> Electricity, water, roads, bridges are all public infrastructure. Why should payments be any different.
I think you fail to understand why these are public infrastructure.
Why should water be public infra but food is not?
I think you fail to understand why these are public infrastructure.
Why should water be public infra but food is not?
The main reason why infrastructure of any kind (water, sewage, etc) is a public infrastructure - even in largely privatized economies - is that infrastructure is essentially a natural monopoly. Food on the other hand isn't and it can largely be traded as a commodity (which is, at least in my opinion, a major reason why our food system is so broken).
If your only expectation is that it provides enough calories for your population, you are absolutely right. If you have a look at the bigger picture, the issues are plentiful. On the producer side, farmers are operating at relatively thin margins which encourages consolidation and unsustainable farming practices. This in turn leads to extensive soil degradation and fertilizer use, which is unsustainable - both financially and ecologically.
On the consumer side, people are becoming more overweight (which cannot be exclusively be attributed to the food system, but diet of course plays a significant role). Food is becoming more expensive and lower quality. Food waste also still is a major problem.
Many issues are shared between the US and the European food system, although they may not be as extreme as in the US. However, it does not feel like there is actual political will to steer the ship in a different direction.
"Suicide Among Farmers in France: Occupational Factors and Recent Trends":
* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27409004/
"Under Pressure: Suicides Among Farmers in Austria and Germany":
* https://www.journalismfund.eu/suicides-farmers-austria-and-g...
"Mental Health Risks to Farmers in the UK":
* https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/43055/pdf/
And Europe's policies affecting other places, "Stop the Dumping! How EU agricultural subsidies are damaging livelihoods in the developing world":
* https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/stop-the-dumping...
The water pipes are public infra. They pump it into your house.
The more people that use the same system, the cheaper it can get. Drawing competing systems of water pipes to houses to let companies compete would simply drive up the cost for everyone.
Same with electricity, gas lines, sewage...
Water itself is not publicly owned. You can buy water in the store like food.
When fiber arrives, there is a 3 months waiting period before any company can provide the service. This is intended to give enough time for everyone to prepare an offer.
When I got mine, I called the regulation authority (Arcep) who gave me the date and hour my line opens. On that day I called my preferred provider who told me "it is coming! we will call you!" and then the one who laid the cable who told me "we can come in 2 days". I chose the latter.
A few years later the preferred one finally made its way to my area...
Just to add to the conversation, personally I back and forth a bit on which things should be public or private owned, farms especially.
My general reasoning is that when a "best" solution is known, monopolies tend to form; monopolies tend to extract as much economic rent as possible; I'd rather economic rents be extracted by a government for the purpose of national benefit rather than personal enrichment.
Conversely, when there is no known "best" solution, a free market allows a range of entrepreneurs the opportunity to try their ideas in the hope of cornering the market.
I think water is probably in the first, but with a caveat that this is a high-level thing and it's fine to have hundreds of different companies trying to figure out the best ways to make and install municipal pipes, that work is contracted to by local governments.
Food? I dunno, weather is still a massive dice roll for farming output. Perhaps nationalisation would work, perhaps subsidies, price regulations for inputs and floors for outputs, are the least wrong way to do this. But I'm extremely uncertain.
European governments govern food supply with cash subsidies to farmers, land use rules helping farmers, special immigration rules for agricultural labourers, special extra-low inheritance taxes for farmers, special subsidies for things like having hedges between fields, special low-tax fuel for farm equipment, different tax rates for different foodstuffs (bread vs cake vs wine vs beer), provision of super cheap water for irrigation, minimum price guarantees with governments buying up over-produced products, special border controls for fresh goods that can't be held up, special border controls for live animals, entire government departments for things like monitoring and controlling the spread of animal disease, rules on precisely what chemicals can be used, rules about things like chemical run-off into waterways, rules about animal welfare, rules about slaughterhouse conditions, rules about package materials, package sizes, package labels, rules about how much pork must be in a sausage for it to be called a pork sausage, rules about who can call their product 'champagne' or 'parmesan'.
If the payments industry was regulated like the food industry, it would be more regulated, not less.
Electricity itself is fungible in moment, so electricity can used shared access medium of grid. But similarly it makes little sense to have multiple roads in densely build areas. So both roads and water pipes end up as natural monopolies in build up areas.
Not all food but produce, bread, milk, infant foods, flour, rice and other cereals being sorta price controlled the way water/electricity is on most places would benefit mostly everyone