

















Comments     Threshold


RE: And yet
By FITCamaro on 12/30/2010 11:39:32 PM , Rating: 3

First off, the federal government has taken huge areas of land full of natural resources and made them nature preserves or otherwise designated them not able to be developed on.

Second, even if the companies can get a permit, the higher cost of mining in the US with the mentioned standards, means you have to charge more for the product. Who wants to pay more for minerals when they can get it cheaper from countries like China? It is not competitive. That's not to say some standards aren't a bad thing. But we've gone way beyond that.

The biggest hurdle any company that wants to do any mining or drilling in the US is the courts. Since environmental groups can sue pretty much endlessly on the "behalf" of surrounding residents, companies can spend millions of dollars in legal fees before the equipment even gets there. Who wants to spend 2-3 years in court on something you might not even be able to do.

You want an example of our anti-industrial policies? Look at the recent making of the region of ANWAR where the oil companies wanted to drill a nature preserve for polar bears. Look at the ban on ANY oil drilling in the gulf for the next few years. The federal government is also trying to kill off coal mining in the US.

I'd love to know when the last time a new mine opened in the US was. Coal, iron, anything.

And you're a fool if you think they will intentionally poison anyone. The legal fees and court settlements would be astronomical. Not to mention the public backlash followed by certain Congressional hearings. Hell the oil companies get brought in every few years just as a publicity stunt by liberals in Congress to maintain how evil the oil companies are and then nothing is found as a result of them. Idiots like you though maintain that all companies out there desire to rape the earth and spread toxic chemicals and fumes into the landscape while rolling in their baths of $100 dollar bills.

RE: And yet
By psychmike on 12/31/2010 12:48:20 AM , Rating: 2
I understand your concern regarding dependence on other countries. I disagree, however, with your assertion that lowering environmental standards will lead to better lives for Americans.

Part of the reason that China is able to grow at its current rate is because it is willing to accept a low relative standard of living. People in that country were literally starving to death 60 years ago so pools of toxic chemicals, thick smog, and unsafe or unfair working conditions are more acceptable to the general population which has seen a dramatic increase in their standard of living. Many people in the city-sized industrial complexes commute to work, live there through the week or month, and see their own families rarely. That is slowly changing and people are beginning to demand a fairer share of a good life. Engaging in a race to the bottom by cutting standards isn't the way to go. In my opinion, focusing on adding value through design, engineering, and marketing is the way to go.

No one thinks that corporations intentionally poison people, but the unfortunate truth is that environmental disasters are far more costly to society than it is to the company. BP knew about the risk of a serious disaster in the Gulf and ignored it. They spent a bunch of money on goodwill ads but have been lobbying behind closed doors to place a cap on the fines they will face. As time passes and the media loses attention, I would not be surprised to see them become increasingly combative in their tort settlements against the little guy. At the end of the day, environmental disasters are a cost of doing business for them. They're not evil, they're simply eminently practical, verging on amoral. Companies externalize costs whenever possible leaving others to pay the price.

RE: And yet
By Lerianis on 12/31/2010 1:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
psychmike.... judging from the evidence that I have seen? You are damned skippy that I think that corporations will intentionally poison people in order to make a buck!

A lot of people agree with me as well, after seeing what the corporations are doing without regulations in China.

RE: And yet
By FITCamaro on 12/31/2010 3:06:06 PM , Rating: 2
I am not saying to eliminate safety standards or allow companies to dump toxic chemicals into the environment.

I am saying to give companies the ability to do business period. If lawsuits keep a mine from ever opening, who's going to want to try? Same goes for oil drilling or refining. With mining in the US, companies have to return the land to its original state. Large old mines have become beautiful lakes.

My point is that we have enough regulations. Our emissions standards are HIGHER than that of Europe. Yet environmental groups try to get them raised ever higher still and attempt to help push through schemes like cap and trade which will completely kill industries in the US.

And if you think BP thought that well would blow and ignored it you're crazy. They followed the standards that the US currently has. Bad things happen from time to time. If you think they would knowingly risk the bad publicity and billions spent on that accident, you're wrong.

