing system to new undeveloped areas in the future, My understanding is that the system WASN'T WORKING and that's why Bechtel was brought in in the first place, to make work a distribution system that wasn't supplying distribution of water. Plus, it was still going to be a regulated distribution system: Bechtel would only be able to charge a regulated price -- giving them a reasonable rate of return on their investment -- and people who did NOT want to partake of the system would still be free to lug the free water they had always lugged. > but they never > got around to doing that, only got around to drastically raising > existing water prices - how do you drastic raise existing water prices > for someone who's getting water from a well? That was my point; you don't. People were still free to get the water from a well for free AFTER the distribution system would have been fixed and working. > The Bolivian gov't may > be doing an inefficient job of operating the water utility and need to > get kick in the butt by some reformers, but the Bechtel contract made > things much worse. Actually, my understanding is that the Bechtel contract give the first hope that people would have a working distribution system. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
