From Wiki: "In 2013, Burry reopened his hedge fund, this time called Scion Asset Management, filing reports as an exempt reporting adviser (ERA) active in the state of California and approved by the SEC.[19] He has focused much of his attention on investing in water, gold, and farm land. He has said, "Fresh, clean water cannot be taken for granted. And it is not—water is political, and litigious."[20]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry
As Warren Buffett has said “being too early to something is the same as being wrong about it” or something along those lines
The problem with privatization is that it tends to turn into a monopoly that extracts a toll from those worst positioned to bear the burden. That of course doesn't change if you let them to rot. What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. How they would have done that in light of corruption and local graft is another problem entirely.
You can't just take 20% of people's meager income (more than they spend on food) for a first level requirement like clean water. That's the sort of infrastructure that the world bank exists to bankroll, once the necessities are taken care of a society has a much better chance to lift itself from poverty.
> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation.
But does the World Bank even do that kind of financing? They and the IMF seem only intent on financing assured projects in developed countries or projects in developing countries which simply siphon money into politicians' pockets, with their tacit knowledge. That was part of the motivation behind Asian Investment Bank, and the other Chinese propped competitors.
My point was that in spite of the "revolution" succeeding, and in spite of the revolutionary leaders taking charge of power for a record number of years, the town continues to suffer from the lack of water.
When the humanity about these things is lost and it all becomes just numbers people suffer. And right now they are suffering too but they are at least nominally in control of their fate. The best solution would be one where graft and greed would be cut out because to just have a choice between the two is always going to be bad for those caught in the middle.
There should at least be a power function for water prices where using more water costs more and more to disincentivize waste.
That seems like charity, which granted i am all for, but i don't think the World Bank is a charitable organization, plus 300 million is a MASSIVE amount for charity. In the absence of charity it seems like the two choices are 1. Have no water or 2. Pay a lot to have water. At least with 2 you have the potential for the lowering of water prices over time.
Is there an alternative? Or am i wrong about the world bank and these charitable acts are it's purpose?
Honestly it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm sure companies are buying rights to water, but I suspect it's for straightforward near term interests, like, say, Poland Spring's owners buying water rights so they can sell bottles of water - not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever.
I receive internal company newsletters that talk about the need to get more water contracts due to climate change and the opportunities/competition ahead. It's not conspiracy, it's commerce. Like real estate, you buy it now when it's cheap because you predict it'll be worth a fortune in a decade or two.
Contracts with whom?
Isn’t that what fruit companies like delmonte did to Central America in the mid 20th century? Seizing all of the farmland with the support of the government to grow fruit for Americans?
They can’t just seize the water rights, they would have to purchase them at fair market value. Land with perpetual water rights happen to be worth *a lot* of money, which is why there haven’t been more government entities buying out current holders of water rights.
Step 2: Let market for these properties crash
Step 3: Buy at FMV
> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Certainly it is "just" to simply pay what the private landholder originally paid for the land that carries with it the water rights?
That won't fly - someone may have bought a valuable asset 50 years ago that is now worth 100X what they paid for it - only giving them what they paid for it can hardly be called 'just compensation' and I suspect most all courts would agree.
Water rights speculation has apparently only been going on in Arizona for around 30 years. While some of this speculation may be net beneficial (use of recharge areas to recharge ground water), others just seem speculative and aimed at making a premium when municipalities are eventually forced to buy.