Yes a company is always going to spend the least possible to get a job done properly. But that was not the case here. They followed what they needed to and unfortunately crucial equipment failed. It's amazing something like that hasn't happened sooner. It's likely many of the other wells BP has were built in the exact same way. But they didn't have problems because the unique sequence of events that happened this past spring didn't happen when those wells were made. BP should pay all the costs to clean it up and go back to work.

Of course now they can't because our idiot of a president has said there will be no drilling whatsoever now for a few years. Costing thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in productively for the citizens of the Gulf states. And all in one of the worst recessions ever.

RE: And yet
By simsony on 1/1/2011 12:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to be thinking that cleaning up pollution from an industrial accident is like vacuuming a house. You obviously don't live near the Gulf states.
What if an industrial accident occurred that released say hydrofluoric acid into the air, and then it rains across the US by getting into the weather system? Who'll clean that up? Who'd fix those permanent burns scars on your family's skin?The company couldn't afford it and would just declare bankruptcy. Whose fault would it be then? And who would pay? Something tells me you'd blame the government for that too.

I think you are either naive or arrogant to think that ANY environmental damage is easily corrected by a simple "cleanup" operation that some corporate will and can pay for.

RE: And yet
By SPOOFE on 1/1/2011 3:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
Conversely, why is the eighth largest economy in the world tanking, bringing down the lives and wellbeing of tens of millions or people? Over-regulation.

Smart, intelligent regulations would avoid all the failings that you note without driving away business, costing careers, harming collected tax revenue, etc. Once you see those symptoms, you know you have too much regulation and it's time to rethink.

Unfortunately, chicken littles like you are hampering our ability to replace outdated and stupid regs with something a little less wasteful. Hope you sleep well at night.

RE: And yet
By simsony on 1/1/2011 6:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
It's very easy to simply call for "smarter regulation", but it is not the same as less/ no regulation. You're coupling the two, which just makes it rhetoric.

You still haven't answered the crux of my argument, who pays the price for missing regulation?

No one in their right mind would argue that smarter regulation isn't better!

RE: And yet
By SPOOFE on 1/1/2011 9:39:31 PM , Rating: 2

Reading comprehension FTL. I'm specifically DE-coupling the two. It is you that has conflated criticism for some regulations as criticism of all regulation, and indeed, the very concept of regulation itself.


Potentially nobody. Potentially somebody. I DO know that over-regulation DEFINITELY hurts everybody.


Nobody in their right mind CAN argue that smarter regulation is better, because of a slew of hypersensitive status quo defenders that send out a call to arms anytime someone suggests that a given government regulation may not be all that hot.

RE: And yet
By simsony on 1/2/2011 1:28:31 AM , Rating: 2

And missing regulation also DEFINITELY hurts. The banks are a good example.

You remind me of 19th century businessmen who sold people radioactive toothpaste.

You're ignoring the consequences of a mishap, saying "bad things happen", and yet do not have an answer for how to deal with the undesirable consequences, should they happen.

I suppose you'd just call it "collateral damage", but hey we made a million bucks in profit, so it's all good! We need cheap TVs!

RE: And yet
By SPOOFE on 1/2/2011 8:21:09 PM , Rating: 2

The banks are a TERRIBLE example: They are heavily regulated! They just had BAD regulations that allowed - in fact, pretty much required - that they engage in dangerous financial behavior. Regulations were put into place that favored risky loans. Those were bad, stupid, dumb regulations, and right now, they're the sort of regulations people envision when the call goes out for "more regulation".

A smart system doesn't need a lot of regulation. Just piling more regs on top of broken, lousy, financially disasterous regulations doesn't "fix" anything, it simply makes an awkward, clumsy, directionless, and inaccessible system even worse. Calling for more regulation is just jingoistic crap; obviously we can get LOADS more regulation and it can all be just as bad or worse as existing broken regs. It is the mindless demand for government oversight that is the problem, as opposed to very focused demand for VERY SPECIFIC government oversights.

Unfortunately, the political climate makes the right oversights difficult to implement. For over a decade, people that can't afford a house have been told that they deserve a house. Try telling them otherwise now. That is one of the most insidious problems with government handouts: Once enacted, it's nigh impossible to get rid of, even if it's a tragic failure.

