document related to world wide water privatisation.

DamagedTrax

firstly i dunno if this belongs here or is public knowledge. as the only other discussion it could sit in is currently closed, mods can delete if not applicable in here.

this is a google cache document i just found today from 2010 by deutsche bank, explaining why governments worldwide need to co-operate with private corporations in the control of the water supply, despite "disquiet".

it goes on to cite that "makers of water technologies stand to benefit from huge sales despite the obvious risks".

it also rates countries according to the perceived risk for private investors.

this document has been deleted but the link below is cached by google.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3A1NGwWJX7z-MJ%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.dbresearch.com%2FPROD%2FDBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD%2FPROD0000000000258353%2FWorld%2Bwater%2Bmarkets%253A%2BHigh%2Binvestment%2Brequirements%2Bmixed%2Bwith%2Binstitutional%2Brisks.pdf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

weisses

Now I know what they meant yesterday with matt cooper ...where I think it was an ex minister stating there where other forces at play in privatizing Irish water , despite everyone stating this would never happen .... Nice conspiracy

Saipanne

Where's the conspiracy?

degrassinoel

I don't believe it breaks our charter, it's fine.

Saipanne

Nor does my question, I presume? Just thought I'd check.

DamagedTrax

Saipanne wrote: »

Where's the conspiracy?

german banks advising (so called) sovereign nations on privatization of resources a few years before nations start to push privatization.

german banks advising potential investors in future privatized systems, of which nations would be good investments.

german banks asking this to be pushed through despite being aware of population disquiet.


maybe not a conspiracy in the grander sense of the word (9 11 etc) but definitely something worth reading to get a better view of how the financial sector looks at our resources.

also rings true with the recent worldwide push on water providers by a jpmorgan led conglomerate.

Saipanne

It really isn't a conspiracy. Institutions produce papers like this all the time. It just so happens that one of these thousands of papers came true.

degrassinoel

Large banks conspire with governments to tax the most abundant resource in the world.

that's the conspiracy right?

Saipanne

degrassinoel wrote: »

Large banks conspire with governments to tax the most abundant resource in the world.

that's the conspiracy right?

I honestly don't see it. It's a very, very loose connection, at best.

Sacksian

It's an article published by a bank's research department. There's no conspiracy involved.

The article is still available online from Deutsche Bank Research:

https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000258353/World+water+markets%3A+High+investment+requirements+mixed+with+institutional+risks.pdf

It stands to reason that, because people don't like paying sufficient tax to cover the cost of maintaining and improving public water infrastructure, private companies are going to step in.

Unfortunately, governments all over the world aren't willing or able to pass on directly the true cost or make the necessary arguments around the need for charging for water based on use.

DamagedTrax

Sacksian wrote: »

It's an article published by a bank's research department. There's no conspiracy involved.

The article is still available online from Deutsche Bank Research:

https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000258353/World+water+markets%3A+High+investment+requirements+mixed+with+institutional+risks.pdf

It stands to reason that, because people don't like paying sufficient tax to cover the cost of maintaining and improving public water infrastructure, private companies are going to step in.

Unfortunately, governments all over the world aren't willing or able to pass on directly the true cost or make the necessary arguments around the need for charging for water based on use.

granted it is out in the open (like i said earlier, i didnt know if it was public knowledge or not), but while the banks may just be publishing reports, governments are trying to claim that water privatization is for conservation reasons when clearly its a profit led exercise, advised by those very reports.

conspiracy, maybe not? but if we were to find out that Deutsche bank was strong arming our government into privatization of IW in the future, i pretty sure people would be very pissed off.

Saipanne

DamagedTrax wrote: »

granted it is out in the open (like i said earlier, i didnt know if it was public knowledge or not), but while the banks may just be publishing reports, governments are trying to claim that water privatization is for conservation reasons when clearly its a profit led exercise, advised by those very reports.

conspiracy, maybe not? but if we were to find out that Deutsche bank was strong arming our government into privatization of IW in the future, i pretty sure people would be very pissed off.

How would that last bit work exactly? You do realise that this is not the German central bank, right?

