i had to write this for Social studies so i thought i would get your feed about it xD

Should big business control water? Isn’t it true that water is life? Why should they control that? I not talking about Australia I talking about Africa. Over there, there isn’t really any developed country that has a stable government that can provide a stable source of water. Thus why big business has come in and took the spot of the government? Big business shouldn’t own water resources for any reason. The biggest reason is if you’re a business what’s the object of business? It’s to make money. The second reason is that if big business owns the water they control is people are dying over big business denying them water because they can’t find a job in economy that is still trying to jump start. The third reason is it hurts the environment around them.70% of people live in rural areas so they have to live by a river or a stream.

                The biggest reason is business is for profit isn’t it? With that, people that are trying to find a job in an economy that is trying to jump start? It like trying to start a car whiles you trying to charge the battery. It hurts low income families. And it doesn’t help a region that need help trying to start an economy. That why I think big business shouldn’t own water resources.

                The second reason is when big business owns water they control life. The saying “life is water” is very true. Thus the reason I think they should not own water in any matter because people die for the reason they can’t afford water that is supplied by big business. People die at a very fast rate. A human can’t survive without water for 3 days, 3 days! That’s a short time! That why I think big business shouldn’t own water resources.

                The third reason is it hurts the ecosystems and how people in Africa have lived for thousands of years. It hurts them because the business that supplies it has to get the water from somewhere, and it cheaper to drain it from a river then drill a well.so they drain it from rivers and speared it everywhere. But they don’t think about people father down the river that has lived off it for their whole life.  They don’t have the money to drill a whole and a system to clean it and get rid of waste products. That why I think big business shouldn’t own water resources.

Big business shouldn’t own water resources for any reason. It because why business is to make money.

And if business owns water they own life. And business would hurt the environment by draining rivers. That’s why I think Big business shouldn’t own water.

                                                                                                                                                                                 

I'm not sure whether English is your first language or not, but there are so many grammatical errors with this, I don't know where to begin. I'll write you a proper response tomorrow, when I am more sober. Don't get me wrong. I think your ideas are great. Your sentences just need considerable polishing. Good luck.

There are so many things wrong with this rant that I don't even know where to begin. No matter how much emotional value you have for water, it is a consumable good and whether it is owned by the government or corporations it will be sold, not given away. Please do not make sweeping generalizations about Africa, saying "over there there isn't really any developed country that has a stable government that can provide a stable source of water". That is disgustingly ignorant. I suggest you read an economic textbook and educate yourself on how markets work and the pros and cons of privatization. The only valid point you have brought up is that there are negative production externalities with these companies but the solution is not to give that market to the government. On the contrary, government ownership is a form of monopoly and contains many issues, the biggest being that with no competitors there is no incentive to improve your product or be more efficient.

edit: at the same time however I imagine you are either very young and/or foreign, but that does not justify your ideas regarding all this. Please do some factual research on the subject.

Please do not make sweeping generalizations about Africa, saying "over there there isn't really any developed country that has a stable government that can provide a stable source of water". That is disgustingly ignorant.

It may be a generalization, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Most governments in Africa don't function properly. (for various reasons)



On the grammatical errors, you can't expect everyone to write in perfect English.

Please do not make sweeping generalizations about Africa, saying "over there there isn't really any developed country that has a stable government that can provide a stable source of water". That is disgustingly ignorant.

It may be a generalization, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Most governments in Africa don't function properly. (for various reasons)

most =/= all

He implied there wasn't a single African country with a stable government that can provide a stable source of water, which is flat out wrong. Not only that but it contradicts his argument completely, why would you handover such an important market and product from a private firm to a government which is unstable and unproviding for its country ?

OK, one, your intro is far too long, its the 3 reasons that should be longer, i dont care for grammar much, unless it makes it a reading problem, but the style of any persuasive essay is, as such:
Intro Paragraph:
Intro sentence, thesis sentence, 3 supporting reasons summarizied, transition sentence to next paragraph
1st Body Para:
First supporting reason, evidence/quotes from sources(at least 6 sentences long)
2nd body para:
Second supporting reason, evidence/quotes from sources(also at least 6 sentences in para)
3rd Body Para:
third supporting reason,evidence/quotes from sources(5 sentences)
Concluding Para:
Summarize your main points and restate your thesis if you want, and restate the purpose in an indirect manner(not 'this is my purpose in writing this ______').

Do this and one, your history teacher will probably give u and A, two your teacher will be very impressed with you as this is a basic AP World History Style essay, three, well i dont know what three is, probably something random will happen too.

[naive]

I rewrote this shit for you. /bored

The ability for a business to control water sources for profit is an important question. By controlling these water sources business are literally able to control life. Why should they control that? There are many areas of the world still that are underdeveloped and governments are not able to provide a stable source of water. Large businesses have grown in regions where water is in short supply and the government does not meet it's peoples needs. Businesses do not serve people, but rather profits. Allowing water sources to be controlled for profit at the expense of individuals is an unacceptable and dangerous system.

Businesses are designed to make money. It would not be possible for the business to stay profitable if they give water away for free to those in need of it. Having the power to prevent individuals from accessing water would be necessary for them to ensure that their investments were protected. Unless every single person was able to pay the business for their water, it would be more profitable for the business to let those who can not pay die. The more difficult they can make it to get water without paying their company, the more profitable it will be for that business.

Allowing for business to control water sources may seem to be an indication of economic growth, but it is not. By not having universal access to water these for-profit driven water supply systems makes it much more difficult for the economy to grow. It is difficult to invest in a new business if you are constantly draining your earnings by purchasing water. Allowing one business to profit off of a water supply hurts all other potential businesses that depend on that same supply.

The impact of businesses on the environment when supplying water is also an important factor. In Africa where sophisticated water supply systems are uncommon, 70% of people live in rural areas and are forced to live near rivers and streams. Any changes to these water supplies could have devastating effects on these people's lives and culture. It is not necessarily profitable for private businesses to be concerned with these issues, and people's lives may be severely effected if a businesses water mining activities changed their ecosystem in any way.

Water is life, and businesses should not be profiting off of allowing people to live their lives. A human can only survive without water for about three days. If one were to be in a business controlled water region without any money to spend, after three days it's possible they would be dead from lack of water. Businesses should not be profiting off of their ability to control natural resources vital to human life. They did not create the water sources and should not have the ability to restrict others from accessing them.

Businesses controlling water sources would cause people to die, the environment to suffer, and the economy to grow much slower. If private business is allowed to control water supply sources there would be numerous damaging side effects. Allowing water sources to be controlled for profit at the expense of individuals is an unacceptable and dangerous system.

[Spartacus]

Tl;dr version of OP's post.

3 reasons why water shouldn't be privatized.

1) Most businesses are profit driven in nature
2) Water is too precious to be a commodity. Everyone should have a right to access it easily.
3) Cost cutting methods used in extraction of water damages the ecosystem.

Anyway, dreams should have done more research on the issue. A simple google search does wonders in providing factual information.I wanted to provide an alternative essay as well but it's like 6.17 am in the morning and I gotta get ready for work.

Edit: naive, you just did his homework for him.

Not only that but it contradicts his argument completely, why would you handover such an important market and product from a private firm to a government which is unstable and unproviding for its country ?

True, noticed that as well.


I read something relating to this topic last week or so

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-envir ... 5211  ('Huge' water resource exists under Africa)

Heard that one over NPR's BBC report nightly, i missed the story on it though, ty George