@SWTTE:
There is a lot to say about your second post. It will take more time than I have right now. So, I thought I would respond to your post about the Cochabamba, Bolivia water company.
First, I didn't do a dive deep into the background information of "The Cochabamba Water War". However, I glanced at some information. If the purpose of the example is to illustrate the failures of private enterprise, it really, at least to me, affirmed quite the opposite. In fact, the more I read about this mess, the more it becomes clear to me that it is a great example of why the government should be small, with as little to do with the lives of the citizens as possible.
The backdrop of the problem was that the government had printed its currency into oblivion. We have massive government spending, monetized by money printing, effectively a tax, by extracting not really a quantity of money, but the value from it. At this point, the government has squandered the wealth of the nation, leaving everyone poor.
This is, first, part of the type of mindset that causes the divide. This idea that we need the government to engage in attempts to equalize resources often leads to poverty and starvation, or at least greater inequity, and in the process of attempting to force the outcome that seems "just", it undermines the very principles that would create a way out - like private property rights.
So, with the country in a fiscal mess, they turned to private companies to pick up the slack and start a recovery. Now, IMHO, this was a great idea. But they messed it up again, by bringing government control back into the picture, thereby causing yet another problem greater than the one before. True privatization here would be the government backing away completely. Force NO price controls. Allow any, and all, private resources to invest *if* they want. There were a bunch of firms that said "no". In the end, to get private money involved, certain promises had to be made. They granted a monopoly (again, governments like to do this for some reason), required licenses by law (this was the potential prohibition of collecting rainwater), and tried to guarantee a profit for the investors.
Basically, the government ran out of money. But they wanted to keep spending because it was part of their philosophy. They believed in big government spending. The population did too. So, as far as I can tell, if the Wiki article is correct, they promised profits to an private investment, expanded the demands, included "pork" (that is, required more and more of the private firms - electrical work, a new dam, and surprise! some extra stuff for a local politician), and then got quite angry when the price had to be raised. The Wiki article claimed that the $20/month charge came from people inexperienced in marketing. I don't buy it. I think the price had to be raised from the obvious costs involved - and probably combined with a mindset that they were guaranteed a certain profit, and they had a monopoly, so very little consequence (from the market) to restrain price increases.
From what I could tell, the people didn't really learn their lesson either - as is often the case.
BUT - back to the topic - I think this has a lot to do with the divide. A fundamental philosophy that government's role is to step in and create "equity", not equality. Step into the breach and right the wrongs of history, for justice.
