British waterways have experienced 6000 illegal spills in 1 year, but how was Capitalism ever supposed to be different?

BBC uncovers 6,000 possible illegal sewage spills in one year

What I want to know from literally anyone is how was privatisation supposed to work? Since privatisation, £65.9 billion has been paid out in water company dividends. In a public system nothing is paid out to anyone except employees, as all money is allocated simply for the job and none goes into enriching superfluous non-working wealthy investors.

The first responsibility in any listed company is to provide these dividends for investors. That is what listed companies primarily exist for. Secondary is the actual business and at the bottom the customers and the actual product they provide. No one has ever explained how the Capitalist model was ever supposed to work. There is some stuff about "competition" weeding out unsuccessful companies, but competition means 2 people doing the same job, so under Capitalism the one built in corrective mechanism to stop investors stealing everything is built on inefficiency and wasting our money (Fascism is not what Churchill says - it was designed to solve exactly this issue of waste). Capitalism simply does not work (for customers anyway). Which I suspect is why Capitalist countries spend their whole time sanctioning and blowing up other countries to spread capitalism and ironically remove "competition".

Anyway bottom line Privatisation has not, and I can't see how it was ever going to work. However I wonder if it's a coincidence that the people who edit the press, pay for the politicians and political parties, pay for education and persuaded us that Privatisation was a good idea are strangely all Capitalists. Hmm coincidence? If it turns out that Capitalism does not work... wow the last few centuries of killing hundreds of millions of people to promote it and knock out other systems like Feudalism, Fascism and Communism what were they actually for? ... By coincidence it was the Capitalists who told us it was worth fighting for... really a big hmm.

And how did the arch Capitalist country viz America get so powerful? They like to think it was Capitalism, but strange they also needed to kill off 10 million weak people who rejected Capitalism, mass steal their land and turn it to commercial farming (no other country has ever annihilated all the people on its land to start profit making), and then imported another 10.7 million slaves to build the country and run industry at no salary to make massive profits and an absurdly wealthy country which then set about stock piling weapons to expand and take over the world. What I love about American Jews is while they bang on about Holocaust they don't realise that everywhere they stand in America is on the bodies of the largest genocide in human history: they are fully complicit in the biggest Holocaust in history. Irony is always very ironic and all because of Capitalism. Wasn't there a Jewish prophet who said something like, let the one without sin cast the first stone: Jews do a lot of stone hurling.

So remind me how it was ever supposed to work, and why did anyone ever get fooled by its pure evil? And I've not even mentioned the strange coincidence that while humans have lived quite happily on this planet for 1/4 million years since Capitalism arose 300 years ago the Planet is now virtually destroyed and we face ecological catastrophe that threatens all life on earth. It is not just British water ways that Capitalism threatens but all Life. It is firmly and provably the economy of Death.

===

So Pro-Capitalists will probably turn to the rise of modern medicine and farming techniques and how many billions of people have been saved by Capitalism.

This is slightly disingenuous. As argued in a previous post if you plot British population the key moment when it goes from flat to growth is the year that Lister implemented the Germ Theory of Disease. Literally the moment people understood that disease was caused by in particular bacteria they started to sterilise and instantly solved the issue of bacteria based mortality especially in child birth. It was literally an over night sensation. 1000s of years of gradual insights came together with Pasteur, Koch and Lister.

All of them were funded by royal patronage and donation. None of them was working for profit or to create returns on investment for investors. None of them was part of a Capitalist system. While donations may well have come from Capitalists, it was not "Capitalist Investment" which would require a return and dividend.

We can see in other systems like Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany how enormous progress can be made by systems other then Capitalism. You could even go so far as to say that Capitalism is the very worst system as it limits funding to just those things where a provable return can be demonstrated. "Blue Skies" research is famously hard to get funding for. I have insider evidence of this from a person working within Pharmaceutical research.

On one occasion "blue skies" funding into oral vaccines which would have literally saved the lives of billions was snowballed and redirected into Viagra research. Viagra a product for the 1st world was the better economic choice with better returns than something for poor 3rd world people. Worse a legal team patented and protected all the research so it could not be developed by anyone else. This is Capitalism!

On another occasion when a paper was published demonstrating that Helicobacter pylori was the cause of most stomach ulcers a legal team was dispatched by a here unnamed Pharma giant to attempt to discredit and shut down the research. The reason obviously: Capitalist economics. An ulcer treatment from said giant was a hugely profitable cash cow. Being able to cure stomach ulcers with a single application of antibiotics would destroy profits. As a capitalist company with investors its first priority was to protect profits and return for those investors and so was committed to protecting that product and obstructing any challengers. How is such a mechanism ever suppose to promote progress? This is the unfortunate truth of Capitalism that it puts the wealthy and investors above the customer (who is never-the-less the real provides of labour, wealth and money). Capitalism is just another way that wealthy elites have learned to exploit the poor.

So in fact the world has progressed and life expectancy has increased not because of Capitalism but seemingly in spite of Capitalism. And this is most clear when you consider that all the huge gains in life expectancy of the last decade are all due to China. Obviously diminishing returns in the West that there is not much more life left to extend, but just pointing out that a system that the West constantly criticises and says is inferior has done exactly the same as the West. Being able to increase life expectancy thus seems to be achievable by anyone which rather undermines the initial claim of Capitalism that it is responsible for increasing life expectancy. What is left in defence of Capitalism and its supposed successes?