DamagedTrax

Saipanne wrote: »

How would that last bit work exactly? You do realise that this is not the German central bank, right?

well given that goldman sachs and jpmorgan are massive shareholders (plus a host of other financial institutions) im not sure why it would have to be a central bank to put the pressure on?

depending on your view of financial conspiracy theories in general, in this case the investor list will either mean everything or nothing to you. and considering who I]their[/I investors are, i strongly believe that they exert astronomical influence worldwide and i would have no doubt whatsoever that enda & co would bow down to their wishes on water privatization.

Saipanne

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well given that goldman sachs and jpmorgan are massive shareholders (plus a host of other financial institutions) im not sure why it would have to be a central bank to put the pressure on?

depending on your view of financial conspiracy theories in general, in this case the investor list will either mean everything or nothing to you. and considering who I]their[/I investors are, i strongly believe that they exert astronomical influence worldwide and i would have no doubt whatsoever that enda & co would bow down to their wishes on water privatization.

Again, I ask, how?

degrassinoel

Hang on a sec, he's explained what the theory is, and you're still badgering him about why it's a CT?

weisses

degrassinoel wrote: »

Large banks conspire with governments to tax the most abundant resource in the world.

that's the conspiracy right?

Not that abundant regarding fresh water.

97.5% of all water on Earth is salt water, leaving only 2.5% as fresh water and only 1% of the fresh water is available for direct use.

degrassinoel

weisses wrote: »

Not that abundant regarding fresh water.

97.5% of all water on Earth is salt water, leaving only 2.5% as fresh water and only 1% of the fresh water is available for direct use.

lol the theory is still relevant

weisses

degrassinoel wrote: »

lol the theory is still relevant

Ohh yeah ... no question about that imo

Saipanne

degrassinoel wrote: »

Hang on a sec, he's explained what the theory is, and you're still badgering him about why it's a CT?

No he didn't. I asked him to explain how this might happen. I think it is a reasonable request.

degrassinoel

Saipanne wrote: »

No he didn't. I asked him to explain how this might happen. I think it is a reasonable request.

It's a reasonable request if you're asking the same question once or maybe even twice at a push for clarification, anything more and you're harassing the poster and dragging the topic around in circles.

If you're not satisfied by the OP's answers in this thread, feel free to discuss it, your own opinions on why/why not etc.. but don't ask the same bloody question over and over again.

DamagedTrax

Saipanne wrote: »

No he didn't. I asked him to explain how this might happen. I think it is a reasonable request.

ive already explained how, the how is in the 'who'..

BUT i'll break it down for you as best i can in points (i dont mean to sound condecending at all, i just tend to type stuff the way i think it, so i can understand you not getting my points so far).

also please keep in mind if i had real answers i wouldnt be sitting on boards wasting my days :P
all of this is just supposition and conjecture on my part.. but it is based on previous form of the financial institutions involved.

so here is how i'd see them doing it:

1. jpmorgan have been buying up water around the world at a massive rate.

2. jpmorgan are also one of the largest shareholders in the US central bank (to operate as a commercial bank in america you must buy into the central bank, in ratio to your size. this is a banking law in the US).

3. Given who we know the major shareholders in the US central bank to be (a certain london based banking dynasty that has basically bankrolled every european nation since the 1700s), we can very safely assume that they are also the major shareholders in either jpmorgan or goldmans... probably both.

4. so now we have the most powerful financial family in the world looking to expand their water portfolio into untapped territories thru the commercial and/or central banking systems.

5. we can also safely assume that the same people invested in commercial banking are deeply invested in EU funding too. they funded the countries and governments that make up the EU so they basically fund the EU.

6. we are currently in debt to the EU and therefore to those that bankroll the EU funding mechanisms.

7. Pressure is put on the irish cabinet to push thru water charges as it's being reported as 'the new oil'.
this pressure comes from the people that are bankrolling the EU bailout funds and the same people that own jpmorgan and so therefore the same people that own deutschebank.


well there you go, a kind of road map on how my brain figures it. there is probably a few other theories i could come up with but thats the one that pops out to me.

whether you think that constitutes a conspiracy (or if you even believe any of it is possible) is up to you. but remember any facts ive given you are real and easily verifiable, what makes it a conspiracy to me is that all these facts tie together in a bigger story that we are currently seeing played out on our very streets but that people are given little to no real information about.

and lets look at the BS the public have been fed by the current cabinet:
conservation? sorry but you just capped the charge so that one's out the window.
cost? it's just yesterday been proven that IW will cost the country more than it will bring in.
all that leaves is privatisation...

water is a huge commodity, why else would jpmorgan buy into failing systems in the uk and within 7 years, up the price 700% with little to no investment beyond the initial buy out?


anyway, hope this explains why i see a conspiracy in it. and like i already said, it may not be a conspiracy in the jfk or 9/11 sense BUT without an interest in the research, the average person would never join the dots... which is exactly what they want. keep it legal if possible but more importantly, keep the people in the dark.

Saipanne

degrassinoel wrote: »

It's a reasonable request if you're asking the same question once or maybe even twice at a push for clarification, anything more and you're harassing the poster and dragging the topic around in circles.

If you're not satisfied by the OP's answers in this thread, feel free to discuss it, your own opinions on why/why not etc.. but don't ask the same bloody question over and over again.

But he didn't answer the question. Please see that...

degrassinoel

Saipanne wrote: »

But he didn't answer the question. Please see that...

If he hasn't answered it to your satisfaction I'm afraid that's just too bad. You cant repeatedly spam the same rephrased question at the poster just because he's not answering you what you want to hear/read.

The next time I see it (from you or anyone else), I'll be issuing an appropriate infraction rather than on-thread warnings. I've been more than fair on this.

Edit: in the spirit of fairness, this thread doesnt need to be derailed with this conversation either, if you need to discuss this further, use the CT's feedback thread.

DamagedTrax

Saipanne wrote: »

But he didn't answer the question. Please see that...

i nearly wore my fingers out with the reply above! im pretty sure thats the longest thing i ever typed on boards

if that doesnt answer your question, then im not sure what answers you're looking for?

Saipanne

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i nearly wore my fingers out with the reply above! im pretty sure thats the longest thing i ever typed on boards

if that doesnt answer your question, then im not sure what answers you're looking for?

I saw it, but I'm out on the beer. I'll read it tomorrow. Enjoy your night. :-)

Saipanne

DamagedTrax wrote: »

ive already explained how, the how is in the 'who'..

BUT i'll break it down for you as best i can in points (i dont mean to sound condecending at all, i just tend to type stuff the way i think it, so i can understand you not getting my points so far).

also please keep in mind if i had real answers i wouldnt be sitting on boards wasting my days :P
all of this is just supposition and conjecture on my part.. but it is based on previous form of the financial institutions involved.

so here is how i'd see them doing it:

1. jpmorgan have been buying up water around the world at a massive rate.

2. jpmorgan are also one of the largest shareholders in the US central bank (to operate as a commercial bank in america you must buy into the central bank, in ratio to your size. this is a banking law in the US).

3. Given who we know the major shareholders in the US central bank to be (a certain london based banking dynasty that has basically bankrolled every european nation since the 1700s), we can very safely assume that they are also the major shareholders in either jpmorgan or goldmans... probably both.

4. so now we have the most powerful financial family in the world looking to expand their water portfolio into untapped territories thru the commercial and/or central banking systems.

5. we can also safely assume that the same people invested in commercial banking are deeply invested in EU funding too. they funded the countries and governments that make up the EU so they basically fund the EU.

6. we are currently in debt to the EU and therefore to those that bankroll the EU funding mechanisms.

7. Pressure is put on the irish cabinet to push thru water charges as it's being reported as 'the new oil'.
this pressure comes from the people that are bankrolling the EU bailout funds and the same people that own jpmorgan and so therefore the same people that own deutschebank.


well there you go, a kind of road map on how my brain figures it. there is probably a few other theories i could come up with but thats the one that pops out to me.

whether you think that constitutes a conspiracy (or if you even believe any of it is possible) is up to you. but remember any facts ive given you are real and easily verifiable, what makes it a conspiracy to me is that all these facts tie together in a bigger story that we are currently seeing played out on our very streets but that people are given little to no real information about.

and lets look at the BS the public have been fed by the current cabinet:
conservation? sorry but you just capped the charge so that one's out the window.
cost? it's just yesterday been proven that IW will cost the country more than it will bring in.
all that leaves is privatisation...

water is a huge commodity, why else would jpmorgan buy into failing systems in the uk and within 7 years, up the price 700% with little to no investment beyond the initial buy out?


anyway, hope this explains why i see a conspiracy in it. and like i already said, it may not be a conspiracy in the jfk or 9/11 sense BUT without an interest in the research, the average person would never join the dots... which is exactly what they want. keep it legal if possible but more importantly, keep the people in the dark.

Sorry, I forgot about this!

That is exactly what I was asking for, an explanation to clarify your thinking on this. I suppose you have a point, when you break it down like that. Thanks.


As an aside, its a shame I had to be threatened by a moderator for simply asking for the above explanation. Not a very welcoming forum, is it?

degrassinoel

Saipanne wrote: »

Sorry, I forgot about this!

That is exactly what I was asking for, an explanation to clarify your thinking on this. I suppose you have a point, when you break it down like that. Thanks.


As an aside, its a shame I had to be threatened by a moderator for simply asking for the above explanation. Not a very welcoming forum, is it?

It's as welcoming as anywhere else in regards to the charter.

Tbh, I've been lenient enough with this type of behaviour, and even the above quote is something i'm willing to overlook as it's discussing moderator action, and ignoring my point about this belonging in feedback, so yeah, it's a very welcoming forum with (and i'll blow my own trumpet here) a lenient and fair moderation team looking after everyone from newbies to oldhats.

Torakx

I know a good few years ago George Bush used some of his companies to buy up a whole lake somewhere in the states and is now bottling it and selling it abroad.
Water is one of the last and biggest resources aside from air, left to be exploited.
Which WILL be taxed ASAP.

I already heard about a beach in Poland that has an air tax, because the beach has fresh air...

Hoop66

Water as a controllable resource? I don't buy it. All you need is a roof and a barrel and you can collect your own. Hell, if you live in Ireland you can become a net exporter.

I use a grey water system at home, so rainwater and bath runoff is used to flush toilets, water plants etc.

DamagedTrax

Hoop66 wrote: »

Water as a controllable resource? I don't buy it. All you need is a roof and a barrel and you can collect your own. Hell, if you live in Ireland you can become a net exporter.

I use a grey water system at home, so rainwater and bath runoff is used to flush toilets, water plants etc.

Tell that to Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Credit Suisse, Macquarie Bank, Barclays Bank, the Blackstone Group, Allianz, and HSBC Bank and many more.

Also wealthy tycoons such as T. Boone Pickens, former President George H.W. Bush and his family, Hong Kong’s Li Ka-shing, Philippines’ Manuel V. Pangilinan, other Filipino billionaires and many more, are buying up water systems and technology worldwide.


People like that buying up water suggests to me that it very much is a controllable resource.

KevR

degrassinoel wrote: »

Large banks conspire with governments to tax the most abundant resource in the world.

Not sure about this.

They are not going to stop you from sourcing your own water. You could drill a well, collect rainwater or pull from a river/lake. You may or may not have to do some work around purifying the water if you want to always guarantee that it is drinking quality - this will bear some cost.

There are significant costs at present to purify water and pump directly to the majority of homes in the country. It doesn't happen by nature or by magic. People in Ireland have always being paying for water through general taxation, it has never been free and it never will be. I am not aware of any free method of guaranteeing that water is clean enough to drink. You could take your chances with pumped groundwater or rainwater. If you want guarantees, there is no choice but to put in some money/work.

There could potentially be issues in other countries with drier climates where private companies have too much control over water supplies. I don't see it ever being in issue in Ireland - people will always have extremely viable alternatives to mains water here.